Originally Posted by El Payaso
That's a waste o time. People can say whatever they want and if we ask 2,000 people we'll get 2,000 different opinions. Nobody has to take those 2,000 opinions seriously enough as to acknowledge as if they were all worthy.
What is he going to say? Hey Bryan, people thought the kid was a bad idea. Ah well, good for them, I liked it.
When he says he'd do a movie with far more action he's implying the movie lacked action too. All what's different between his movie and the kind of movie he thinks people were expecting is what's wrong with his movie. As he mentions, too much romance, Jesus allegories, etc.
According to most reviewers the movie was good enough. Singer happens to agree.
Maybe if the interviewer had asked that. But apparently he only asked what he thought didn't work about the movie. And the interviewer himself interpreted that as: "Bryan Singer is admitting that he made some mistakes with his own film." You didn't like the movie and are asking for a mea culpa kind of thing.
Now, more or less opinions about the movie, Singer was admitting things and was far from blaming the audience, as you claimed. What you wanted to hear is not a set-in-stone standard for where arrogance starts.
It's not 2,000 different points that we are talking about. It's the popular few... i'd say these two are the one's that need acknowledging the most.
1. The kid (and the fact Lois doesn't remember even having sex with Superman in the first place).
2. The rehashing of Lex's 'land' plan, that also made no sense (he was going to kill millions of people by launching an illegal weapon into the sea and created a land mass... how he thought he would OWN the rights to it, and be able to sell it and make money is beyond me. Ever heard of planning permission?).
I'm not saying he should have to answer for his casting choices, or the chemistry in the movie, because those were, in his opinion, fine. Like you say, it would be pointless to say to him 'so how do you respond to fans thinking Bosworth was a bad Lois', because you know he'd just say 'well I thought she was a great Lois'.
But I would like him to acknowledge some of the movies faults. Because those faults are clear as day to me, and he seems to like to pretend they aren't there.
Originally Posted by herolee10
For me, SR came off more as a closure to the Donnerverse/CR Series than the start of a new franchise.
I'll admit that I enjoyed SR, but like BR, there were a good amount of flaws for the film.
Every route that they should have take, thy either missed it or went about it the wrong way, while every route that they shouldn't have taken, they took in a sense.
From the color tone of the film, to the large amount of usage of CGI Superman, to the uninspired villainous plot, etc.
Granted, SR was miles better than the ideas that were being thrown around for a new superman movie prior to SR's release, but SR was still a badly executed film on a great subject.
Agree with all of that,
And yes, it most certainly is the lesser of the evils. I would take SR over ANY of the 'almost' scripts i've read (other than a good Batman/Superman one I read on superman homepage... can't rememeber who it was by though).
Just accept that this is the direction they have taken.
Then, you can either decide this version isn't for you and stop watching. OR you can decide to enjoy it for what it is - an elseworlds tale.
'In Elseworlds, super-heroes are taken from their usual settings and put into strange times and places - some that have existed, and others that can't, couldn't or shouldn't exist. The result is stories that make characters who are as familiar as yesterday seem as fresh as tomorrow.'