Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' Didn't Work

[The Morningstar]

I just felt Singer tried to pander to Donner's films too much. The most annoying thing, for me, was Lex. I've never liked the portrayal of Lex in the Donner films. Hackman was a good villain, but he wasn't a good Lex. Same applies to Stacey.

Why not make your own film with your own vision?

I thought Marsen's character was more likable and relatable than Superman.

Kate Bosworth was a TERRIBLE choice for Lois Lane. And the whole subplot with the kid didn't really add much apart from TV soap opera melodrama. It could have worked, i guess. But it didn't.

The action scenes were beyond mediocre.

In short, I wanted to see a NEW Superman film. Not a rehash that had a poorly characterised titular character. A terribly cast Lois Lane. And NONE of the wow factor of the original two movies.

A movie about Superman should be awe inspiring. This movie didn't come anywhere near that level.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Of course you know Donner was the one who did this Jesus thing in his movies, which Singer just took up again.

I had no idea that Donner saw the theological comparisons too, has he ever spoken of it? I'd be interested to read his thoughts on it.

I certainly didn't find it as obvious in STM as I did in SR... I mean did STM have Superman falling to earth with his arms outstretched like Jesus on the cross?

It was just OTT.

Originally Posted by Showtime

You are getting more and more trollish every single day.

You spent months and months talking about Cavill and how you wanted him as Superman, you were practically obsessed with the idea. Cavill has been cast as Superman, and you spend more time saying the same thing over and over again about "Superman Returns". The horse is dead dude, stop beating it. It's a waste of time and you're giving everybody a headache, including the moderation staff.

Why don't you go enjoy discussing the new Superman flick and stop fretting over something you didn't like. I have never seen anybody talk about something so much that they scream at the top of their lungs that they hate.

Now I don't usually like to question a moderator...

...but isn't it a bit unfair to scold someone for discussing what is wrong with Superman Returns in a thread called 'Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' didn't work?'...

What on earth are we supposed to be discussing in this thread if not that?

I don't know how frequent SuperDaniel's SR bashing is in other threads, but surely in this one, it's justified.

Originally Posted by mego joe

I don't know, I feel like I come close sometimes!

I think it's an indication of how polarizing SR is. There are a number of folks who absolutely despise it, and some who love. But the majority are somewhere in the middle and really don't care about it.

To be honest, it's more engaging and interesting to discuss what you don't like as opposed to what you like. There's only so much 'rah rah' that is palpable. But when you get into a good argument about the merits or lack of merit of a film that is engaging. And addicting.

I really haven't thought much about SR until the Snyder film started getting some actual news and then Singer's news item. I actually plan on watching it again in the next few days after Superman:TM and the Donner cut of II. I'm hoping it will put a little different perspective on it for me. It's a Superman film, I want to like, but so far my attempts have been in vain...

SR is a film that I both love and hate. I love it because some of the visuals are beautifully done. Because I am a girl, and it does appeal in a slightly girly way to me. Because I like Brandon Routh.

But I hate what the film did. What it achieved (or failed to achieve). How far it actually set Superman fans back. And how hard it makes it to justify myself as a Superman fan to my friends.

I hate the blatant disregard for it's OWN continuity. I hate the ideas present in a storyline that basically has Superman romancing an engaged woman. I hate that they lacked the originality to come out with a villainous plot with Lex, that wasn't almost exactly the same as the previous (even containing the same dialogue of 'Do you know what my father told me' 'Get out' 'No, LAND! blah blah'...

There is plenty to complain about, and yet shamefully, I watch it quite often.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

I thought Marsen's character was more likable and relatable than Superman.

I agree, Marsden's character came across as a really decent guy, selfless, understanding and heroic.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

Now I don't usually like to question a moderator...

Go with your usual instinct then.

...but isn't it a bit unfair to scold someone for discussing what is wrong with Superman Returns in a thread called 'Bryan Singer: Why 'Superman Returns' didn't work?'...

What on earth are we supposed to be discussing in this thread if not that?

Notice I didn't question anybody else in this thread, why do you think that might be? It's not what is being said, it's how it is being said. Over and over again in every thread possible which causes disruption and aggravation to other posters. When I start getting PMs asking me to direct threads back on topic, and the source of the off topic rants is the same poster. It's a problem.

