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

[DIRECTOR]

Source : http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovi.../bryan-singer-why-superman-returns-didnt-work

The 2006 movie Superman Returns was supposed to reignite the comic-book character for big-screen audiences and make a star out of unknown actor Brandon Routh. While critics praised the film, it underwhelmed at the box office, earning $391 million worldwide.

Now, with another Superman film in the works -- Zack Snyder's Superman: Man of Steel, which stars Henry Cavill in the title role -- Superman Returns director-producer Bryan Singer is admitting that he made some mistakes with his own film.

"I think that Superman Returns was a bit nostalgic and romantic, and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer," Singer said in an interview with VoicesFromKrypton.com. "What I had noticed is that there weren't a lot of women lining up to see a comic book movie, but they were going to line up to see The Devil Wears Prada, which may have been something I wanted to address. But when you're making a movie, you're not thinking about that stuff, you're thinking, 'Wow, I want to make a romantic movie that harkens back to the Richard Donner movie that I loved so much.' And that's what I did."

Many moviegoers criticized the third act, in which Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) stabs Superman with a shard of kryptonite, but then the two characters don't appear onscreen again for the rest of the movie. In defending the scene, Singer said he tried to insert a religious analogy his storytelling, which was probably too "heavy" for a summer movie.

"I've always felt that the origin of Superman is the story of Moses -- the child sent on a ship to fulfill a destiny," said Singer, a producer on the upcoming X-Men: First Class. "And this was a story about Christ -- it's all about sacrifice: The world, I hear their cries. So what happens? He gets the knife in the side and later he falls to the earth in the shape of a crucifix. It was kind of nailing you on the head, but I enjoyed that, because I've always found the myth of Christ compelling and moving. So I hoped to do my own take, which is heavy s--- for a summer movie."

Singer said if he were to take on another Superman film, he would do a reboot of the franchise by remaking the original and would make it a more "balls-to-the-wall action movie" with a different pace from Superman Returns.

Despite the disappointing performance of Superman Returns, Singer still says he's "proud" of the film.

"There are a bunch of movies I've made where I'm, like, 'Yuck, that was weak' or 'That could've been better,' and I can see why. But with Superman Returns. ... If I could go back, I would have tightened the first act."

 

[hopefuldreamer]

There is only one respond to the opinion's of this man...

 

[SuperDaniel]

Exactly. Proves he has no idea about what is wrong with the movie.

 

[C. Lee]

Exactly. Proves he has no idea about what is wrong with the movie.

YOUR idea of what's wrong with it....and anyone else's idea of what's wrong with will most likely be different in many ways....it makes none of them right or wrong....but rather individual opinions of what was wrong.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think it is obviously going to be difficult for Singer to see what was wrong with his movie. He made it, and he made it how he wanted it, and so it appeals to him in every way.

However, what he's not doing at all, is acknowledging OUR opinions of what was wrong with the film and learning from it. He's basically very unapologetic about it.

He says nothing about the casting, nothing about the use of yet another 'land' scheme from Lex, nothing about the humungous plot hole of the 'superman's kid' story... or anything else that fans have actually pointed out as the flaws.

Instead he seems to be suggesting that SR bombed because audiences can't handle something that 'deep' from their hollywood summer blockbusters...

Arrogant or what?

And to keep harking on about how Superman is like Jesus and Moses and that's what the movie was about? And to suggest that he was trying to make a comic book movie that girls would line up to see? ... It's just really hard to read stuff like that and actually respect his opinion.

I think what SuperDaniel was saying, and I agree with, is that he obviously hasn't listened to what we think is wrong with the movie... like he's just ignorant to it, and has come up with his own justifications for why the movie failed (that put NONE of it down to any mistakes HE made).

 

[Ponyboy]

I think part of the reason that Superman Returns didn't work was because of the story. That's first part of making an interesting film; and it was the part that Singer failed on. The last time we saw Superman on the big screen before that was 1987. So aside from having Christopher Reeve cemented in our minds as Superman (and rightly so, he is Superman)... the new "Superman Returns" incarnation lept from nowhere. The story supposedly takes place after the events of Donner's Superman 2. I don't think the general movie going public at large was aware of this.

