Could Bryan Singer have made a good Superman film?

[Vidocq]

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/

Wow, some thougts.
1) Still sounds like it could've been better than Man of Steel, just by virtue of this one seemingly having a classic sci fi moral about confortable tyranny (very Star Trek, I like it), potentially a better villain (depends on who they cast) and a story that seems to make the most sense and the overall lack of David Goyer.
2) You know that Goyer-y ending would have been changed, no way would Singer film his Superman doing that, this is not Zach Snyder we are talking about here.
2.1) Had it not been changed, it probably would have been done better than Zod's neck snap. Meaning there would probably be some kind of set up and pay off instead of it falling flat on it's ass.
3) The story works a hell of a lot better with Darkseid.

[Doctor Know]

Wow, some thougts.
1) Still sounds like it could've been better than Man of Steel, just by virtue of this one seemingly having a classic sci fi moral about confortable tyranny (very Star Trek, I like it), potentially a better villain (depends on who they cast) and a story that seems to make the most sense and the overall lack of David Goyer.
2) You know that Goyer-y ending would have been changed, no way would Singer film his Superman doing that, this is not Zach Snyder we are talking about here.
2.1) Had it not been changed, it probably would have been done better than Zod's neck snap. Meaning there would probably be some kind of set up and pay off instead of it falling flat on it's ass.
3) The story works a hell of a lot better with Darkseid.

Lawl
1) How could it be better than Man Of Steel, when it was going to also be title Man of Steel? jk
Morals in Sci-fi? They are fickle and subjective to audience tastes and the writer/producer/directors agenda. Many Star Trek episodes and conflicts that preach morals have been ripped to shreds for be hollow in their application of such principles.

2) There is no way to make Superman killing his young son heroic. Even a setup would fall flat because Jason would be innocent of any crime or wrong doing. It's like shooting the hostage in a hostage situation and calling it a victory. There would be no way for Superman to reconcile with Lois about it. This would shatter the character for the sake of Christ symbolism.

3) Agreed. I'm not even sure Singer even understands Superman. He was a fan of the Donner films yes but not the comics. The fact that he even knows who Darkseid is and thought to use him is perplexing. From the Special Features of Superman Returns, it's apparent Singer used the Donner/Lester films and Silver Age comics as his point of reference for Superman in SR. Darkseid got big in the 80's after LOSH Great Darkness Saga and again in 1986's Legends + Superman crossover by John Byrne.

[Vidocq]

Lawl
1) How could it be better than Man Of Steel, when it was going to also be title Man of Steel? jk
Morals in Sci-fi? They are fickle and subjective to audience tastes and the writer/producer/directors agenda. Many Star Trek episodes and conflicts that preach morals have been ripped to shreds for be hollow in their application of such principles.

Better than the Moral of Superman = Jesus that was the only thing to come out of Man Of Steel.

(Also I was talking about TOS Star Trek where the whole ''Golden Cage'' thing was a common theme through out the first two seasons (maybe the third, I still haven't gotten to it), not 90's Star Trek with the genocides in the name of the Prime Directive)

2) There is no way to make Superman killing his young son heroic. Even a setup would fall flat because Jason would be innocent of any crime or wrong doing. It's like shooting the hostage in a hostage situation and calling it a victory. There would be no way for Superman to reconcile with Lois about it. This would shatter the character for the sake of Christ symbolism.

I meant in a purely technical level. Meaning that at least Superman would have felt the concecuences of his actions in the next scene and it would have had an impact in the movie, Instead of the way Man of Steel did it that was '' *SCREAM OF EMOTIONAL PAIN*'' Next scene Yay! Happy Ending!!!!. But yeah, there is no way you can make that plot point work, it's a moral event horizon. But like I said, I don't think that Singer would have gone through with it. It was probably just a place holder put by one of the writers until the find a way to write themselves out of the Superboy corner they wrote themselves into, I think Snyder and Goyer would have totally gone for it though, and then be comically baffled as to why people didn't like it.

3) Agreed. I'm not even sure Singer even understands Superman. He was a fan of the Donner films yes but not the comics. The fact that he even knows who Darkseid is and thought to use him is perplexing. From the Special Features of Superman Returns, it's apparent Singer used the Donner/Lester films and Silver Age comics as his point of reference for Superman in SR. Darkseid got big in the 80's after LOSH Great Darkness Saga and again in 1986's Legends + Superman crossover by John Byrne.

Well, he likely did read the comics, just not, you know, newer comics, (was Birthright out by then?). People in this forum frequently forget (and I'm sadistically happy to remind them) that the 80's happened 30 years ago, so he could have been really into Superman in the 1980s and still be out of touch with today's Superman.