I don't know how frequent SuperDaniel's SR bashing is in other threads, but surely in this one, it's justified.

Exactly, you don't know how frequent it is.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by mego joe

I don't know, I feel like I come close sometimes!

SuperDaniel has been a solid poster and was one of the few who stuck by Cavill through all of it, but lately it's SR talk everywhere all the time...and it's not the talk that is bothering people...it's the way it is presented. Same comments over and over again. I directed him to talk in here, which he obliged and did, but its the manner in which he posts.

I normally leave you guys alone and let you do your thing, but complaints are complaints and I am getting them.

[sf2]

disappointed with SR because it has great concept, but stupid execution. all the main characters were set wrong!

[Tacit Ronin]

I agree, Marsden's character came across as a really decent guy, selfless, understanding and heroic.

I don't know. I always found Marsden quite smug.

[elgaz]

Considering how Singer took the X-Men to the big screen in such a successful way, it still bemuses me how many wrong turns he took with Superman Returns.

I enjoyed the film on first viewing. But I'll freely admit that was totally down to the excitement of seeing Superman on the big screen for the first time. I'd seen all the Superman movies many time of course, but only on TV/video.

Repeated viewings of Superman Returns simply do not hold up.

There are many problems with the film - the suit, the film style, scripts, effects, acting in places, story sequences, Lex Luthor once again being a real estate villain, etc. However, nearly all of these things could have been fixed in a sequel, if it had happened. A new suit, better scripts, better effects, more action, brighter colours, a new villain for Superman to square off against, etc.

What couldn't be fixed with a sequel - and what I consider the main underlying problem with Superman Returns, and what audiences found difficult - was the kid.

Superman has a child with Lois. Who, from what we can gather, has superpowers of his own, albeit at a very early and undeveloped stage. And this kid believes Richard is his father, and Richard believes it is his son. Does Lois know who the father is? We're not sure, but it seems like she starts to realise what's going on when junior fires a piano at one of Luthor's henchmen.

Now Superman is meant to be the very symbol of truth and honesty, but the film ends with him seemingly content to keep a watchful eye on his son from a distance whilst Lois/Richard/Junior carry on with their arrangement ......... with Richard still believing it's his child. This is a great deceit, and whilst it might be for the greater good, it seems totally at odds with the values we associate with Superman. And on that topic, let's not get started on Superman doing some superstalking and using his X-Ray vision to spy on Lois's happy home.

How could they have dealt with the kid in a sequel? Kill him? Kill Richard? Have him not be Superman's son via some intricate plot device? I doubt anything would have worked well enough for audiences to buy it - either too far fetched, too sad or too ...... well, 'wrong' for want of a better word. It was one big mistake for Singer ever to include him, right from the beginning. Perhaps he went into it thinking a modern approach - indicative of the modern dysfunctional family - would make the film very relateable for audiences. It didn't. Note to Singer - we go to the movies to escape from real-life for 2 hours, not to be confronted with it.

Asides from this, my other complaint with SR is that the film just lacks energy. I don't know if it's the pacing, the line deliveries or the effects - but asides from the airplane save (which was admittedly, a great scene), the film just feels like it's limping along at times. I can barely watch the full film anymore - I fast forward to the 'good bits'.

So again, I find it hard to believe that Bryan Singer did so much right with X-Men, then did so much wrong with this. And I'm surprised anyone at WB signed off on this, knowing elements of the story such as the kid and the main threat (Luthor getting more land yet again).

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by The Sage

Using Christ metaphors isn't a bad idea if done right. The problem with Superman Returns was basically that it was a rehashing of the Donner film. Despite Spacey doing a good job, there wasn't much development in Lex beyond another land grabbing scheme. Also having Routh and Spacey speaking Reeve and Hackman's lines at times didn't help that.

I get your comments about Lex and the Donner references. But what do those have to do with Jesus metaphors done right?

Originally Posted by The Sage

I also don't think it explored the public's reaction to Superman returning, which I thought was part of the synopsis of the film and one of the themes that would've been addressed.

That'd have been interesting. But I don't know how much that would have played for the anti-fun anti-optimistic tone that apparently every minute of any Superman movie must have.