Lois Lane was downright unlikeable in the film. Sure she's better looking than Margot Kidder, but she didn't have that spunk, that pizazz that Kidder had. She certainly had zero chemistry with Brandon Routh. I can go on and on about how Routh was wrong for the part... and how the Superman costume was lame and that it didn't need to changed... about how Kevin Spacey's plot to sell newly created land from the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude (how would have the right to sell this "land"?) was thinner than his hair... Not to mention the fact that Superman and Lois had shagged (in Superman 2) and now Lois was toting around their love child... I feel in some way the film almost made Superman unlikeable... he wasn't larger than life... and he wasn't fighting for truth, justice, and the American way... and all amidst a gloomy backdrop of a film. There was a great deal of magic missing from Routh's performance... although he nearly got Clark Kent right. Well.. maybe I'm being too harsh on the film. The only thing I really remember about the movie is the airplane rescue scene. Plus, the guy sitting next to me in the theatre was farting repeatedly.

 

[Marx]

I was just reading about this.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Now I have the right thread for this.

If I were Singer and I truly adored my film I wouldn't apologize for it and it seems like he didn't in that interview. He was explaning why he thought the movie wasn't as successful as WB or he would have liked.

I'd like for him to explain why he decided to drop the sequel he was signed up to film to make another movie, if he cared so much? Because no matter if people like to admit it or not, he was signed for another sequel and that meant that WB was willing to make one at that time.

Thats why I don't understand why some of the fans of SR blame the anti fans for a sequel not being made? It's Singer's fault that a sequel isn't coming out, not mine or anybody elses who disliked or hated the film. He decided that for some reason that he didn't want to make a sequel and WB obviously decided that without him they weren't going to go the sequel route.

Again, he needs to stop talking about the movie's quality or lack there of and tell us why he left. That would actually be an interesting story.

 

[Mr.Kara]

I'd like for him to explain why he decided to drop the sequel he was signed up to film to make another movie, if he cared so much? Because no matter if people like to admit it or not, he was signed for another sequel and that meant that WB was willing to make one at that time.

I thought WB dropped him.

 

[mego joe]

I thought WB dropped him.

Either way I think it was best for the character to reboot instead of continue the SR storyline into another film.

 

[mego joe]

I think it is obviously going to be difficult for Singer to see what was wrong with his movie. He made it, and he made it how he wanted it, and so it appeals to him in every way.

However, what he's not doing at all, is acknowledging OUR opinions of what was wrong with the film and learning from it. He's basically very unapologetic about it.

He says nothing about the casting, nothing about the use of yet another 'land' scheme from Lex, nothing about the humungous plot hole of the 'superman's kid' story... or anything else that fans have actually pointed out as the flaws.

Instead he seems to be suggesting that SR bombed because audiences can't handle something that 'deep' from their hollywood summer blockbusters...

Arrogant or what?

And to keep harking on about how Superman is like Jesus and Moses and that's what the movie was about? And to suggest that he was trying to make a comic book movie that girls would line up to see? ... It's just really hard to read stuff like that and actually respect his opinion.

I think what SuperDaniel was saying, and I agree with, is that he obviously hasn't listened to what we think is wrong with the movie... like he's just ignorant to it, and has come up with his own justifications for why the movie failed (that put NONE of it down to any mistakes HE made).

I think Singer's biggest problem is that he really only has one reference point and that's the Donner films, and I don't think he actually understood them. I think he latched onto one aspect of the character with which he identified and ran with it. His perspective on the characters and the Superman universe is extremely limited and he just didn't know how to tell a good Superman story based on that one reference point and the one angle of the character- loneliness. To base a whole Superman story around that and have it dominate all aspects of the film including story, theme and tone is just a recipe for disaster.

Essentially his version of SUperman attempts to show that the only reason he accepts Earth as his home is that because of Jason he's finally not alone. That's just incorrect in every way. Earth is his home b/c despite his biology he's emotionally human. And Singer didn't understand that Jor-El was wrong when he said "You aren't one of them." The whole point of Superman: The Movie and SUperman II is to show that he IS human and he has to forego a normal human life b/c his responsibilty to be SUperman is so great and he CHOOSES to do the selfless thing b/c he's been raised by the Kents to be a good person- a selfless person.

 

[marvelrobbins]

He said he first became aware of Superman because of the george Reeves show and said he had watched Smallville.

Perhapes It would have been better Instead of an sequel to Superman and Superman II
If he would have just started over but done things that pay homage to the Richard Donner films but aren't outright contunion of them(Keeping the crystal themes on Kryptan,Having Jor-El similar to Marlon brando's version,Jonathan dying,a smilar fortress of solitude,A bumbling Clark,A Superman/Lois/Clark traingle similar to DOnner film) with new things(Like having Lex totally removed from Hackman version and being more In Line with post cris Lex)

Man of steel will likely be another extrem.While Singer only used the Donner films(which are based on SIlver age SUperman) the new film will likely Ignore the silver age and only use the various contunitys post Crisis.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think Singer's biggest problem is that he really only has one reference point and that's the Donner films, and I don't think he actually understood them. I think he latched onto one aspect of the character with which he identified and ran with it. His perspective on the characters and the Superman universe is extremely limited and he just didn't know how to tell a good Superman story based on that one reference point and the one angle of the character- loneliness. To base a whole Superman story around that and have it dominate all aspects of the film including story, theme and tone is just a recipe for disaster.

