Based on your link the movie would now be profitable.

Not exactly, but I cannot prove that like I said. I cannot prove other costs because I WILL NEVER HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION, unless it is leaked like the Harry Potter was. However it being 410 for marketing + production budget. 

However using the revenue source you guys are using BOX OFFICE MOJO:

Production Budget refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures.

Gross refers to gross earnings in U.S. dollars. On average, the movie's distributor receives a little more than half of the final gross (often referred to as the "rentals") with the remainder going to the exhibitor (i.e., movie theater). The money split varies from movie to movie, but, generally, the contract favors the distributor in early weeks and shifts to the exhibitor later on.

Now the evidence is on my side, prove me wrong. 

MIC DROP!

However like I said, I believe the movie will be profitable. That is all I am arguing, that the movie is not profitable yet. 

Except the very link you posted suggests it's already profitable, it has a rumoured figured for the budget at 410m, this budget as it explains has all costs lumped in and 410m would make it the second most expensive movie in history as the link explains. If the figure is correct than the film has already made all the money back with profit, your own link is contradicting you.

All you've said here is that a cut goes to other organisations, this doesn't dispute the movie being profitable at all in fact nothing you posted does. You need to look up what the word evidence means as well as it means something concrete like figures, you flat out said you cannot prove your stance.

Well do you consider it game profitable, if the game company that made the game does not see a profit on the game? The Store might make a profit, the distrubtion process might make a profit, however if the company itself does not seem a dime, is it profitable? Also I will say, I like arguing you with you, respect you more. (I really do just love arguing, I would have easily taken the opposite of the argument and argued that). 

(Carried this part into next post)

You and those using the same stance as you haven't shown whether or not the company hasn't seen profit on the movie that's the point you've admitted you can't prove it right now, even the rumoured figure in your link can be questioned and it may even be much lower for the budget.

Well using box office mojo metric wouldn't it be

Gross be 210m (50%) to 231m (55%) gross revenue movie disturbitor (WB) - 250 million production budget (not even including the rest of the costs, which box office does not highlight) = not profitable. (Just ignore the marketing cost that other site posted, because I personally felt uneasy, as I felt that number was too high.)

I cannot provide any more evidence, besides historical breakdown of movies to showcase marketing budget and corelating it this movie, but I know you wanted this movie, and like I said unless I could gain access to the books of a company, I cannot prove in sure absolute that this movie is currently not profitble. (Hell it might actually be profitable by today by my own defination, if foreign numbers goes up dramatically like they will over the week.)

This is just an educated guess, based on historical understanding of costs and breakdowns I have seen. 

It does obviously make a difference if the movie will make $900m, over $1bn or like $1.5bn (which it could reach if people would enjoy it more)

Not only will the costs be much bigger as the production budget but WB will obviously not get 100% of the revenue and huge movies like this are also there to get back what other movies lost. Your profitable movies don't just have to be profitable, they have to be so profitable to get all the money back you lost with other movies and have to ensure that you don't only have a black 0 at the end of the year (or even a loss)

Investors want to see as good as possible margins and not "but it was profitable, this has to be enough for you my lovely investor".

It's like saying who cares how much money Apple will make with the next iPhone as long as it will be profitable. If Apple would make 10 billion profit the next fiscal year then investors would be shocked at "how horrible the year was"

There are so many factors and to think that it doesn't make a difference to Warner if the revenue of the movie will be $500m less or not is crazy. And if it's only because the competitor is more successful with same budgets and similar movies. 

There will be a lot of decisions made after this movie even if it will make some profit because it will be probably much less as WB was hoping for.

Will just have to agree to disagree. I want more super hero movies but I don't want them like this. I don't want 2-3 huge comic book story lines jammed into a 3-hour session. This movie removed all the greatness from the doomsday storyline and turned it into another generic villian. If this is standard your looking for in super hero movies then you have very low standards. In fact I suspect you would have liked this movie regardless of how bad they destroyed the orginal stories. You seem to be more concerned with having more super movies not having good ones.

If the movies and his acting were so bad, why are they so cherished? Is the Godfather a piece of shit simply because it's aged? The fact is, Superman 1 and 2 were the only Superman movies in history that are highly regarded as great movies. Reeve is the ONLY Superman who has been praised both critically and commercially as well. Every other Superman movie since has been met with either a "meh" or a "pure bullshit" reaction. 

Superman is suppose to be a "boy scout"... not some mental case who's past wakes him at night. Reeve captured that perfectly and that, along with writting that also understood the charcater, is why those first two movies are still the only great Superman movies. 

You should stick to reading the comics and forget about any other medium if you don't want them to ever be adapted differently.