The bar is very high right now. Will director Christopher Nolan feel crushed under the pressure of delivering a blockbuster akin to Knight (I am assuming that odds are he will eventually be signed to direct the next Batman, but I don't believe anything is set in stone yet)? He can't do that -- we know it, and he knows it. Still, I have to wonder what's going on inside his head, what kind of psychological forces start to shape the mindset of someone who has just had the hit of his career and needs to follow it up.

How will that affect shareholder value? Because, when you think about it, a shareholder might begin to worry if the director-under-pressure is going to demand the use of expensive A-list actors to bolster the chances for the next entry in the superhero saga. According to this Boxofficemojo chart, Batman Begins cost $150 million to make (not to market, mind you, this is just the production budget). The Dark Knight cost $185 million. How much will Nolan think he'll need? Would he be satisfied with challenging himself and doing more with less? I doubt that. Does it make sense for Time Warner to spend more on the next Batman? I'd say it doesn't. In fact, I look at spending less on the next Batman as a prudent strategic move. If you know the odds of grossing $500 million twice in a row are slim to none (and they really are), wouldn't you spend less? Put another way, if a stock you owned quadrupled, and you took profits on it, would you be keen to plow the profits back into the same stock on a pullback? You most likely wouldn't, because hey, you'd probably have a better chance of repeating that feat in a different stock that was cheaper in valuation.

Time Warner would be smart to greenlight a budget that was equal to the budget for Batman Begins. This would exhibit financial restraint, and it would show respect for the risk involved in making the next Batman movie. Because remember, not only is there the budget to consider, but there's the gross participation of the talent involved. Will Nolan and star Christian Bale receive a higher percentage next time around? I'd have to presume that there's a strong chance they will. And assuming that the Joker doesn't return and that there are new villains for the next film, well, there's another risk. The Joker really propelled this movie, just as Jack Nicholson's Joker drove Tim Burton's 1989 version. I'm not sure people will be that excited for the Penguin, the Riddler, Mr. Freeze, etc.

So management has its work cut out for it. On one side, you have the accountants trying to keep a budget in the sane zone. On the other side, you potentially have Christopher Nolan and his quest to create another surprise blockbuster. Well, as far as I am concerned, the next Batman might not even crack the $250 million level. Hollywood studios, however, oftentimes don't think this way. Studios like Disney (NYSE: DIS), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and Sony (NYSE: SNE) all spend way too much on movie budgets (mostly due to expensive stars). Lately, studios have been thinking that big, expensive tent pole productions are the way to go, that they are actually less risky than projects with lower budgets attached. Well, I wish movie execs would think like stock traders, because at this point, a $185-million Batman might be an overvalued investment idea.

Again, I would like to point out that a third Batman in the reboot of the series may or may not have Nolan and Bale in it. Nevertheless, I believe they eventually will be in it, if the success of Knight is any indication. And no matter what, I think my essential points stand regardless, and that Hollywood needs to find a balance between excess and success.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change at any time.