And Personally I think he understands Superman a hell of a lot better than Goyer does. But then again that's hardly placing the bar that high.

[Doctor Know]

Better than the Moral of Superman = Jesus that was the only thing to come out of Man Of Steel.

(Also I was talking about TOS Star Trek where the whole ''Golden Cage'' thing was a common theme through out the first two seasons (maybe the third, I still haven't gotten to it), not 90's Star Trek with the genocides in the name of the Prime Directive)

Oh god 90's/00's Trek (TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT)! Ya know, at least Picard managed to save that planet after having a debate about it with his crew in TNG "Pen Pals".
Sisko in "In the Pale Moonlight"
Janeway in "Scorpion", "Tuvix", "Time and Again" a few others i forget atm
Archer in "Dear Doctor"
SMH terrible decisions. Most of which we never see consequences to.

I meant in a purely technical level. Meaning that at least Superman would have felt the concecuences of his actions in the next scene and it would have had an impact in the movie, Instead of the way Man of Steel did it that was '' *SCREAM OF EMOTIONAL PAIN*'' Next scene Yay! Happy Ending!!!!. But yeah, there is no way you can make that plot point work, it's a moral event horizon. But like I said, I don't think that Singer would have gone through with it. It was probably just a place holder put by one of the writers until the find a way to write themselves out of the Superboy corner they wrote themselves into, I think Snyder and Goyer would have totally gone for it though, and then be comically baffled as to why people didn't like it.

Well to be fair Superman in MOS hadn't even known Zod for 6 hours. Him killing him and moving on from the death by the end of the movie is not unfeasible. Superman killing his own son, whom was conceived by the love of his life Lois, would shatter the character. THAT would be a great excuse for Superman to abandon Earth for 5 years, instead of searching for Krypton. A planet Superman knows is gone.

Well, he likely did read the comics, just not, you know, newer comics, (was Birthright out by then?). People in this forum frequently forget (and I'm sadistically happy to remind them) that the 80's happened 30 years ago, so he could have been really into Superman in the 1980s and still be out of touch with today's Superman.

And Personally I think he understands Superman a hell of a lot better than Goyer does. But then again that's hardly placing the bar that high.

Singer said he read X-Men in HS/College, but was only a fan of the Donner movies. Yes Birthright was out at the time. SR began production in 2004. Singer had his choice of comics to reference to bring Superman in to the 21st century. Instead he chose to retread old ground and ignore the changes the character had gone through after 1980; when Superman II came out.

[godisawesome]

Better than the Moral of Superman = Jesus that was the only thing to come out of Man Of Steel.

(Also I was talking about TOS Star Trek where the whole ''Golden Cage'' thing was a common theme through out the first two seasons (maybe the third, I still haven't gotten to it), not 90's Star Trek with the genocides in the name of the Prime Directive)



I meant in a purely technical level. Meaning that at least Superman would have felt the concecuences of his actions in the next scene and it would have had an impact in the movie, Instead of the way Man of Steel did it that was '' *SCREAM OF EMOTIONAL PAIN*'' Next scene Yay! Happy Ending!!!!. But yeah, there is no way you can make that plot point work, it's a moral event horizon. But like I said, I don't think that Singer would have gone through with it. It was probably just a place holder put by one of the writers until the find a way to write themselves out of the Superboy corner they wrote themselves into, I think Snyder and Goyer would have totally gone for it though, and then be comically baffled as to why people didn't like it.



Well, he likely did read the comics, just not, you know, newer comics, (was Birthright out by then?). People in this forum frequently forget (and I'm sadistically happy to remind them) that the 80's happened 30 years ago, so he could have been really into Superman in the 1980s and still be out of touch with today's Superman.

And Personally I think he understands Superman a hell of a lot better than Goyer does. But then again that's hardly placing the bar that high.

Actually, when it comes to both films' biblical metaphors, I think MOS was actually much better in terms of the comparison it was shooting for. Clark was framed by a glass window of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, probably the most human and mortal moment in the gospel for the Messiah, in both a religious and especially the literary sense. It's a moment of doubt, fear, and distrust, and that's a much better use of the connection than the more deistic interpretation in Superman Returns. It also backs the comparison that favors Moses over Christ, which I like better.

In Man of Steel, Superman is a refugee with a secret in a world that's not perfect, and neither were his parents or the people they hailed from, and part of his growth into a new identity is waylaid by his killing of a peer from one identity in defense of another. His humanity is thus a primary focus, and the film is very much a path of discovery. It's kind of like a Star Wars-Moses film.

