To answer your question, of course they do. If they spent a lot of money on a film and didn't get a decent return on the investment, there is no point in making the picture (especially if they knew that in advance). The last Superman Film was made by a supposedly competent director, but it came in over budget and did not meet expectations financially. The end result was no sequel and a reboot of the franchise. Furthermore, you could make a great picture that is an Academy award winner, but if it isn't profitable at the box office, you are not going to use that formula again. These guys don't make pictures just for entertainment value only. They are in the business to make money. Finally, we should keep in mind that reports are saying that Bret Ratner is under consideration. I really can't defend the "choice" since no choice has been made yet. Now I can understand why he is being considered after looking at the box office performance of the films he has made and I stand by that rational. It looks like they want a director that can stay within a budget and make a profitable film within those constraints.