Superman Returns Could 'Superman Returns' become a footnote...?

[Jordacar]

Okay, so WB wants to reboot the Superman franchise. Again.

Fine, let's say they take a shot at it, and let's say the next Superman movie is awesome. Maybe not The Dark Knight awesome, but at least Iron Man/Batman Begins awesome. Maybe they even bring back Brandon Routh and make it work.

Since Superman Returns is considered by many (Re: WB) to be a failed crack at the Man of Steel, and since its story won't effectively continue in any meaningful way, but instead be replaced by something new and hopefully cooler, I was wondering if this former tentpole event film might eventually be regarded as some sort of overblown b-movie footnote in the history of Superman?

 

[mjbull23]

Sadly, yes.

Having Superman back on the big screen, supervillains be damned, was good enough for me. I wasnt thrilled with the superkid, but there could have been a workaround...

Time to move on.... Returns is already a footnote.

 

[El Payaso]

No. In any case Superman III and IV are footnotes.

The movie made money, more than Batman Begins. The quality of a movie isn't determined by the number of sequels.

 

[Kahoot]

Okay, so WB wants to reboot the Superman franchise. Again.

Fine, let's say they take a shot at it, and let's say the next Superman movie is awesome. Maybe not The Dark Knight awesome, but at least Iron Man/Batman Begins awesome. Maybe they even bring back Brandon Routh and make it work.

Since Superman Returns is considered by many (Re: WB) to be a failed crack at the Man of Steel, and since its story won't effectively continue in any meaningful way, but instead be replaced by something new and hopefully cooler, I was wondering if this former tentpole event film might eventually be regarded as some sort of overblown b-movie footnote in the history of Superman?

Reboot again?

Brandon Routh can't be in a reboot coz it would just be weird and people would get confused. I still know people that don't understand how TDK has the Joker in it when he was "born" and died in the 1989 Batman movie.

 

[mego joe]

If WB can successsfully reboot the Superman franchise, then yes SR will become a footnote or 'the forgotten Superman film.'

If however WB cannot successfully reboot the Superman franchise then SR will be known as the film that killed the Superman franchise and thus be more significant than a 'forgotten' film in between the Reeve and reboot franchise.

 

[El Payaso]

If WB can successsfully reboot the Superman franchise, then yes SR will become a footnote or 'the forgotten Superman film.'

If however WB cannot successfully reboot the Superman franchise then SR will be known as the film that killed the Superman franchise and thus be more significant than a 'forgotten' film in between the Reeve and reboot franchise.

If that's the case then the reboot film itself will be the "footnote" and failed franchise/franchise killer. And SR would be "why didn't we stick to that, it made more than BB after all!" for WB.

 

[mego joe]

If that's the case then the reboot film itself will be the "footnote" and failed franchise/franchise killer. And SR would be "why didn't we stick to that, it made more than BB after all!" for WB.

WB wouldn't be rebooting if they believed that an SR sequel could be successful. WB does not have confidence in an SR sequel, thus SR is the franchise killer. If SR had done what WB wanted it do they wouldn't be rebooting.

I'm not talking purely financial results here- I'm talking about making a great Superman film that leaves the audience excited for the sequel. B/c if SR could not do this then the sequel will not make the money.

WB is not rebooting b/c they were unhappy with SR as a film, but rather SR's setting up the franchise for sequel and continued revenue. As you say, BB made less and it got a sequel. It's clear that a less expensive SR would have netted WB more profits. But it's not simply about that. WB is rebooting b/c they don't have confidence in a direct SR sequel to be profitable even on a controlled budget.

Simply put, WB wants to make the best Superman film they can in order to make as much profit as possible and they realize that an SR sequel will not be that film because of the plotlines from SR that limit what can come next.

 

[El Payaso]

WB wouldn't be rebooting if they believed that an SR sequel could be successful. WB does not have confidence in an SR sequel, thus SR is the franchise killer.

Oh, WB. The ones who thought a sequel to Batman Forever could be successful. Yes, their criterion must be a reference for the discussion.

If SR had done what WB wanted it do they wouldn't be rebooting.

Yes. More money and we'd have a sequel.

I'm not talking purely financial results here- I'm talking about making a great Superman film that leaves the audience excited for the sequel. B/c if SR could not do this then the sequel will not make the money.

