It didn't underperform though. WB knew that the stigma on the character was going to be an issue after the unpopular reception that Superman Returns got. They will be expecting major numbers with the sequel but the studio had more realistic expectations for MOS. As for Thor 2, that movie has ties to the biggest movie ever in The Avengers so expectations for it (and all of he solo Avengers movies) are expected to perform at a high level at the box office.
And again I reiterate that how much money it made doesn't matter because it made enough to be viewed as successful enough for a sequel and it was a good, entertaining movie which is all anyone who doesn't work for WB should give a fukk about.
You dont give an established superhero, a film with a massive budget after the previous installment flopped hard, a massive marketing campaign, a Summer release, attach one of the "hottest" and most "known" directors in the game today who is essentially a "brand" and known for The Dark Knight, Batman trilogy and Inception, directed two superhero films that grossed over $1B and expect the film to only make around $650M at the box office, in an age where superhero movies are now blockbusters and making buck, you dont!, they were looking at $800M-$1B+. It was supposed to make more than or a similar amount to Iron Man 3, but it didn't The movie quite clearly underperformed which is why instead of there being a direct sequel, the money maker and insurance known as "Batman" has been inserted into the next film featuring the character and will be a dual film as opposed to a fully fledged solo film. It didn't bomb, it didn't flop, but it definitely underperformed. Sequels tend to make more than their predecessors, provided that they're than the first Thor film made a good return, the sequel was always gonna make more regardless of The Avengers. It's simply a question of by how much. I do agree that The Avengers helped Iron Man 3, but that doesn't mean that Man of Steel shouldn't have made more than it did. WB needed a new global giant money maker after Harry Potter and Batman, Man of Steel was supposed to be that.
Breh, you can't compare TDK, Iron Man 3, or The Avengers to MOS. Those films are already established franchises. If anything, MOS was neck and neck Iron Man 2 and The Amazing Spiderman.
MOS was a reboot and reinvention of a comic book character that isn't as appealing as he once was. Doesn't matter how famous or iconic Superman is, many consider him too much of a boyscout in this world that has super heroes murking people with no remorse.
The Amazing Spiderman(a film that was in a similar situation to Man of Steel) is seen as a box office dissapointment, so I dont see why Man of Steel cant be. Sony were expecting bigger figures, but got the lowest grossing Spiderman film instead, if number 2 doesn't crack $900-$1B like it should they're gonna regret not opting for Spiderman 4 with Toby Maguire instead.
The Amazing Spiderman is the lowest grossing Spiderman film to date, even with 3-D ticket sales. Spiderman 1-3 adjusted for inflation plus 3-D sales =$1B+ and Iron Man 3 numbers for all three films. That's where the franchise should be at, so yes it underperformed just like Man of Steel.
