I know that...you have to be a new kind of crazy to think that I would assume that i have more knowledge or information as to which movies to greenlit than people whose job is to do that.
But that doesnt mean there is no such thing called quarterly earnings. To make money you have to make movies when it comes to studios.
Ideal goal for a studio is to be in the oscars and make a boat load of money. That can't be achieved by michael bay or MCU movies...so they turn to these acclaimed but blockbuster wise unproven directors and end up with giant bombs like blade runner 2049 or ali.
BTW, before their Marvel films the Russo brothers worked on quirky meta comedies like Community and Happy Endings. That worked out. Taika Waititi hadn't done anything huge before Thor: Ragnarok. Christopher Nolan's jump from Memento to Batman Begins was a risk, too. These are just off the top of my head.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It's hard to know which it will be, and it's easy to come up with reasons it was going to in retrospect.
What exactly is your question...state it in a simple manner..i may have missed it.
Okay, but how is this statement supported? As I noted, it's backwards-looking. It seems like an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, where you advance a definition of a thing, but any contrary examples will be excluded from it. How would you test this claim, except by saying, any time someone advanced a seemingly great movie "well, I guess it wasn't great, because if it was it would've been a hit"?
You're advancing a principle which does not make testable claims, it only retroactively describes things, and it does so by finding reasons why each seeming counterexample doesn't actually count. In statistics, this is called "overfitting."