That Aronofsky doesn't want his film to be used as a marketing gimmick for toys, just as I meant it.
So he'd rather preserve his intregity and decline the work rather than see his work plastered on a lunchbox.
You really didn't get that from what I said?
Maybe I just misread? Or more likely we disagree on what "preserving his integrity means."
Look at the huge mistake with "Dark Knight".
Nolan made a great artistic film w/ Batman.
The worst marketing idea was making mass market toys for a film like that.
Nolan didn't make a film to sell toys, niether is Aronofsky but FOX does.
I'm not sure that I see how it was a huge mistake or in any way reflective on Nolan's film. I mean, if it didn't actually interfere with his creative process or the story he's telling, what's it matter?