Originally Posted by The Sage

Routh's performance was okay. It wasn't anything special, but it was okay. I like his mild-mannered Clark Kent the most out of everyone's I've seen.

I agree. Some things he did, even when he was copying what Reeve had done with the character were as good or even better.

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

I just felt Singer tried to pander to Donner's films too much. The most annoying thing, for me, was Lex. I've never liked the portrayal of Lex in the Donner films. Hackman was a good villain, but he wasn't a good Lex. Same applies to Stacey.

Why not make your own film with your own vision?

Yes, it was a matter of choices. And what choice can copnnect with most people today.

Even so, being a fan of the Donner movies I couldn't help but enjoy it.

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

I had no idea that Donner saw the theological comparisons too, has he ever spoken of it? I'd be interested to read his thoughts on it.

More than Donner it was Mankiewicz's script, but Donner certainly didn't remove or hide any of those references.

Wikipedia:

"Superman was released with critical acclaim and financial success. Reviewers noted parallels between the film's depiction of Superman and Jesus."

So people did notice those references in STM. Donner said that "I had life threats, because people accused me of approaching Brando as God and his son was Jesus. I literally had people saying my blood would run in the streets for doing that." Link: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...#ixzz1KBFwLLqt

About the audio commentaries of the dvd:

"Donner, Tom Mankiewicz and Ilya Salkind have commented on the use of Christian references to discuss the themes of Superman. Mankiewicz deliberately fostered analogies with Jor-El (God) and Kal-El (Jesus). Donner is somewhat skeptical of Mankiewicz' actions, joking "I got enough death threats because of that."

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

I certainly didn't find it as obvious in STM as I did in SR... I mean did STM have Superman falling to earth with his arms outstretche d like Jesus on the cross?

It was just OTT.

If that was so ott, I'd assume you found this as ott:




There you have the crucifixion to save all people. The injury on Jesus' side. Descent from the cross. Crucifixion pose again and resurrection.

[MessiahDecoy123]

So Superman Returns didn't work because of the audience, there was nothing wrong with the movie.

Yeah Bryan, sure there wasn't.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

So Superman Returns didn't work because of the audience, there was nothing wrong with the movie.

Yeah Bryan, sure there wasn't.

I think he said he directed the movie to the wrong audience. That's admitting his own fault when selecting the target.

[Mace Dolex]

Originally Posted by Ponyboy

Plus, the guy sitting next to me in the theatre was farting repeatedly.

Maybe he was giving his opinion on the film.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

Maybe he was giving his opinion on the film.

Yep. Some opinions are just stinky hot air.

[SuperDaniel]

Originally Posted by Showtime

SuperDaniel has been a solid poster and was one of the few who stuck by Cavill through all of it, but lately it's SR talk everywhere all the time...and it's not the talk that is bothering people...it's the way it is presented. Same comments over and over again. I directed him to talk in here, which he obliged and did, but its the manner in which he posts.

I normally leave you guys alone and let you do your thing, but complaints are complaints and I am getting them.

Its funny...when i get to talk in a thread about SR and the reasons it failed and put my opinions on it, you guys bash me. lol. I understood i was wrong to post thoughts on other threads but you guys complaining about me talking about it here is a bit ridiculous, imo.

Sorry but you guys feel like dictators and we cant talk about anything else anymore freely. This is a thread about why SR didnt work. What the hell am i supposed to talk here then?

i thought america was the land of freedom and not policing. Im not bashing any posters or calling people's names. Im bashing Singer and the movie because he is obviously clueless about the problems of the movie.

[SuperDaniel]

El payaso, the Spider-man scene has more to do with the hero's sacrifice than jesus. Its a fleeting moment in the movie and we get it. In Sr is in your face all the time. You cant possible compare Spider-man to the way Superman has wrongly been portrayed in the movies.

Superman is not and should not be a jesus allegory. He is an allegory of greek gods, moses etc. His creators were jews and did not believe in Jesus.

Donner just didnt understand the character's roots also which is why am glad this new movie is going in a different direction.

The difference is...In the Donner movies this is just a small problem i have with it and i can excuse it because it is was the 70's and it is a great and a fun movie with a bunch of awesome scenes. Cant say the same for SR. And every little problem I have with it becomes greater than it is because of expectations I have for a modern Superman movie and what can be done with the character after reading so many great stories in the comics.