You're not talking purely in terms of financial results. Yet your concern for a sequel is expressed as "making the money."

WB is not rebooting b/c they were unhappy with SR as a film, but rather SR's setting up the franchise for sequel and continued revenue. As you say, BB made less and it got a sequel. It's clear that a less expensive SR would have netted WB more profits. But it's not simply about that. WB is rebooting b/c they don't have confidence in a direct SR sequel to be profitable even on a controlled budget.

Simply put, WB wants to make the best Superman film they can in order to make as much profit as possible and they realize that an SR sequel will not be that film because of the plotlines from SR that limit what can come next.

You're on one side, saying that WB didn't like the movie as a movie and that it would be a reason of why not greenlighting a sequel. All of which I have to ask you to back up, because so far it's just speculation.

But nevertheless, once again, you go back once and again to what a sequel could make in terms of money. Because, even you know within yourself, it is the only parameter the execs use to evaluate a movie and the only reason to greenlight a sequel.

And at this point it would be redundant to remember that good movies have made little money and bad movies have made good moiney thousands of times, so the notion of 'the best movie = profits' formula is rather naive.

 

[mego joe]

Oh, WB. The ones who thought a sequel to Batman Forever could be successful. Yes, their criterion must be a reference for the discussion.

The only reason the sequel to BF was crappy was 'Batman and Robin.' There was nothing from BF that kept BandR from being a good film. BandR failed on its own. SR's connections to the Donnerverse and the plotlines of Richard and Jason are what limit a SR sequel.

Yes. More money and we'd have a sequel.

No. Potential for profitable sequel. I guarantee you that if there had been no kid in SR, the sequel would be coming out this summer. It is the kid and Richard plotlines that limit what comes next and it is that storyline which mischaracterized Superman in SR. Eliminate the kid from the SR story and you've got a situation that is not limited in going forward.

You're not talking purely in terms of financial results. Yet your concern for a sequel is expressed as "making the money."

WB's concern is making money. They know a sequel to SR won't get it done. The reason is not that SR did not make enough money, but rather that they feel a sequel will not make enough money. TDK showed that with a solid performance that excites the audience, fans and GA alike- you can come back with a second outing and improve upon the firs film. SR did not really excite fans or the GA. Sure SR has some raving fans, but for the most part it is just 'eh,' for the GA. 'Eh' isn't going to cut it for a sequel to a film that struggled to make back it's budget in domestic gross.

You're on one side, saying that WB didn't like the movie as a movie and that it would be a reason of why not greenlighting a sequel. All of which I have to ask you to back up, because so far it's just speculation.

I don't know whether they like it or not. But if they had confidence in a sequel to perform to their expectation, they would greenlight it.

It's common sense. They didn't greenlight a sequel b/c they don't have confidence in a SR sequel. There is no other reason.

But nevertheless, once again, you go back once and again to what a sequel could make in terms of money. Because, even you know within yourself, it is the only parameter the execs use to evaluate a movie and the only reason to greenlight a sequel.

Exactly. THey don't believe an SR sequel can perform. And since they greenlit a BB sequel that grossed less worldwide, there's obviously something besides the gross take that impacts a sequel. They know Singer overspent, so they know that they can do a sequel for less than SR so it's not about profit either. It's got to be about the potential for the sequel to perform. What other reason would it be? They can change the suit, they can add more action oriented villains but they can't effectively deal with the Richard/Jason plotlines and distance themeselves enough from the Donnerverse unless they reboot.

And at this point it would be redundant to remember that good movies have made little money and bad movies have made good moiney thousands of times, so the notion of 'the best movie = profits' formula is rather naive.

This thread is not about quality. It's about the legacy of Superman Returns. For you it undoubtedly will go down as the best Superman film ever, that's clear. But in the history of film and popular culture will either see it as the 'forgotten film' between two successful franchises or the fim that killed the Superman film franchise. And yes it would be responsible, and not the reboot, b/c SR is the film that failed to garner a sequel in the first place and caused WB to think reboot instead of sequel.

 

[El Payaso]

The only reason the sequel to BF was crappy was 'Batman and Robin.' There was nothing from BF that kept BandR from being a good film. BandR failed on its own.

