Could Bryan Singer have made a good Superman film?

[DochaDocha]

Ah, thanks. Anyway, I'm just going to cap my thoughts on the issue that I don't think SR makes for good romance.

[UltraWoman]

Ah, thanks. Anyway, I'm just going to cap my thoughts on the issue that I don't think SR makes for good romance.

Your welcome and I concur.

[godisawesome]

Yeah, Singer could have made a good or even great Superman movie. His execution was excellent once filming started, and that's why the movie did make some profit and was imminently watchable. Almost all the films real issues were in the pre-filming foundation, and Singer was lucky to be able for some kind of "traditional" Superman film after all the crud the franchise went through in the 1990s.

But the pre-shooting stuff and the foundation of the film kind of killed it. As someone else just pointed out, this Superman was written largely in character from the old Donner films, but subjected to a pretty bad plot. This exposed one of the weaknesses of the old films: Superman was kind of an idiot and a little bit self centered in Superman II when it came to his personal life and his handling of the relationship with Lois, the Clark Kent persona was always a bland masquerade instead of a real person, and his powers fluctuated depending on what the plot demanded (destroying internal consistency), and Lex Luthor wasn't up to par with modern adaptations (though still quite enjoyable as an adversary).

The actual experience of watching the film is nice, and it's only afterwards that the flaws hit you. The acting is good because Singer is an excellent director; again, the issue was in the conception of the characters pre-production rather than during filming. Routh and Spacey were excellent at portraying Reeves and Hackman's Superman and Lex Luthor, but both those old characters just aren't good enough anymore. The plane rescue was excellent, but incredibly derivative of the helicopter scene in STM, killing some of its awesomeness. And the movies climactic reveals and conflicts had either unfortunate implications or painfully stupid solutions:

Superman has a son from Lois Lane!...Apparently from before he left for the Krypton he already knew was blown up...And apparently she doesn't know he's Clark Kent, thus kind of killing any sincere commitment and forward thinking such a usually moral man has...And unfortunately convincing the audience that yeah, Richard White is better material than Superman, considering he's just as brave and steadfast but much more open and honest...So this film's idea of Superman is kind of a loser.

Superman must stop Lex Luthor's growing continent!...That he wants to sell the land from, after wiping out the world's most powerful economic nation...That has kryptonite imbedded in it to take away Superman's powers!...So he lifts it-wait what? You just said it took away his powers-HE LIFTS IT INTO SPACE!-That doesn't answer the question and is that all you have for the climax-ALL THE WAY! TO SPAAAACCCEE!-But that's not interesting, and that makes this the third Superman film to lack any kind of physically engaging antagonist-AND HE DOES IT WITH A PIECE OF KRYPTONITE STILL IMBEDDED IN HIS BODY!!!-Oh now you're just deliberately aiming for an ending more nonsensical than him turning back time!

All that's story problems, not directorial problems. He had a hand in the mistakes, yes, but if you gave him a good enough script, he'd be fine. I think SR and MOS defined why Goyer and Snyder had a better approach than he did, but not that they're better film makers than he is. And while I prefer they're style and take on the mythos, I can understand why some believe he should have been better.

[Flash Gordon]

I could care less for DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, or any X-MEN really.

MAN OF STEEL was ten times better. I don't think Singer has a good SUPERMAN film in him at all.

[Kid A]

I like Superman way more than the X-Men, especially a Cyclops-less X-Men, but Days of Future Past was a million times better than Man of Steel.

But Man of Steel was better than Superman Returns for sure.

[Doctor Know]

Yeah, Singer could have made a good or even great Superman movie. His execution was excellent once filming started, and that's why the movie did make some profit and was imminently watchable. Almost all the films real issues were in the pre-filming foundation, and Singer was lucky to be able for some kind of "traditional" Superman film after all the crud the franchise went through in the 1990s.

But the pre-shooting stuff and the foundation of the film kind of killed it. As someone else just pointed out, this Superman was written largely in character from the old Donner films, but subjected to a pretty bad plot. This exposed one of the weaknesses of the old films: Superman was kind of an idiot and a little bit self centered in Superman II when it came to his personal life and his handling of the relationship with Lois, the Clark Kent persona was always a bland masquerade instead of a real person, and his powers fluctuated depending on what the plot demanded (destroying internal consistency), and Lex Luthor wasn't up to par with modern adaptations (though still quite enjoyable as an adversary).