Singer never read the comics and he does not get Superman as whole. He gets on interpretation of it.

The whole problem with SR is that the story is an interpretation of a interpretation of a story about Superman done in the 70's. And not a story about SM himself in modern times.

The whole plot of the movie and the Luthor characterization and his land plan is simply ridiculous and doesnt work anymore. It barely did in the 70s but in 2006 both are unnaceptable and a joke.

[Ponyboy]

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

Maybe he was giving his opinion on the film.

haha... he did seem to be in and out of consciousness...

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

Its funny...when i get to talk in a thread about SR and the reasons it failed and put my opinions on it, you guys bash me. lol. I understood i was wrong to post thoughts on other threads but you guys complaining about me talking about it here is a bit ridiculous, imo.

Sorry but you guys feel like dictators and we cant talk about anything else anymore freely. This is a thread about why SR didnt work. What the hell am i supposed to talk here then?

i thought america was the land of freedom and not policing. Im not bashing any posters or calling people's names. Im bashing Singer and the movie because he is obviously clueless about the problems of the movie.

There is no "we can't". We are talking to you, not anybody else. All of your America The Beautiful and let us all unite together jargon isn't going to work, because the issue isn't with anybody else.

You're a smart guy, if you can't understand why two moderators are calling you out, and not anybody else talking about the same thing...then I don't know what to tell you. It is a privilege to post on this forum. Not a right.

If you want to continue to argue with moderators on the forum, about forum policy, you're just continuing to do more of the same. As I already said, which should be more than clear, it's not what you're talking about but how you're talking about it. Your most recent post, perfectly fine. I'm sure I won't get PMs from your fellow posters complaining about it because it's actual debate. I think where done talking about this...take the hint.

[Doc Ock]

I love Superman Returns. But Bryan Singer doesn't sound like he knows anything about Superman.

Why the heck didn't this man make X-Men 3?!

[Showtime]

Looking back at all of this, he probably should have.

[The Sage]

Though if SR hadn't happened, would the movie we're getting now have been made?

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

El payaso, the Spider-man scene has more to do with the hero's sacrifice than jesus.

Yes, and in Superman case... was the same.

How was it different? Or did Superman say "This I do it in the name of Jesus"? No. It was Superman's sacrifice and no one else's.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

Its a fleeting moment in the movie and we get it.

The train scene fleeting? No, you're not getting it.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

In Sr is in your face all the time.

All the time? He makes a crucifixion pose for 10 seconds and that's all the time?

In fact Spiderman makes the crucifixion pose far more time than Superman.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

You cant possible compare Spider-man to the way Superman has wrongly been portrayed in the movies.

I am comparing how a scene in a Spiderman movie has all the same Jesus elements than in a Superman movie scene. But some people complain just against one (as if parallels and references between two stories or characters in movies were something to complain about).

What's the difference then?

Bias.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

Superman is not and should not be a jesus allegory. He is an allegory of greek gods, moses etc.

Ah, I see. It's not the Biblical comparison but what Biblical character are you comparing Superman to.

Moses, yay.
Jesus, nay.

Thing is both Biblical characters are compartable to Superman. Jesus has as many or even more similitudes than Moses.

So, why one and not the other exactly? Care to explain?

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

His creators were jews and did not believe in Jesus.

And I'm sure Stan Lee didn't believe that Frankenstein or Jekyll & Hyde were real, nevertheless he used those references for Hulk.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

Donner just didnt understand the character's roots also which is why am glad this new movie is going in a different direction.

The difference is...In the Donner movies this is just a small problem i have with it and i can excuse it because it is was the 70's and it is a great and a fun movie with a bunch of awesome scenes. Cant say the same for SR. And every little problem I have with it becomes greater than it is because of expectations I have for a modern Superman movie and what can be done with the character after reading so many great stories in the comics.

So the Jesus thing was not the problem actually. I thought so.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

The whole problem with SR is that the story is an interpretation of a interpretation of a story about Superman done in the 70's. And not a story about SM himself in modern times.

Yes, that's why it's a sequel.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Yes, it was a matter of choices. And what choice can copnnect with most people today.

Even so, being a fan of the Donner movies I couldn't help but enjoy it.

