Warner Bros. announced two days ago that its 'Superman' reboot would be directed by Zack Snyder, whose owl cartoon is currently freaking out young audiences in theaters nationwide. But no sooner had the e-ink dried on the Interblogs than another interesting fact emerged: WB originally wanted Darren Aronofsky to handle the reboot, but went to Snyder because they knew he could get it done a lot faster than the meticulous Aronofsky.

This presents us with a fascinating philosophical quandary. Would 'Superman: Man of Steel' be better as directed by Aronofsky or by Snyder? Like most fascinating philosophical quandaries, this one is pointless. The gig is Snyder's, period, and he hasn't made the movie yet, and Aronofsky will never make it at all, so we can't compare them. But pointlessness has never been an obstacle before, so let us proceed with the arguments!

For Aronofsky:

- The possibility that he'd cast Mickey Rourke as Daily Planet editor Perry White.
- The hyper-stylized sequence where Superman injects liquid Kryptonite into his arm, his pupils dilate, and he destroys Metropolis before passing out in an alley.
- His upcoming 'Black Swan' is about dual identities and good vs. evil, and the main character is in tights most of the time.