The actual experience of watching the film is nice, and it's only afterwards that the flaws hit you. The acting is good because Singer is an excellent director; again, the issue was in the conception of the characters pre-production rather than during filming. Routh and Spacey were excellent at portraying Reeves and Hackman's Superman and Lex Luthor, but both those old characters just aren't good enough anymore. The plane rescue was excellent, but incredibly derivative of the helicopter scene in STM, killing some of its awesomeness. And the movies climactic reveals and conflicts had either unfortunate implications or painfully stupid solutions:

Superman has a son from Lois Lane!...Apparently from before he left for the Krypton he already knew was blown up...And apparently she doesn't know he's Clark Kent, thus kind of killing any sincere commitment and forward thinking such a usually moral man has...And unfortunately convincing the audience that yeah, Richard White is better material than Superman, considering he's just as brave and steadfast but much more open and honest...So this film's idea of Superman is kind of a loser.

Superman must stop Lex Luthor's growing continent!...That he wants to sell the land from, after wiping out the world's most powerful economic nation...That has kryptonite imbedded in it to take away Superman's powers!...So he lifts it-wait what? You just said it took away his powers-HE LIFTS IT INTO SPACE!-That doesn't answer the question and is that all you have for the climax-ALL THE WAY! TO SPAAAACCCEE!-But that's not interesting, and that makes this the third Superman film to lack any kind of physically engaging antagonist-AND HE DOES IT WITH A PIECE OF KRYPTONITE STILL IMBEDDED IN HIS BODY!!!-Oh now you're just deliberately aiming for an ending more nonsensical than him turning back time!

All that's story problems, not directorial problems. He had a hand in the mistakes, yes, but if you gave him a good enough script, he'd be fine. I think SR and MOS defined why Goyer and Snyder had a better approach than he did, but not that they're better film makers than he is. And while I prefer they're style and take on the mythos, I can understand why some believe he should have been better.

IMDB the writers and producers of Superman Returns. They are the same ones who worked with Singer to make X2 X-Men United. Singer, Harris and Doughtery crafted this fanfic to the Donner films. They own it's failures.

I like Superman way more than the X-Men, especially a Cyclops-less X-Men, but Days of Future Past was a million times better than Man of Steel.

But Man of Steel was better than Superman Returns for sure.

So X-Men 4/X-Men The Prequel 2 is better than MOS; the first film in a new franchise? Eh I can dig it. Lol

[Auguste Dupin]

So...I finally have seen the movie.
Slightly disapointed due to overhype (felt the movie dragged a bit at times), but yeah it's pretty good.
Although I gotta say that, as a French, having Omar Sy play the serious badass mutant Bishop was an utterly hilarious experience.

[objectivewatcher2013]

Yeah, Singer could have made a good or even great Superman movie. His execution was excellent once filming started, and that's why the movie did make some profit and was imminently watchable. Almost all the films real issues were in the pre-filming foundation, and Singer was lucky to be able for some kind of "traditional" Superman film after all the crud the franchise went through in the 1990s.

But the pre-shooting stuff and the foundation of the film kind of killed it. As someone else just pointed out, this Superman was written largely in character from the old Donner films, but subjected to a pretty bad plot. This exposed one of the weaknesses of the old films: Superman was kind of an idiot and a little bit self centered in Superman II when it came to his personal life and his handling of the relationship with Lois, the Clark Kent persona was always a bland masquerade instead of a real person, and his powers fluctuated depending on what the plot demanded (destroying internal consistency), and Lex Luthor wasn't up to par with modern adaptations (though still quite enjoyable as an adversary).

The actual experience of watching the film is nice, and it's only afterwards that the flaws hit you. The acting is good because Singer is an excellent director; again, the issue was in the conception of the characters pre-production rather than during filming. Routh and Spacey were excellent at portraying Reeves and Hackman's Superman and Lex Luthor, but both those old characters just aren't good enough anymore. The plane rescue was excellent, but incredibly derivative of the helicopter scene in STM, killing some of its awesomeness. And the movies climactic reveals and conflicts had either unfortunate implications or painfully stupid solutions:

Superman has a son from Lois Lane!...Apparently from before he left for the Krypton he already knew was blown up...And apparently she doesn't know he's Clark Kent, thus kind of killing any sincere commitment and forward thinking such a usually moral man has...And unfortunately convincing the audience that yeah, Richard White is better material than Superman, considering he's just as brave and steadfast but much more open and honest...So this film's idea of Superman is kind of a loser.

