Could Bryan Singer have made a good Superman film?

[DochaDocha]

Plus, I doubt they'll redo the love triangle now that Jean will be played be a teenager. The big problem with Scott in the original trilogy is that he's just a superheroic cockblocker in them instead of an actual character.

And not even that superheroic to begin with.

Is there some casting bits of info aside from what's on IMDB available?

On topic: I'm just guessing that Singer's general perception of Superman is not compatible with what I want from a Superman movie. I liked X1, X2, and DoFP enough, but with these movies I felt like Singer was winging it more than trying to find what clicked with X-Men fans, besides the oppression angle.

[Kurosawa]

I find this genuinely difficult to get. Why does he not understand the character simply because he didn't read this or that comic? Those movies pretty well encapsulate Superman's character, I think. Do the comics do other things with him after those movies? Of course. But, I don't think that makes much difference. If you know who he is (from the general culture and the movies) you can then write a movie (or direct one) based on who you think Superman is, and write a new story. Anything else comes across like a fan who is mad THEIR version of Superman isn't on the screen.

To me, if you make a Superman movie and you do not study the comics closely then you do not have the necessary information to understand the character.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

I find this genuinely difficult to get. Why does he not understand the character simply because he didn't read this or that comic?

It is basically astonishing that something like this even needs to be said, but reprinted for convenience:

if you make a Superman movie and you do not study the comics closely then you do not have the necessary information to understand the character.

Those movies pretty well encapsulate Superman's character, I think.

Imo of course--same with what I have coming up later--but they really, REALLY don't. I like the first Superman movie just fine, but the dude in there is entirely a cypher. Aside from the nice Smallville scene, there's nothing to his character beyond "he is really crazy nice and pretends to be a moron as Clark because of Reasons". And MOS is a drop in a bucket next to the raging river of how astonishingly, fundamentally wrong II gets Superman with its take on him as a cosmically irresponsible, bullying killer.

Do the comics do other things with him after those movies? Of course. But, I don't think that makes much difference. If you know who he is (from the general culture and the movies) you can then write a movie (or direct one) based on who you think Superman is, and write a new story. Anything else comes across like a fan who is mad THEIR version of Superman isn't on the screen.

...

...what? I mean, reading as much material about the character as possible would be the utter, not even a thing that needs to be mentioned as a requirement beforehand because that would be insulting their intelligence, bare minimum that is to be expected of the creative team behind an adaptation. That's the absolute least one could possibly ask for. To do otherwise, just culturally osmosing it like suggested, would be like someone directing a Terminator sequel with the extent of their preparation being watching a trailer for the first movie and reading the front-page summary on IMDB. Yeah, maybe they get a vibe for it and have some ideas spring from that, but that doesn't mean they have the grasp on the character that's necessary to do any sort of justice to them.

[Kurosawa]

It is basically astonishing that something like this even needs to be said, but reprinted for convenience:







Imo of course--same with what I have coming up later--but they really, REALLY don't. I like the first Superman movie just fine, but the dude in there is entirely a cypher. Aside from the nice Smallville scene, there's nothing to his character beyond "he is really crazy nice and pretends to be a moron as Clark because of Reasons". And MOS is a drop in a bucket next to the raging river of how astonishingly, fundamentally wrong II gets Superman with its take on him as a cosmically irresponsible, bullying killer.



...

...what? I mean, reading as much material about the character as possible would be the utter, not even a thing that needs to be mentioned as a requirement beforehand because that would be insulting their intelligence, bare minimum that is to be expected of the creative team behind an adaptation. That's the absolute least one could possibly ask for. To do otherwise, just culturally osmosing it like suggested, would be like someone directing a Terminator sequel with the extent of their preparation being watching a trailer for the first movie and reading the front-page summary on IMDB. Yeah, maybe they get a vibe for it and have some ideas spring from that, but that doesn't mean they have the grasp on the character that's necessary to do any sort of justice to them.

I think it all goes back to how little respect people in Hollywood have for comics. They are only making these movies now because they are doing well, not because they have any artistic belief in the characters or the stories. Zack Snyder does not want to be directing Superman movies. Of course, he really isn't doing that anyway.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

I think it all goes back to how little respect people in Hollywood have for comics. They are only making these movies now because they are doing well, not because they have any artistic belief in the characters or the stories. Zack Snyder does not want to be directing Superman movies. Of course, he really isn't doing that anyway.

But see, I think Zach Snyder likes Superman, he just doesn't get Superman, much like Byrne. Goyer, I'm not so sure about...

[Vidocq]

But see, I think Zach Snyder likes Superman, he just doesn't get Superman, much like Byrne. Goyer, I'm not so sure about...

Whether Goyer likes Superman or not is irrelevant as he is too bad of a writer to express that on the page effectively.

To me, if you make a Superman movie and you do not study the comics closely then you do not have the necessary information to understand the character.

While I agree with the sentiment (I repeated it incessantly in 2009 back when the first RDJ Sherlock Holmes movie was coming out). I have to ask, which comics? What do you read when your intention is doing a broad strokes sequel to the last good Superman movie?

[Flash Gordon]

I find this genuinely difficult to get. Why does he not understand the character simply because he didn't read this or that comic? Those movies pretty well encapsulate Superman's character, I think. Do the comics do other things with him after those movies? Of course. But, I don't think that makes much difference. If you know who he is (from the general culture and the movies) you can then write a movie (or direct one) based on who you think Superman is, and write a new story. Anything else comes across like a fan who is mad THEIR version of Superman isn't on the screen.