Exactly. Sequels don't fail/succeed based on its predecessors.

SR's connections to the Donnerverse and the plotlines of Richard and Jason are what limit a SR sequel.

Limits are in limited minds only.

There's nothing inherently limitant in any of that.

As for the Donnerverse, you can get rid of it in a sequel instantly. There's nothing that forces you to follow the Donnerverse. Luthor can come back as a serious business man without henchmen and a smosre sinister tone just like that. And it doesn't necessary contradicts what has been done previously with the character.

No. Potential for profitable sequel. I guarantee you that if there had been no kid in SR, the sequel would be coming out this summer. It is the kid and Richard plotlines that limit what comes next and it is that storyline which mischaracterized Superman in SR. Eliminate the kid from the SR story and you've got a situation that is not limited in going forward.

Other than your guarrantees I’d prefer solid evidenbce.

A link with some WB person indicating so would be convincing. Otherwise this is merely you stating that what you personally didn’t like is what prevented a sequel to be greenlighted.

Documentation, back up, please.

WB's concern is making money.

Exactly. It is not Donnerverse or Jason or Richard.

They know a sequel to SR won't get it done.

They – the same as you or me - don’t know. They’re just not putting their money into it because it’s not safe enough.

But any Hollywood producer or director can tell you that no one – they included – can predict what movie will be a success.

The reason is not that SR did not make enough money, but rather that they feel a sequel will not make enough money.

Well, this is better. “They feel” is far more accurate than “they know.”

But if SR did Iron Man numbers no kid or Richard would be stopping a sequel to be done. And a sequel, like any other movie, could bomb.

TDK showed that with a solid performance that excites the audience, fans and GA alike- you can come back with a second outing and improve upon the firs film.

In fact the reason was because BB was profitable enough for them since its budget was rather smaller thjan SR’s.

As you said, WB's concern is making money. Certainly not solid performances. That’s why Spiderman 3 or Hellboy got a sequel.

SR did not really excite fans or the GA.

In fact more people went and saw SR than BB.

But SR’s budget was bigger and therefore the movie less profitable. WB had far bigger financial expectations with SR than with BB. So the movie that got over those financial expectations got a sequel.

'Eh' isn't going to cut it for a sequel to a film that struggled to make back it's budget in domestic gross.

You speak truth again in spite of yourself. It was all about domestic gross. Not kids, Richards or Donners.

I don't know whether they like it or not. But if they had confidence in a sequel to perform to their expectation, they would greenlight it.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with Jason, richard, the Donnerverse or the real estate Luthor. It is all about what they think the sequel will do at the BO.

Now, watching what B&R did after BF, I wouldn’t take WB “feelings” as a too serious/reliable source.


Horn expects "Superman Returns" to eventually gross about $400 million worldwide, more than last year's hit "Batman Begins." Nonetheless, "Superman" fell at least $100 million short of his expectations.
"I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide," Horn said. "We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/18/business/fi-warner18


So you see, SR was 100 million under their expectations (even when it almost made the 400 million worldwide and it made more than BB). But Horn considered “successful.” Just not enough to put more money on it. Can blame them? No. But it was far from a

You’ll also notice the absence of any kid, Richard or Donnerverse reference.

It's common sense. They didn't greenlight a sequel b/c they don't have confidence in a SR sequel. There is no other reason.

Very well said. The kid, Richard and Donnerverse are no re4asons at all.

Exactly. THey don't believe an SR sequel can perform. And since they greenlit a BB sequel that grossed less worldwide, there's obviously something besides the gross take that impacts a sequel.

A smaller budget that allows a bigger profit.

They know Singer overspent, so they know that they can do a sequel for less than SR so it's not about profit either. It's got to be about the potential for the sequel to perform. What other reason would it be?

Certainly not your dislike for Jason, Richard and Donner.

They can change the suit, they can add more action oriented villains but they can't effectively deal with the Richard/Jason plotlines and distance themeselves enough from the Donnerverse unless they reboot.

They don’t have to distance from anything.

As Horn said they needed to put more action for the male audience. That has always worked. Some Transformer can pee on a Government agent as some kind of light-hearthed joke, but put enough action and you get a sequel.

This thread is not about quality. It's about the legacy of Superman Returns. For you it undoubtedly will go down as the best Superman film ever, that's clear.