Superman must stop Lex Luthor's growing continent!...That he wants to sell the land from, after wiping out the world's most powerful economic nation...That has kryptonite imbedded in it to take away Superman's powers!...So he lifts it-wait what? You just said it took away his powers-HE LIFTS IT INTO SPACE!-That doesn't answer the question and is that all you have for the climax-ALL THE WAY! TO SPAAAACCCEE!-But that's not interesting, and that makes this the third Superman film to lack any kind of physically engaging antagonist-AND HE DOES IT WITH A PIECE OF KRYPTONITE STILL IMBEDDED IN HIS BODY!!!-Oh now you're just deliberately aiming for an ending more nonsensical than him turning back time!

All that's story problems, not directorial problems. He had a hand in the mistakes, yes, but if you gave him a good enough script, he'd be fine. I think SR and MOS defined why Goyer and Snyder had a better approach than he did, but not that they're better film makers than he is. And while I prefer they're style and take on the mythos, I can understand why some believe he should have been better.

This times one thousand.

[Mbast1]

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.

Make that three. I have enjoyed it, and have watched it more than once.

[Lois]

For me Superman Returns was enjoyable and I did like it.
I too have watched it more than once.
I also liked the idea of Superman having a son.
I would have liked to have seen what Singer would have done with a sequel.

[Doctor Know]

For me Superman Returns was enjoyable and I did like it.
I too have watched it more than once.
I also liked the idea of Superman having a son.
I would have liked to have seen what Singer would have done with a sequel.

This was Singer's supposed sequel ideas back in 2011. It would have used Brainiac, and would have ended with Superman killing his son Jason.
http://screenrant.com/bryan-singer-s...ine-rob-91933/

Singer has changed his position in 2014. Now saying Darkseid was who he wanted for his SR sequel.
http://screenrant.com/bryan-singer-s...arseid-sequel/

[Dispenser Of Truth]

This was Singer's supposed sequel ideas back in 2011. It would have used Brainiac, and would have ended with Superman killing his son Jason.
http://screenrant.com/bryan-singer-s...ine-rob-91933/

WOW.

Aside from just...wow...I always hate superhero stories that cop out of "why don't superheroes fix the world?" by having the new guy on the block turn out to be a villain. It's such a dismissive, reductive way of dealing with it. The only time it even came close to working was in Morrison's opening arc on JLA with the Hyperclan, since it was made clear in the end that even if they were genuine what they were doing wasn't sustainable and made legitimate moral arguments against it, but even that was a weak spot of the arc.

Seriously though, WOW. I mean...jeez louise man. I just...Jesus man, just...wow. And people were pissed about MOS...

[Hilden B. Lade]

He's the Man of Filicide, truly the one to inspire hope for a better tomorrow.

[Doctor Know]

WOW.

Aside from just...wow...I always hate superhero stories that cop out of "why don't superheroes fix the world?" by having the new guy on the block turn out to be a villain. It's such a dismissive, reductive way of dealing with it. The only time it even came close to working was in Morrison's opening arc on JLA with the Hyperclan, since it was made clear in the end that even if they were genuine what they were doing wasn't sustainable and made legitimate moral arguments against it, but even that was a weak spot of the arc.

Seriously though, WOW. I mean...jeez louise man. I just...Jesus man, just...wow. And people were pissed about MOS...

I hear you Dispenser. Had we received this film (also titled Man of Steel) in 2009. People would've have flipped shit. The Brainiac thing could be cool (ripping off the 90's Superman TAS version), but filling it with MORE Christ symbolizm and ending it with Supes killing his own son for the sake of the Earth. Yeah, no. Supes can't get away clean with killing bad guys like Zod, but to have Supes kill his son whose under the age of 10? You would poison the character.

[JackDaw]

This was Singer's supposed sequel ideas back in 2011. It would have used Brainiac, and would have ended with Superman killing his son Jason.
http://screenrant.com/bryan-singer-s...ine-rob-91933/

Wow. Now I've seen every way of pissing on the legend. (Or maybe, that's tempting fate… somebody could come up with "Barry Allen, the pickpocket years".)