Could Bryan Singer have made a good Superman film?

[Mr. Mastermind]

So, it's almost unanimously agreed on these boards that Superman Returns is pretty bad. I think I've seen two posters defend it in all my time posting on these boards. It's honestly the least entertaining out of all the Superman films, as even Superman IV is slightly fun to laugh at.

But, Days of Future Past came out and was not only better than all of the Superman movies combined, but also got many elements that both Returns and Man of Steel got wrong. The film's theme of hope actually makes sense, it's main female character actually belongs in the story instead being tacked on, it's got a tone which is serious yet with enough humour to stop the film from being depressing or dull, the right balance of actions scenes and with great use of superpowers, plus an ending that's probably the highlight of the whole film.

I like Man of Steel a lot, but it really didn't get those parts right (the theme of hope, the tone, the ending, the overdose of action etc.), and Superman Returns did an even worse job with them. My question is that if Bryan Singer was to make a Superman film without any of the Donner connections (which made the film irrelevant before it even came out) do you think it would be good, and would you prefer he directed the pure reboot instead of the Goyer/Snyder team?

Personally, I'd actually really like to have seen what Singer's version of Superman would be without any of that Donner/Reeve baggage. Obviously we'll never see that happen now, but I think that Singer does understand a lot of the appeal of the superhero concept, and could have worked on Superman if he went beyond remaking the first Superman film.

Anyone else feel this way?

[Kid A]

I think Singer just has a stronger grasp of the X-Men than Superman. With the X-Men, he seems to be really familiar with the source material and the core concepts that makes them appealing. With Superman, not so much beyond a hard-on for Chris Reeve.

Could he have made a good Superman film? Probably. But it's common for directors to have a better vision for one thing than another.

I agree though DoFP is better than any Superman movie so far.

[Joe Acro]

I wouldn't say he made a bad film as it stands. It's a bit boring for me, but not terrible.

He certainly could have made a better movie. We know he's capable of it. He probably could have even made a better movie and still let it reference past movies.

Interestingly, Superman Returns and Man of Steel do suffer from a couple of the same problems. The main threat causes lots of damage, and presumably casualties. The main problem also changes the Earth, and the neither movie deals with the ramifications of such an act.

[UltraWoman]

I feel like he wouldn't have gotten the Lois elements no matter how hard he tried but the rest? It's possible he might have.

[Auguste Dupin]

I wouldn't say he made a bad film as it stands. It's a bit boring for me, but not terrible.

He certainly could have made a better movie. We know he's capable of it. He probably could have even made a better movie and still let it reference past movies.

Interestingly, Superman Returns and Man of Steel do suffer from a couple of the same problems. The main threat causes lots of damage, and presumably casualties. The main problem also changes the Earth, and the neither movie deals with the ramifications of such an act.

Damage? In Superman Returns? When?
Anyway, ad for the OP.....possibly? I mean, I don't know. Litterally the only movies Singer ever made that are any good since Usual Suspects are the X Men movies (haven't seen DOTFP yet, but let's say it's a good movie for the sake of the argument). Superman Returns was a boring mess with a few neat ideas, Valkirye was bland as hell, and Jack the Giant Killer was godawful.
So, again, can't really say. He's not a bad director from a well, directing standpoint , or at least he can be when he's motivated. So maybe if he had a good script that would prevent him from just remaking the Donner flick, it could have been good, I guess.

[Vidocq]

Probably. He got his fanwank out of the way and it was succesful (seriously though, f#ck the WB execs hoping it would pay for 3 other movies), according to press releases soon after Returns, this was just to sort of get people's feet wet on the movie franchise, since it's a sequel to Superman II and that might be confusing to those who remember there was a Superman III and IV.

Better than Man of Steel (which, would have also been the name for his Returns sequel btw)? Maybe... there is stuff about Superman that he gets better than Snyder and (specially) Goyer, particulary the Hope thing. At the very least, it would have been a better structured film, though maybe the action would have been bogged down by the drama, and there is the Superkid thing you now have to deal with and stuff. I think there was talks of Brainiac, though.

[Kid A]

Damage? In Superman Returns? When?
Anyway, ad for the OP.....possibly? I mean, I don't know. Litterally the only movies Singer ever made that are any good since Usual Suspects are the X Men movies (haven't seen DOTFP yet, but let's say it's a good movie for the sake of the argument). Superman Returns was a boring mess with a few neat ideas, Valkirye was bland as hell, and Jack the Giant Killer was godawful.
So, again, can't really say. He's not a bad director from a well, directing standpoint , or at least he can be when he's motivated. So maybe if he had a good script that would prevent him from just remaking the Donner flick, it could have been good, I guess.