No way. STM is the best Superman movie so far.

But in the history of film and popular culture will either see it as the 'forgotten film' between two successful franchises or the fim that killed the Superman film franchise.

If there are no more Superman movies, it is entirely responsibility of WB. Their call. SR made 9 million less than what they demanded for a sequel. They could still make it.

If there’s a Superman reboot and it fails, THAT will be the franchise killer.


Now how can a movie be set in movie history and at the same time be “forgotten.” Logic fails.

And yes it would be responsible, and not the reboot, b/c SR is the film that failed to garner a sequel in the first place and caused WB to think reboot instead of sequel.

Of course. If another movie fails, it’s not the movie that failed it’s SR.

WB can think sequel if they want to. They’re certainly in the position of doing it and they got a little less than what they felt they needed for a sequel (because SR still made its budget back).

[FONT=&quot]If the reboot fails, the reboot’s director, producers and execs are to be blamed. The same if BB did good after Batman & Robin, it is nothing else but Nolan’s merit.

[/FONT]

 

[daywalker2007]

superman returns is already a footnote in history.
majority of the general public did not seem to care for this movie.

it looks like in a few years, the reboot will be the proper restart.

but i still lay blame at WB for being so dumb in thinking that superman's kid would not be a problem for future movies?

 

[Angeloz]

This thread needs a pillow fight. My silly thought is George Lazenby is a one-off Bond. And except for some of the silliness in the film I like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" a lot. I haven't seen Daniel Craig yet so I'm not judging him. But I liked that he had a wife. And that storyline. So I don't care if something is a footnote. Because it can be a good footnote. By the way if there is no Brandon then I don't know if I could accept a new guy as much as him. I'll try. But if he isn't as good then it'll be another disappointment. But then again if they do a re-boot it'll be a miracle of biblical proportions for it to be good in the first place. If it's bad I might be happy Brandon wasn't in it. Time will tell and all this is speculation.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

This thread needs a pillow fight. My silly thought is George Lazenby is a one-off Bond. And except for some of the silliness in the film I like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" a lot. I haven't seen Daniel Craig yet so I'm not judging him. But I liked that he had a wife. And that storyline. So I don't care if something is a footnote. Because it can be a good footnote. By the way if there is no Brandon then I don't know if I could accept a new guy as much as him. I'll try. But if he isn't as good then it'll be another disappointment. But then again if they do a re-boot it'll be a miracle of biblical proportions for it to be good in the first place. If it's bad I might be happy Brandon wasn't in it. Time will tell and all this is speculation.

Angeloz

I agree, OHMSS is a good footnote. But a footnote none-the-less. I can see Brandon easily becoming a trivia question 10 years down the line like Lazenby, though.

Why so pesimistic on the reboot? It seems like there's even money on it at this point. Could be good/ could be bad.

 

[Angeloz]

I agree, OHMSS is a good footnote. But a footnote none-the-less. I can see Brandon easily becoming a trivia question 10 years down the line like Lazenby, though.

Why so pesimistic on the reboot? It seems like there's even money on it at this point. Could be good/ could be bad.

I'm cynical that way. I can be romantic and dream a dream. But when it comes to Superman films I expect disaster and if it's less than that it's a nice outcome. I mean the stuff before "Superman Returns" but really "Superman IV" burned me plus Nic Cage. Then there's so much more but at least I was in ignorant bliss at the time. That said I like to have fun. I'd love a sequel but never expect these things. That way leads to unnecessary depression. So not a good idea. I really hope they have Brandon plus maybe have a good story for him and the character. But if it doesn't happen I'll try to laugh anyway. Because it's better than getting upset. When I see the next film then I'll decide what I think. That's my intention but sometimes you get upset anyway. I'll vent then try to have fun.

Angeloz

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree, OHMSS is a good footnote. But a footnote none-the-less. I can see Brandon easily becoming a trivia question 10 years down the line like Lazenby, though.

Why so pesimistic on the reboot? It seems like there's even money on it at this point. Could be good/ could be bad.

The reason I am so pessimistic is because, despite what you like to think/believe, WB's reason's for re-booting the franchise are totally financial, not artistictically based. They are going to be making a movie that will maximise profit, rather than simply concentrating on making a good movie.

