UPDATE: WHAT DID 'SUPERMAN' COST? WSJ THINKS IT HAS THE $209M ANSWER...PLUS, THE $2.3M MONEY SHOT

By Stephen Saito

In a guessing game far nerdier than "Is Superman gay?," the Wall Street Journal's Kate Kelly places her bet on how much "Superman Returns" actually cost. In today's front page story, she lays odds that Bryan Singer's relaunch of the franchise has cost Warner Bros. $209 million, down $54 million from Entertainment Weekly's recent $263 million gambit.

Neither price is really definitive, though. Neither includes marketing costs and Kelly's story, like Jeff Jensen's EW piece, mostly recounts the bumpy road to greenlight, offering little new information on actual production expenditures.

Kelley estimates $60 million was spent on the film's torturous path to the screen.

"In the past decade, the studio ran through five directors, several studio management teams, and 11 writers at an average rate of $850,000 each -- all in an effort to bring Superman back to the big screen."

She says Tim Burton's early attempt at the film with Nicolas Cage cost $30 million (EW: $25 million), the Ratner era cost $12-$13M (EW: $20 million), and McG's tally was also $12-$13M (EW: $20 million).

EW is more specific:

Warner Bros. eventually greenlit Superman Returns at $184.5 million, though not until after what Singer calls a ''terrible, terrible night'' of budget slashing that included nixing a full-scale, $20 million-plus downtown Metropolis set that would later have become part of an Australian theme park. Digital effects would create cityscapes or extend the sets. However, the cornfield is real: To create the Kent family farm, the production planted its own crops. ''That corn cost $50 an ear to grow,'' says film legend Eva Marie Saint, who plays Clark's beloved Ma Kent, and who insists she isn't joking. ''That's just one tiny story about why this movie cost so much.''

But that's about all we get in terms of production-specific line items, though Jensen does provide some big-picture numbers:

Ultimately, extra effects and the addition of a bank-robbery sequence�which gained the movie a trailer-friendly bulletproof-eyeball moment�pushed the budget over $200 million. According to the studio, Superman Returns' price tag is $204 million. Without the Australian tax credits: about $223 million. Add in the bills for Ratner and McG, which will count against Singer's film, and the total comes to an estimated $263 million, plus potentially another $100 million in worldwide marketing costs.

So aside from $60 million in preproduction costs and a few $50 ears of corn, on wonders where the other $150-$200 million went? Neither article says. Maybe Kelly will write a sequel.

In the mean time, click the links to read and compare.

UPDATE: The Hollywood Reporter's Borys Kit has confirmed with Singer that a scene in which Superman foils a bank robbery and gets shot in the eye cost $2.3 million. Singer had to fight "super hero hard" with studio suits because "the scene was expensive and because they found it a little too graphic. Execs also worried that it could raise red flags with the MPAA."

Kit:

At the Hollywood premiere Wednesday night, Singer admitted that the scene wasn�t originally budgeted and getting it in required an impassioned plea: �Look, in one scene we can see him be faster than a speeding bullet and we can truly see how impervious he is. And how every molecule in his body is more than steel. I made a plea in the middle of production and graciously Warner Bros. kicked in some extra cash.�

And just how much extra cash?

�Uh, about $2.3 million. It�s all about that shot.�

That might explain how the other $150-$200 million was spent. Hopefully, it's worth it.