Essentially his version of SUperman attempts to show that the only reason he accepts Earth as his home is that because of Jason he's finally not alone. That's just incorrect in every way. Earth is his home b/c despite his biology he's emotionally human. And Singer didn't understand that Jor-El was wrong when he said "You aren't one of them." The whole point of Superman: The Movie and SUperman II is to show that he IS human and he has to forego a normal human life b/c his responsibilty to be SUperman is so great and he CHOOSES to do the selfless thing b/c he's been raised by the Kents to be a good person- a selfless person.

Yeah I agree.

By treating Superman like christ, he treated Jor-el like God. Like everything he said was absolutely right, and cryptic and wise. And his attempts to constantly ram the theological similarities in our faces (even though IMO they aren't there in the first place unless you put them there), made sure that Superman was always going to be this outsider, lonely and sacrificing himself for the humans because it is the will of his father.

Which is IMO one of the biggest mistakes you can make with a Superman movie. You want him to fight for more than just the lives of all the little humans. You want him to fight for HIS home, for HIS humanity, for HIS life that he's built here, and for the values that his parent's taught him.

He doesn't save the world because it's his Destiny, or because the spirit of his dead father tells him too. He does it because it holds everything that's important to him, and everything that he loves.

I swear, I really hope that Singer's sees Snyder's movie and leaves thinking 'Okay... maybe he's not like Jesus.' or 'That's what Superman is about? I had no idea!'

 

[dark_b]

I'd like for him to explain why he decided to drop the sequel he was signed up to film to make another movie, if he cared so much? Because no matter if people like to admit it or not, he was signed for another sequel and that meant that WB was willing to make one at that time.

Thats why I don't understand why some of the fans of SR blame the anti fans for a sequel not being made? It's Singer's fault that a sequel isn't coming out, not mine or anybody elses who disliked or hated the film. He decided that for some reason that he didn't want to make a sequel and WB obviously decided that without him they weren't going to go the sequel route.

from 2000 to 2006 he worked on 3 comicbook movie blockbusters. after SR he wanted to make a different movie. t Valkyrie was supposed to be a small movie from Singer right? but it wasnt. and then from what i remember WB and Singer started playing ''the '' game.

i understand that Singer hoped for a small movie. but it was unfair to WB to make Valkyrie big with Tom Cruise and then expect WB to whait. he had full control on SR.

 

[El Payaso]

Thats why I don't understand why some of the fans of SR blame the anti fans for a sequel not being made? It's Singer's fault that a sequel isn't coming out, not mine or anybody elses who disliked or hated the film. He decided that for some reason that he didn't want to make a sequel and WB obviously decided that without him they weren't going to go the sequel route.

Really? Have people done that? Because it's beyond ridiculous.

I blame the BO results.

Yeah I agree.

By treating Superman like christ, he treated Jor-el like God. Like everything he said was absolutely right, and cryptic and wise. And his attempts to constantly ram the theological similarities in our faces (even though IMO they aren't there in the first place unless you put them there), made sure that Superman was always going to be this outsider, lonely and sacrificing himself for the humans because it is the will of his father.

Which is IMO one of the biggest mistakes you can make with a Superman movie. You want him to fight for more than just the lives of all the little humans. You want him to fight for HIS home, for HIS humanity, for HIS life that he's built here, and for the values that his parent's taught him.

He doesn't save the world because it's his Destiny, or because the spirit of his dead father tells him too. He does it because it holds everything that's important to him, and everything that he loves.

I swear, I really hope that Singer's sees Snyder's movie and leaves thinking 'Okay... maybe he's not like Jesus.' or 'That's what Superman is about? I had no idea!'

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

 

[SuperDaniel]

I don't think Donner's Jesus thing was so much in your face as Superman Returns. That' why I hate the Donner cut. More of this Jesus comparison that I've never liked.

Superman, imo, has nothing to do with Jesus except both being forces for good. But this crap that Jor-el knows all his decisions and sent him here to save is us just...CRAP.

