Hummm... Didn't they change of director meanwhile?
Anyway there's this concept in economics called "sunk cost": a sunk cost is a cost in which you incurred somewhere in the past and that you cannot recover. As you can't recover it, its having weight in the choices you make in the present is not rational.
So just because they didn't do it in the past doesn't mean that they can't split the book into two movies in the present. :D
7 comentários:
Well... At least they'll be able to be more faithful to the book. Cheers to that right?
Exactly, but that raises the question: shouldn't have they been doing that from the begining?
Cheers!
Hummm... Didn't they change of director meanwhile?
Anyway there's this concept in economics called "sunk cost": a sunk cost is a cost in which you incurred somewhere in the past and that you cannot recover. As you can't recover it, its having weight in the choices you make in the present is not rational.
So just because they didn't do it in the past doesn't mean that they can't split the book into two movies in the present. :D
ihihih
Well, two movies, one movie, who cares? I already know the end!! ;)
:O
I don't! So shut it! :O
Neither do I!!!
Charlie Brown, if you ever post the end of the story I'll kill you!
I've been thinking (wooooowwwww!!!), I'm happy that there are 2 movies instead of one!
It means we're not so close to the end... We'll still have to suffer!!!
Yuppiiii!
Lol Mare that's what we call "forethought"!
Btw Who is Charlie Brown??? Is it Mad Ian?
Enviar um comentário