Although "Watchmen" director Zack Snyder won the race to direct "Superman," the filmmaker certainly wasn't the only person in Hollywood vying for the job. Indeed, Snyder emerged victorious over a lengthy list of would-be directors that included Darren Aronofsky, Robert Zemeckis, Matt Reeves and more.
Another potential director at one point was Ben Affleck, the actor-turned-filmmaker who impressed critics and audiences alike with his most recent directorial effort, "The Town."
Studio executives at Warner Bros. were so impressed with the director's work that Affleck was reportedly considered a front runner to get behind the lens with "Superman" at one point, though the job never panned out. It's unclear how close he was to directing "Superman," but according to Affleck himself, there's some pretty sound logic on why the director passed on the Man of Steel's big screen resurrection.
"The one benefit of having done all kinds of movies as an actor is, you learn the pros and cons of being tempted to do a really big movie because it costs a lot of money," Affleck told Deadline during a recent interview. "With 'Superman,' I think they’re going to do a great version. Chris Nolan is brilliant and they’ve got a great director for it. I’ve love to do something like 'Blade Runner,' but a lesson I’ve learned is to not look at movies based on budget, how much they’ll spend on effects, or where they will shoot. Story is what’s important. Also, there are a lot of guys ahead of me on the list to do epic effects movies."
It's hard to argue with Affleck's reasoning: after all, story really is what's important at the end of the day. But given his comments, does Affleck's decision to pass on "Superman" reflect poorly on the film's story? Would he have pursued the job had he found the story more interesting, or do you think there were other reasons involved? Give us your take in the comments section and on Twitter!