 

[mego joe]

The reason I am so pessimistic is because, despite what you like to think/believe, WB's reason's for re-booting the franchise are totally financial, not artistictically based. They are going to be making a movie that will maximise profit, rather than simply concentrating on making a good movie.

I believe that WB has no confidence in Singer's storyline for a sequel. That's what I believe. I also believe that Singer's storyline didn't portray Superman correctly. Whether WB believes this or not they do believe that an SR sequel is not the way to go.

I know you love SR and I can't help that. But it doesn't change the fact that WB thinks an SR sequel is a wrong way to go. B/c you like SR I understand you dissapointment in no SR sequel.

The fact that WB wants to reboot Superman and that they are taking their time and not rushing seems to indicate they want to do it right and make a great film, not just a money maker. I think the success of The Dark Knight showed the possibilities, and they want to do this with Superman as well. I think the success of Iron Man showed WB that a character like Green Lantern a B.O., critical and fan success. This makes sense taking into account the timing of things and the WB/DC summit meetings.

I know you think SR got it right, but I don't think WB and DC think SR got it right, otherwise we would have an SR sequel in production.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

I believe that WB has no confidence in Singer's storyline for a sequel. That's what I believe. I also believe that Singer's storyline didn't portray Superman correctly. Whether WB believes this or not they do believe that an SR sequel is not the way to go.

I believe you are right on the money with all that mego joe.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I believe that WB has no confidence in Singer's storyline for a sequel. That's what I believe. I also believe that Singer's storyline didn't portray Superman correctly. Whether WB believes this or not they do believe that an SR sequel is not the way to go.

I know you love SR and I can't help that. But it doesn't change the fact that WB thinks an SR sequel is a wrong way to go. B/c you like SR I understand you dissapointment in no SR sequel.

The fact that WB wants to reboot Superman and that they are taking their time and not rushing seems to indicate they want to do it right and make a great film, not just a money maker. I think the success of The Dark Knight showed the possibilities, and they want to do this with Superman as well. I think the success of Iron Man showed WB that a character like Green Lantern a B.O., critical and fan success. This makes sense taking into account the timing of things and the WB/DC summit meetings.

I know you think SR got it right, but I don't think WB and DC think SR got it right, otherwise we would have an SR sequel in production.

I wasnt disputing any of this MJ, its obvious WB doesnt think an SR sequel is the way to go and I have accepted that. Its the new movie that worries me, because its TOTALLY obvious WB are re-booting it for monetary reasons. The fact that they are coming out with these 'make Superman darker because Dark Knight was' proves, undoubtedly to me, that they are simply motivated by the money they with TDK. Making Superman darker would be the stupidest possible thing to do, but yet you go on like WB knows what they are doing and simply want to make a good movie. The 'make Superman darker like TDK' comments alone should prove money is their sole reason for re-booting.

So its nothing to do with my like of SR, as a Superman fan, I am simply worried about the direction they take with a new movie. Now, speaking for myself, if they came out with a 90% faithful adaptation of Birthright, I would be WELL behind it.

 

[El Payaso]

I wasnt disputing any of this MJ, its obvious WB doesnt think an SR sequel is the way to go and I have accepted that.

I believe WB has thought Batman & Robin was the way to go with the previous Batman franchise, and Pitof's Catwoman was the way to go too. I believe it's WB who hasn't got my confidence.

 

[mego joe]

I wasnt disputing any of this MJ, its obvious WB doesnt think an SR sequel is the way to go and I have accepted that. Its the new movie that worries me, because its TOTALLY obvious WB are re-booting it for monetary reasons. The fact that they are coming out with these 'make Superman darker because Dark Knight was' proves, undoubtedly to me, that they are simply motivated by the money they with TDK. Making Superman darker would be the stupidest possible thing to do, but yet you go on like WB knows what they are doing and simply want to make a good movie. The 'make Superman darker like TDK' comments alone should prove money is their sole reason for re-booting.

So its nothing to do with my like of SR, as a Superman fan, I am simply worried about the direction they take with a new movie. Now, speaking for myself, if they came out with a 90% faithful adaptation of Birthright, I would be WELL behind it.

