So, let's say you're Warner Bros. studios. Despite being an anthropomorphic conglomeration, life is pretty good for you. Your massively profitable Harry Potter series is about to come to a conclusion, but you've got a lot of bullets left in your gun: After making one of the highest grossing movies in the world with Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan made you money AND prestige with Inception -- and he's about to make another Batman movie. You've got a possible new superhero franchise with Green Lantern. And you own the movie rights to Superman, possibly the most iconic character in history behind Mickey Mouse and Jesus Christ -- so why would you give it to the man who keeps cranking out hyperkinetic failure after failure?
The critical and popular failure of Sucker Punch makes three disappointments (if not outright bombs) in a row for Zack Snyder: Watchmen and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole fill out his CV of failure. And with each film, the disappointment grew deeper and more profound until it cratered into the creative abyss that he called Sucker Punch.
Warner Bros was clearly under the gun; under a 2009 ruling, if production on a new film was not begun by 2011, the studio could lose the rights to Superman. And clearly in their eyes, any port in a storm was a friendly berth indeed. But in what possible world was Zack Snyder the best choice to shepherd a probable billion-dollar franchise into creation?
With a reported $82 million budget, it will struggle to make back its costs. The reviews have been apocalyptic. After seeing such an inept, inartful, whirring, clanging catastrophe, can anyone really be looking forward to what he'll do with the Man of Steel? No matter what good news the casting might be, Warner Bros. has managed to make the first thought that many had for the new Superman movie be "Oh, God! What the hell is Zack Snyder going to do to Superman??"