actually, you're wrong. Many picked The Amazing Spiderman to flop because they felt it was too early for a reboot.
http://io9.com/5934259/biggest-box-office-hits-and-misses-of-summer-2012
Again, you're thinking illogical about how MOS should have performed at the box office. Just because other super heroes movies (which are already established franchises) were raking in money doesn't mean a movie based on Superman should do the same. Regardless of how famous or iconic he is (which is more of mystique), Superman isn't as appealing in this modern day world where today's super heroes are allowed to kill and beat up enemies with no remorse or back lash (i.e. Wolverine and Batman). And considering this a launchpad or reboot, I was surprised at the success of the film.
And the fact of the matter is, people will always look back at your last flick to see if it's appealing and Superman Returns wasn't. So the fact that it pulled in 600+ milly worldwide was more surprising considering Returns made half. Hell, you can look at Batman Begins as a prime example. The last batman movie was so bad, many consider Begins a failure at the box office.
What does that have to do with what I said, none of that changes the fact that The Amazing Spiderman is
the lowest grossing Spiderman film to date, even with 3-D ticket sales, none of that changes the fact Spiderman 1-3
adjusted for inflation plus 3-D sales =$1B+ and Iron Man 3 numbers for all three films.
On Man of Steel, breh 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"well known" director's 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, plaster his name all over it as if it's his film, despite him only being responsible for the story
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+.
Before the movie was released analysts were talking about how it would become WB's highest grossing film ever and gross over $1B, the execs were definitely expecting more money to be made and are not confident on a sequel, this is corroborated by WB inserting Batman "the proven cash cow and bigger draw" into the next movie that features Superman and making it a dual led film as opposed to a full on solo sequel. WB wanted a new franchise that would be their "blockbuster cash cow", Harry Potter and Nolan's Batman had finished, Hobbit films would be done in 2014, Superman was supposed to take over and be it but it couldn't even hold the top spot for a week or crack $300M domestic