I said it was perceived as a financial failure, not that it was one. A movie can be well at the box office but still be a failure with expectations being too high. At the time it was released Avengers was 4 year old, that was the high bar to clear and unlike Man of Steel it had higher expectations since it was billed as mini-Avengers. Superman and Batman fighting and teaming up with Woman Woman aren't things which have low financial expectations. Low, as in, before Avengers. The reason those films aren't scrutinised as much is that they're not as controversial as films, they exceeded expectations and they were liked by everyone. Those films weren't liked simply because they were popular and people had to like the popular thing. People who disliked Snyder's films did so for many, many reason which have nothing to do with box office. Man of Steel isn't seen as a financial bomb, it was loathed for its story. People use box office results for every movie, Snyder's Superman films aren't special.
a) True.
b) The article was about B vs S specifically, and "Disney sandbox" being making a billion dollars. Which it didn't do.
c) In that case WB sent that film out to die, because they were never going to be happy with what they got after Avengers.
For B vs S context once that was released people lost their jobs over it and WB restructured its movie division over it. Corporations don't do this unless something really bad happened.
https://deadline.com/2016/05/dc-film...rg-1201758630/
They lost Affleck over this, and Cavill's been in limbo ever since. The only actor from the trio who wasn't tarnished by B vs S was Gal Gadot. Snyder's been feeling the affects of B vs S to this day, this didn't start with Justice League.