I loved DofP personally, but the X-Men trilogy itself is pretty mediocre. I don't get why X2 is praised so much on this forum; it doesn't come close to something like Spider-Man 2 or The Dark Knight.

[Joe Acro]

Damage? In Superman Returns? When?

From the earthquake, fireball, and related damage. By all means, nowhere, nowhere to the extent it is in Man of Steel, because that basically leveled Metropolis.

[Pinsir]

I like Superman Returns, but could Singer have made a better movie? Sure.

The major problem is that it played on nostalgia which is more likely to end badly than not

[Dispenser Of Truth]

That movie was so purely nostalgia wanking that even if the actual Reeve/Donner allusions were stripped away, any product still would have been hopelessly masturbatory and without substance. Singer seemed way more in love with the idea of Superman than the actual character, and it's a misformed, creepy idea clearly informed by those old movies, which got it wrong themselves. I think he has it in him on a technical basis to do a good Superman movie, but the understanding of the character just isn't there.

[Pinsir]

That movie was so purely nostalgia wanking that even if the actual Reeve/Donner allusions were stripped away, any product still would have been hopelessly masturbatory and without substance. Singer seemed way more in love with the idea of Superman than the actual character, and it's a misformed, creepy idea clearly informed by those old movies, which got it wrong themselves. I think he has it in him on a technical basis to do a good Superman movie, but the understanding of the character just isn't there.

It reminds me of those parody movies were simply recreating a scene from Twilight or Hunger games is intended to be funny in itself.For Returns just having Superman is suppose inspire and excite you.

[Auguste Dupin]

From the earthquake, fireball, and related damage. By all means, nowhere, nowhere to the extent it is in Man of Steel, because that basically leveled Metropolis.

None of that did any real damage. The fireball was basically one shot by Superman's superbreath, earthquake....make the Planet globe fell.
I mean, I understand people think the MOS level of damage was excessive, but this is ridiculous the other way around. Seriously, the Kryptonia continent was supposed to destroy the eastern coast, it barely scratch Metropolis. Like everything involving Luthor's "masterplan" (which must seriously be the dumbest plan ever conceinved in a superhero movie), it was incredibly weak and unthreatening.

[Michael24]

"Could Bryan Singer have made a good Superman film?"

He did. It was called Superman Returns.

Seriously, I thought it was a fine film. Honestly, before that came out, I had never even really been much of a Supes fan. I liked the old show with George Reeves as a kid, and I liked Lois & Clark for awhile, but otherwise had never really connected to the character like I had other superheroes. But Superman Returns changed that for me, and as much as I also enjoyed Man of Steel, I still feel SR was a good movie that should have gotten a sequel.

Like everything involving Luthor's "masterplan" (which must seriously be the dumbest plan ever conceinved in a superhero movie)

I still maintain the worst villain plot in a superhero movie is Magneto's in X-Men. Using a machine to mutate and give powers to the very people you think are inferior and feel are out to destroy you. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[The Beast]

I think Bryan Singer could direct a good Superman movie but I don't think he could write a good Superman movie. I don't think he should ever write a movie again, after watching X-men DoFP.

[Auguste Dupin]

I still maintain the worst villain plot in a superhero movie is Magneto's in X-Men. Using a machine to mutate and give powers to the very people you think are inferior and feel are out to destroy you. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Well, actually....kinda, yeah. If you turn every one into a mutant, then you just achieved mutant supremacy, which was Magneto's goal all along.
Much better than "I'm going to create a giant empty rock in the Atlantic that will cause tidal waves, destroying the eastern coast and murdering millions, therefore making me a target for the rest of the world. But that's fine because I will oppose them all with my ten goons and my alien technology I can not identify, let alone control, and in time, all will pay me a fortune so they could live on my UGLY.GIANT.EMPTY. UNHABITABLE.ROCKS! I'M A GENIUS!"
Seriously, even f.cking Mr Freeze in Batman and Robin had a more practical plan, and that involved stealing diamonds to power a giant ice cannon to threaten the world against a ransom so he could use the money to find a cure for his wife, instead of just.....selling the diamonds. But at least the endgame made sense, even if the means didn't. Luthor's "masterplan" is so ridiculous a 5 year old kid could tell it's stupid. It's hilarious. Compared to that, destroying California to increase the value of the land right next to it was brilliant.