I think Singer's biggest problem is that he really only has one reference point and that's the Donner films, and I don't think he actually understood them. I think he latched onto one aspect of the character with which he identified and ran with it. His perspective on the characters and the Superman universe is extremely limited and he just didn't know how to tell a good Superman story based on that one reference point and the one angle of the character- loneliness. To base a whole Superman story around that and have it dominate all aspects of the film including story, theme and tone is just a recipe for disaster.

Essentially his version of SUperman attempts to show that the only reason he accepts Earth as his home is that because of Jason he's finally not alone. That's just incorrect in every way. Earth is his home b/c despite his biology he's emotionally human. And Singer didn't understand that Jor-El was wrong when he said "You aren't one of them." The whole point of Superman: The Movie and SUperman II is to show that he IS human and he has to forego a normal human life b/c his responsibilty to be SUperman is so great and he CHOOSES to do the selfless thing b/c he's been raised by the Kents to be a good person- a selfless person.

Exactly. Loneliness is a theme for Superman but there's so much MORE than that and the problem is that Singer never understood that Superman is about optimism and he never had that in the movie. The whole Clark Kent persona comes from the fact that he wants to be human and has human emotions.

He was just a loner the whole movie, acting like Spider-man. "Nobody loves me and nobody cares about me but my mother." He almost didnt go to save the plane. The thing is that Singer doesnt know how to write DC characters or know that Superman is supposed to be an archetype of goodness just like the Joker is an archetype of chaos.

The Donner movies were bright, fun and adventurous. Singer only did that during the plane sequence.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Really? Have people done that? Because it's beyond ridiculous.

I blame the BO results.

You can talk about money all you want. Money comes from people going to the theaters and having a good time in the theaters. When they go to watch a Superman movie, they have expectations of what a Superman should be. And this Devil wears prada audience crap is not what people expect from a Superman movie.

And the movie underperformed because of what? Why more people didnt go to watch the movie? Because it sucks. The Superman name alone brought a lot of people to the theaters and gave it a box office better than Batman Begins but when people realized the movie sucks, they stopped going. Plus, SR was just an expensive movie. An expensive BAD movie.

 

[SuperDaniel]

YOUR idea of what's wrong with it....and anyone else's idea of what's wrong with will most likely be different in many ways....it makes none of them right or wrong....but rather individual opinions of what was wrong.

The fact it didnt not get a sequel proves that my idea of whats wrong with it is not far from the truth after all.

He obviously wont know what is so wrong with the movie because he is ignorant of the character of Superman as a whole and SR just proved that.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

The fact it didnt not get a sequel proves that my idea of whats wrong with it is not far from the truth after all.

No it doesn't actually and you know that.

 

[Showtime]

The fact it didnt not get a sequel proves that my idea of whats wrong with it is not far from the truth after all.

He obviously wont know what is so wrong with the movie because he is ignorant of the character of Superman as a whole and SR just proved that.

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.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Personally I thought the Jesus analogies were good and fun to point out. I dont think that was the problem with the movie at all.

The movie was just too cute romantic in a richard donner kind of way. People wanted a more focused and powerful superman. A movie where superman was more physical, tougher if you will. Other than the plane scene which was kind of cool the movie absolutely missed out on that. The fact that he made luthor so close to gene hackmans funny man, and the inclusion of supermans son was just too much to bear.

Superman returns was not a horrible movie, but was too close to the donner movies for people to identify with what they were expecting from superman today.

 

[Vindex]

The fact it didnt not get a sequel proves that my idea of whats wrong with it is not far from the truth after all.

The fact that it didn't get a sequel only proves that it didn't deserve a sequel. Your opinion on what was wrong with it is just that, your opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons people don't like the movie.

 

[mego joe]

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.

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...

 

[El Payaso]

I think part of the reason that Superman Returns didn't work was because of the story. That's first part of making an interesting film; and it was the part that Singer failed on. The last time we saw Superman on the big screen before that was 1987. So aside from having Christopher Reeve cemented in our minds as Superman (and rightly so, he is Superman)... the new "Superman Returns" incarnation lept from nowhere. The story supposedly takes place after the events of Donner's Superman 2. I don't think the general movie going public at large was aware of this.