I think WB's intent is to make a great film that also makes a lot of money, which is what TDK did. Will it be darker or just more serious? I think only time will tell. There is so little actual news it's hard to know what WB intend.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think WB's intent is to make a great film that also makes a lot of money, which is what TDK did. Will it be darker or just more serious? I think only time will tell. There is so little actual news it's hard to know what WB intend.

But a great film doesnt always make great money, so the movie will be catered to be a crowd pleaser full of set-pieces to draw the kiddies in who, lets face it, contribute a lot of revenue. I dont think making a quality movie is in their minds at all and would love to know how you have deduced that is theit main concern.

 

[mego joe]

But a great film doesnt always make great money, so the movie will be catered to be a crowd pleaser full of set-pieces to draw the kiddies in who, lets face it, contribute a lot of revenue. I dont think making a quality movie is in their minds at all and would love to know how you have deduced that is theit main concern.

Common sense after the success of Iron Man and The Dark Knight this past summer.

Why would anyone intentionally make a crappy movie? Isn't that a recipe for dissaster?

We know they want not just a successful film, but a HUGELY successful film. If 400 mil WW isn't enough, they aren'e going to break that with a crappy film are they? Do you think TDK was intended for kiddies? None of these comic films are intended for kids. Parents take their kids b/c the parents are stupid and either don't understand or care that these are films for older teens and adults.

A Superman film that's only about action and thin on story is not going to get the huge success they are looking for. They have to get both worlds- quality film and fun. The right balance of action with the right balance of story. I've said it before, but I don't think the balance of action and story in SR was lopsided either way. It was just the wrong story for SUperman and was more about nostalgia than the character. It was paced too slow and it was pretty boring too. Not too long, just boring and slow. TDK was pretty long, but it wasn't boring once it got going, but it was a slow starter.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

No. In any case Superman III and IV are footnotes.

The movie made money, more than Batman Begins. The quality of a movie isn't determined by the number of sequels.

and quality of a movie isnt determined by money either.

i hope sr gets a sequel...bb made 200 million and so did sr...just plan out for the sequel wb... sr was a reintroduction like bb...both quality films and people didnt go in droves because they were screwed over by the last few movies in the franchise...bb grew its fans and good word of mouth and dark knight made extra bucks as a result of that (and many other reasons)

you dont need to reboot superman. you can just make a sequel and have the problems fixed. get a better lois. stop making luthor a main villian.superman can fight you know. routh was a good superman but how about getting him some more lines!!!! and a newer suit even because routh was in good shaped (and wouldve got bigger if singer let him) but whatever the hell the suit was made of, you couldnt even tell he was in good shape.

 

[mego joe]

and quality of a movie isnt determined by money either.

i hope sr gets a sequel...bb made 200 million and so did sr...just plan out for the sequel wb... sr was a reintroduction like bb...both quality films and people didnt go in droves because they were screwed over by the last few movies in the franchise...bb grew its fans and good word of mouth and dark knight made extra bucks as a result of that (and many other reasons)

you dont need to reboot superman. you can just make a sequel and have the problems fixed. get a better lois. stop making luthor a main villian.superman can fight you know. routh was a good superman but how about getting him some more lines!!!! and a newer suit even because routh was in good shaped (and wouldve got bigger if singer let him) but whatever the hell the suit was made of, you couldnt even tell he was in good shape.

But you really can't get rid of he biggest problem with SR- the Jason and Richard/ deadbeat dad storyline.

BB was received very differently from SR. There is information beyond the $$ that WB has considered. If there wasn't we'd have a sequel in production by now.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

look as long as we dont see a fliying kid in the sequels im fine. im kind of curious right now if kid knows superman his father though. he has his powers...so in the hospital scene with lois the kid and superman lois whispers in supermans ear the truth...she turns to leave then all of the sudden the son runs to superman and kisses him on the cheeck. Did he hear her?!?!?!! its been buggin the hell out of me

anyway. i didnt think the kid/dad part of the story was bad and the speech by superman and the end was great but after about 20 years without a superman movie its not exactly something that shouldve been used in a movie that was reintroducing superman after so long...i just really want routh to come back. a sequel would be nice.

i think because of all the pre-cost of the failed superman stuff then the actual budget of sr concerns wb. they dont have to deal with that failed superman stuff now and dont let singer or whoever direct get bat s**t crazy with the budget and they should give it a green light.