Yeah sure, go write a film adaptation of FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS without reading the book.

Sure, it's a culturally important novel and people are aware of it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't read it.

[Flash Gordon]

MAN OF STEEL was a pretty pitch perfect SUPERMAN flick. From the lines right out of ALL STAR SUPERMAN, to the bursts of sepia toned Americana, to the triumphant score. The BIRTHRIGHT stuff. The epic feeling of it all. It was mythology. MARVEL makes fun films, yeah, but most of them are just serial in nature and pretty much the same. MAN OF STEEL felt like an event. It felt giant and important.

The ending shocked me, yeah, but I believe it was earned. It wasn't the first time I've seen Superman take out a General Zod either.

[Flash Gordon]

My very first choice, something that will never, ever happen, would be for a series of Superman movies similar to but more upbeat than Mark Millar's pitch from a few years ago. I would pattern the series to a degree after the Harry Potter movies, in that I would start with Superman as Superboy in Smallville, moving on to a Legion of Super-Heroes movie, and finally a movie detailing the deaths of Ma and Pa Kent and Clark's desperate struggle to save them. It would be at the end of this movie (the third in the series) in which he would be come Superman following their deaths. The next four movies would be Superman movies, ending with an adaption of The Last Days of Superman/All-Star Superman.

Let me just point out that, that's YOUR Superman not SUPERMAN. The Superman I read and enjoy wasn't Superboy as a kid. That's a silly idea. Also the "true" Superman of the Golden Age was never in the Legion and never flew around as a 14 year old. That's not the Superman I ever want to see (not that I don't enjoy him too, I love all eras of Big Blue).

Superman is a myth. A modern day American myth. Those Silver Age concepts which were fun as a kid, aren't important to the core of the character. The farm and Smallville and all that can just be glossed over. He was raised by farmers, they died, he traveled the world and emerged the savior. Bam. Flying dogs and Pa Kent the prophetic papa are great fun in comic books, but it's just not what audiences would want to see and frankly it isn't important. I'd much rather focus on Jor-El and Krypton and Clark as a man coming to grips with his power and destiny. Lois Lane, his love, figuring out his secret. Ushering in the dawn of humanity's golden age.

You don't need 3 films to explain that "Pa Kent had a heart attack, or died in a car crash".

"Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple. Superman." Boom you're done.

My perfect Superman film would be a mash up of BIRTHRIGHT and Morrison's opening arcs on ACTION COMICS (Champion of the Oppressed, blue jeans, the Collector, bumping heads with the military). With the Krypton/Jor-El parts of ALL STAR SUPERMAN.

[The World]

The problem with Singer's Superman movie was that it was a reasonable continuation of the Donner films which were flawed in first place. His understanding of the character and his world come from a bad place.


Leave Singer to making X men films DOFP was terrific possibly better than Winter Soldier.

[Mbast1]

To me, if you make a Superman movie and you do not study the comics closely then you do not have the necessary information to understand the character.

As a lifelong Superman fan, this will sound odd, but that's an awfully fannish position. I don't know, it really comes across as "mine or nothing". I'd just rather see whatever movie sounds good, and then decide based on that. I can always read the comics if it doesn't work for me. (Which is what I did after MoS).

[Mbast1]

reading as much material about the character as possible would be the utter, not even a thing that needs to be mentioned as a requirement beforehand because that would be insulting their intelligence, bare minimum that is to be expected of the creative team behind an adaptation. That's the absolute least one could possibly ask for.

I disagree. If you're adapting a particular story, that might seem necessary, but if you're making your own story, I don't see why. It's not as though the culture at large has no clue who Superman is, or what he's about. Honestly, there are TONS of Superman stories I don't like and having the creative team read those would be a problem, I think, in terms of the kind of movie they might make. I'd just as soon let them make their movie, and then have me decide if I like it or not.
Again, this position seems truly fannish.

[Mbast1]

I think it all goes back to how little respect people in Hollywood have for comics. They are only making these movies now because they are doing well, not because they have any artistic belief in the characters or the stories.

How often is the true of anything "Hollywood" makes? And how much respect for comics should there be? There is a TON of crap in comics, poor writing, bad dialogue, stunted ethics, and so on. I'm repeating myself, I know, but let them take the characters, do what they're going to do and let us decide.
Honestly, though, it's not as though fans aren't going to hate anything that comes out. I'm old enough to remember how many people were mad at the 1989 Batman movie for casting Michael Keaton, because he didn't look like the comics version of Bruce Wayne.

[Mbast1]

I have to ask, which comics? What do you read when your intention is doing a broad strokes sequel to the last good Superman movie?

I'd ask "which comics" about any movie about a character, rather than adapting a particular story. As much as I love Superman, there've been plenty of bad comics with him as the star. I hope those don't get put into the "have to read" pile.
As to the second point, it's a good one. He wasn't just writing any Superman movie, he was doing a sequel. Why should he have anything but those movies as his guide?
I don't know, the more I talk to fans, the more I get why people dismiss us. Too many want what they want, and everything else should just disappear. We're not ever ok with anything.

[Mbast1]

Yeah sure, go write a film adaptation of FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS without reading the book.

Do you get the difference between an adaptation and a film about a character? I said:

you can then write a movie (or direct one) based on who you think Superman is, and write a new story.

That's NOT an adaptation. For Superman, which version? Which earth? Which era? Which writer? It's simply not the same problem to solve.