In Superman Returns, Superman is a scion from a "superior" culture with inconsistent powers and rules, but with a firm depiction of being confident and righteous, kind of like Star Trek. But the film doesn't really focus on him as a human at all, and the script portrays him as an alien of (only by after-film examination, mind you) dubious moral wisdom (everything we say about Jason and the implications of his conception) and somewhat face-palm worthy idiocy.

And again, I think the script and writing of Superman Returns highlighted a lot of the flaws of the Silver Age Superman as a concept; he's kind of bland and wishy washy with too much inconsistency to go that extra mile for engagement. He's less human and more wish fulfillment.

But again, Singer is excellent at execution; I think he and Goyer (who has a good grip on the modern Superman who I think is a better character than his Silver Age predecessor) would make an excellent team.

But there's no way killing a 10 year old is somehow better for Superman than dealing with a Zod trying to commit suicide-by-cape.

[Kurosawa]

Wow, some thougts.
1) Still sounds like it could've been better than Man of Steel, just by virtue of this one seemingly having a classic sci fi moral about confortable tyranny (very Star Trek, I like it), potentially a better villain (depends on who they cast) and a story that seems to make the most sense and the overall lack of David Goyer.
2) You know that Goyer-y ending would have been changed, no way would Singer film his Superman doing that, this is not Zach ''murderboner'' Snyder we are talking about here.
2.1) Had it not been changed, it probably would have been done better than Zod's neck snap. Meaning there would probably be some kind of set up and pay off instead of it falling flat on it's ass.
3) The story works a hell of a lot better with Darkseid.

As for Singer, yes, he is capable of making a good Superman film. He is a solid director, his movies actually have scenes and acting and some soul. He is not a great director by any means, but he is mines beyond Zack Snyder, who is not capable of making a good movie of any sort. But he would need a better script and he would need to actually learn something about the character, not the Donner movies.

Sadly, there has never been a Superman movie director who really understands the character. Even Donner didn't get Superman, although he does actually respect Superman.

There will never be a great Superman movie, IMO.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

There will never be a great Superman movie, IMO.

While entirely possible, I disagree that's an absolute. There's going to be a whole generation that's grown up with All-Star Superman on the "Best Comics of All Time" list, and that's not exactly a bad influence. I figure things might reach a point where WB allows a 'real' Superman movie purely out of lack of faith in the character, at a point where they'll just let someone do an approach they think will only work for die-hards because they don't think they'll reach the mainstream no matter what. Though it would probably be relatively low budget for its time, akin to the first X-movie. Or maybe DC'll just learn from Marvel Studios in the long run.

Also, glad you're back.

[Kurosawa]

While entirely possible, I disagree that's an absolute. There's going to be a whole generation that's grown up with All-Star Superman on the "Best Comics of All Time" list, and that's not exactly a bad influence. I figure things might reach a point where WB allows a 'real' Superman movie purely out of lack of faith in the character, at a point where they'll just let someone do an approach they think will only work for die-hards because they don't think they'll reach the mainstream no matter what. Though it would probably be relatively low budget for its time, akin to the first X-movie. Or maybe DC'll just learn from Marvel Studios in the long run.

Also, glad you're back.

Glad to be back.

To me, the best thing any fan who is unhappy with the current treatment of Superman and who dislikes MOS can do is boycott WB and DC. The less success they have, the better chance some of these people will be gone and maybe replaced by people who care.

[Doctor Know]

Glad to be back.

To me, the best thing any fan who is unhappy with the current treatment of Superman and who dislikes MOS can do is boycott WB and DC. The less success they have, the better chance some of these people will be gone and maybe replaced by people who care.

That's constructive. Boycott WB/DC and HOPE they hire someone who cares about Superman. Or hope they hire someone who writes and portrays Superman the way YOU want them to.

The last creative team who helmed a Superman movie (Singer and his writing and producing team from X-Men and X2) showed how much they cared about Superman, by making a monument film to a dead franchise from (then 26 years ago). Then all of them subsequently abandoned any potential sequel for their movie, even though they had drafts for it 2007. WB didn't decide to close the book on SR sequel until 2009. A reboot which became MOS was announced in 2011. The film MOS finally debuted in 2013. That's 7 years between films. Superman, the flagship character of DC has to wait nearly a decade to be rebooted after a previous failed attempt. The Hulk and Spider-Man managed to come back 5 years.

Chris Terrio is the writing the screenplay of BvS DOJ. I don't get the Goyer hate. However i will ask, what would you like to see in a Superman movie and who do you think could make that a reality?