Hey, don't get me wrong, i'm a fan of Donner's films.

But I thought it was pointless, and somewhat lazy, to just rehash Donner's films and themes and what not. Plus, the execution was lacking. Superman himself was poorly characterised, Lois Lane was terrible. And it just didn't have that WOW factor that the first two Superman movies have even to this day.

Like i said, why not just make a new version? I honestly believe if they did create a new vision for Superman instead of pandering to Donner's films, we'd be getter a sequel right now instead of a reboot.

[SuperDaniel]

El payaso, if you think Spider-man has been portrayed as a jesus allegory on the same level Superman has been in the movies, theres nothing more to be said about the subject.

Its one scene in spider-man (done much better in that movie than in SR) versus the whole characterization of krypton, jor-el and Superman.

Plus, the jesus allegory is just one of the minor problems. Its not the fact that they used it because superman has those connections but its the fact that they ONLY used that interpretation and whenever Singer talks about Superman, he talks about it. He clearly doesnt know the comics or the character at all to me or has a interpretation of the character that didnt sit well with a lot of fans and even the general public.

My big problem with the movie is The whole plot that simply doesnt work, the luthor scheme is ridiculous, superman is out of character by spying on lois, breaking up families, lois lane being horrible characterized also. He got the foundations of the superman story wrong. Superman, lois and luthor.

I dont like the whole story of the movie. That simply isnt Superman to me.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The spying thing is funny to bring up and it is a very curious scene but I think that it's talked about far too much. It's not even in my top 100 list of problems with the film.

After five years of talking about it I guess I can say that my main problem with the movie besides the rehashing was the film's complete lack of energy. It's just a fairly boring movie in almost every way. If all of those strange plot points would have been in an exciting more I think that Superman 3 would be coming out this summer. Singer isn't as good as a director as he believes IMHO. He isn't good enough to make a down to earth Superman movie with no physical threat, exciting or interesting enough.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

El payaso, if you think Spider-man has been portrayed as a jesus allegory on the same level Superman has been in the movies, theres nothing more to be said about the subject.

Its one scene in spider-man (done much better in that movie than in SR) versus the whole characterization of krypton, jor-el and Superman.

I noticed you mention that Superman and Spiderman weren't at the same level of jesus allegory. So you admit Spiderman is in that category.

But no, not at the same level but it's there if you want to believe it's there. With Uncle Ben giving Peter guidance ala Jor-El, through lucid dreams, both Peter and Ben sitting in the middle of a heavenly white surrounding.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

Plus, the jesus allegory is just one of the minor problems. Its not the fact that they used it because superman has those connections but its the fact that they ONLY used that interpretation and whenever Singer talks about Superman, he talks about it.

Yes, that's why it's a sequel.

[/DEJA VÙ]

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

My big problem with the movie is The whole plot that simply doesnt work, the luthor scheme is ridiculous,

It's old school taking-over-the-world type of scheme. Many have tried it.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

superman is out of character by spying on lois, breaking up families, lois lane being horrible characterized also.

And destroying a taxi, throwing Zod to an abyss and having a personal vendetta on a human trucker. That's Donner Superman. This is a sequel to that, but this Superman is not more out of character than what I've mentioned.

Lois Lane is also modelled after Kidder's take, selfish and ambitious. Sequel.

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

The spying thing is funny to bring up and it is a very curious scene but I think that it's talked about far too much. It's not even in my top 100 list of problems with the film.

After five years of talking about it I guess I can say that my main problem with the movie besides the rehashing was the film's complete lack of energy. It's just a fairly boring movie in almost every way. If all of those strange plot points would have been in an exciting more I think that Superman 3 would be coming out this summer. Singer isn't as good as a director as he believes IMHO. He isn't good enough to make a down to earth Superman movie with no physical threat, exciting or interesting enough.

Or if it had been as bad and dumb as Transformers 2.

[Matt]

It seems to me like he's saying, "Its the audience's fault, they didn't get it!" I never like when directors go that route to justify a bad box office. Its too easy. Look internally. SR got some things right (the plane scene, for example). But it also got a lot wrong. Singer should look internally, see what he did wrong and try to grow as a filmmaker from that. Blaming the audience is just a cop out.