[Kurosawa]

That's constructive. Boycott WB/DC and HOPE they hire someone who cares about Superman. Or hope they hire someone who writes and portrays Superman the way YOU want them to.

Better than just supporting them just because they make a movie and stick Superman's name on it-second in the credits, of course. I hate WB/DC and I want them to fail. Although there's no chance of it happening, my greatest wish is for them to go bankrupt and for all their properties to become public domain. They are a corporation that I have no use for at all. At least Disney does a lot of great things and makes a lot of great movies with their signature characters, and they create and add new characters all the time. Actually, I would even be okay with WB and DC splitting up and DC being owned by someone competent-although that leaves all the other studios out as well. And yes, I want Superman portrayed and written the way I want to see him. Why wouldn't I? Why would I want to support a version of Superman that I find inferior, flawed and done by people who I feel are ashamed of the character?

The last creative team who helmed a Superman movie (Singer and his writing and producing team from X-Men and X2) showed how much they cared about Superman, by making a monument film to a dead franchise from (then 26 years ago). Then all of them subsequently abandoned any potential sequel for their movie, even though they had drafts for it 2007. WB didn't decide to close the book on SR sequel until 2009. A reboot which became MOS was announced in 2011. The film MOS finally debuted in 2013. That's 7 years between films. Superman, the flagship character of DC has to wait nearly a decade to be rebooted after a previous failed attempt. The Hulk and Spider-Man managed to come back 5 years.

I think Singer is a good but not great director, I don't think he gets or cares about Superman, and I didn't like Superman Returns. I thought it was better than MOS, but the only movie I've ever see in a theater that I felt was worse than MOS was Battlefield Earth, and even it did not offend and disgust me like MOS did. I don't like the Donner movies either apart from Christopher Reeve's performance and the costume being perfect.

I also do not like Singer's X-Men movies at all and have not and will not see DOFP or the next one. No Cyclops, no interest.

Chris Terrio is the writing the screenplay of BvS DOJ. I don't get the Goyer hate. However i will ask, what would you like to see in a Superman movie and who do you think could make that a reality?

I would want one of two things:

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.

A more realistic (although it will still never happen because WB and DC hates Superman and think he is lame, silly, old-fashioned and boring, just like Mark Waid said), would be for a movie that would take inspiration from Birthright and Elliot S. Maggin's novels.

I am less interested in spectacle in Superman movies and more interested in a movie that makes me feel. The best superhero movie of the past year was Cap 2, and it is not the spectacle from it that matters to me, it is the emotional depth. I actually think the first movie a potential Superman director should watch is Gandhi with Ben Kingsley. I want to feel.

As for directors, the first names that come to mind would be Alfonso Cuarón or Frank Darabont. Again, I want to feel. I want a movie with real soul, not a shallow Michael Bay type movie where every frame has corporate control all over it.

That doesn't mean I don't want action or fight scenes, but I need to care about them. Because as much as I blast MOS, it's more the idea of the movie that I hate than the movie itself. The movie itself I just found incredibly boring, just as boring as Superman Returns to be honest.

The last scene in a Superman movie I really liked was the junkyard fight in Superman III. That's 31 years ago. And that's pretty bad.

[Mbast1]

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.

I would have thought this was awful. But, it doesn't change Superman Returns, for me. I still have enjoyed it.

[Mbast1]

But he would need a better script and he would need to actually learn something about the character, not the Donner movies.

Sadly, there has never been a Superman movie director who really understands the character. Even Donner didn't get Superman, although he does actually respect Superman.

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.

[Mr. Mastermind]

Wow, those plans for the Returns sequel sound godawful.

I also do not like Singer's X-Men movies at all and have not and will not see DOFP or the next one. No Cyclops, no interest.

But Cyclops is going to be in Apocalypse and spoilers:

is also in DoFP

end of spoilers.

[LoneNecromancer]

But Cyclops is going to be in Apocalypse and spoilers:

is also in DoFP

end of spoilers.

Yeah, but he'll still end up playing back-up to Wolverine and Xavier/Magneto.

I just wish there'd be an X-Men film where Cyke would be the *actual* leader. Or hell, I'd even take a kind of duo team-up with him and Wolverine.

[Mr. Mastermind]

Yeah, but he'll still end up playing back-up to Wolverine and Xavier/Magneto.

Didn't Singer say that his biggest regret was not giving Cyclops enough to do in the first two? Details for his X-3 made it sound pretty Cyclops-centric and Singer said he hated Ratner killing Scott off.

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.