Lois Lane was downright unlikeable in the film. Sure she's better looking than Margot Kidder, but she didn't have that spunk, that pizazz that Kidder had. She certainly had zero chemistry with Brandon Routh. I can go on and on about how Routh was wrong for the part... and how the Superman costume was lame and that it didn't need to changed... about how Kevin Spacey's plot to sell newly created land from the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude (how would have the right to sell this "land"?) was thinner than his hair... Not to mention the fact that Superman and Lois had shagged (in Superman 2) and now Lois was toting around their love child... I feel in some way the film almost made Superman unlikeable... he wasn't larger than life... and he wasn't fighting for truth, justice, and the American way... and all amidst a gloomy backdrop of a film. There was a great deal of magic missing from Routh's performance... although he nearly got Clark Kent right. Well.. maybe I'm being too harsh on the film. The only thing I really remember about the movie is the airplane rescue scene. Plus, the guy sitting next to me in the theatre was farting repeatedly.

Pretty much, yeah.

Some points needed further explanation and you should have really got people into the story of the old moivies before start telling what happened next.

I'm sure that only a few remembered that the crystals could grow a fortress of solitude. Or that Lex had been in the FoS.

I don't think Donner's Jesus thing was so much in your face as Superman Returns. That' why I hate the Donner cut. More of this Jesus comparison that I've never liked.

When you say that the Jesus parallel in SR wasn't "so much in your face as Superman Returns" you're basically admitting that it WAS in Donner movies. That's all I said, Singer didn't create this. And what was so in your face, the crucifixion pose? Because that was also in Spiderman 2 you know. The saviour thing? That was in Byrne's Man of Steel.

Now, you liking it or not has little to do with the parallels being there or not.

Superman, imo, has nothing to do with Jesus except both being forces for good. But this crap that Jor-el knows all his decisions and sent him here to save is us just...CRAP.

Alrighty then. But blame Donner for that. He invented that.

Exactly. Loneliness is a theme for Superman but there's so much MORE than that and the problem is that Singer never understood that Superman is about optimism and he never had that in the movie. The whole Clark Kent persona comes from the fact that he wants to be human and has human emotions.

But it's good to know that you're aware that loneliness is a theme for Superman. A theme that was explored in STM and SII but Singer treated it a bit more seriously. And at the end of SR Superman was flying with a smile and an optimistic tone was there.

He was just a loner the whole movie, acting like Spider-man. "Nobody loves me and nobody cares about me but my mother."

So... since when does Spiderman have the monopoly of the troubled character type?

He almost didnt go to save the plane. The thing is that Singer doesnt know how to write DC characters or know that Superman is supposed to be an archetype of goodness just like the Joker is an archetype of chaos.

So you say that when Superman saved the plane and all those accidents around the world, when he saved Metropolis from the earthquake, leaving Lois alone in Lex's yatch in order to save the whole city, and when, in spite of having kryptonite inside his body lifted the whole continent... you didn't find that some kind of goodness?

But anyways, characters such as this are always in danger of becoming stale because of becoming mere archetypes.

The Donner movies were bright, fun and adventurous. Singer only did that during the plane sequence.

After all those movies it was time to explore a different angle of the character.

You can talk about money all you want. Money comes from people going to the theaters and having a good time in the theaters. When they go to watch a Superman movie, they have expectations of what a Superman should be. And this Devil wears prada audience crap is not what people expect from a Superman movie.

Yes, and more people went to see SR than BB.

And the movie underperformed because of what?

Expectation being higher. After all those expensive attempts I don't blame them.

Why more people didnt go to watch the movie? Because it sucks.

Like many people went to see Transformers 2 because...? Yeah, because it's a jewel from cinema.

The Superman name alone brought a lot of people to the theaters and gave it a box office better than Batman Begins but when people realized the movie sucks, they stopped going.

So what stopped people from seeing BB more? According to you because it sucked more than SR since less people went to see it.

The fact it didnt not get a sequel proves that my idea of whats wrong with it is not far from the truth after all.

But of course. As I said, cinematic gems such as Transformers 2 get sequels. It's all natural.

Sequels = quality.

He obviously wont know what is so wrong with the movie because he is ignorant of the character of Superman as a whole and SR just proved that.

Actually it didn't.

Superman was heroic and everything he usually is.

To be honest, it's more engaging and interesting to discuss what you don't like as opposed to what you like.

Not necessarily. Some people love to hate what they hate more than loving what they love.

I go and post more in TDK forums than in BB because I liked it more. And I don't post much in the Raimi's Spiderman movies because I didn't like them too much.

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.

Thing is if you get addicted to the lack of merits disucssion or the merits discussion.

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...

I have to admit I haven't met many people who don't think of something but make constant attempts of dealing with that something. Usually when people don't think about something they barely talk about it... because they don't remember it.

 

[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 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.

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.

All in all, I think Singer's heart was in the right place but as someone else said, he was using the Donner film as his central source and inspiration when it should've been the comics. Nothing wrong with having homages to the film, as the color palette of the film and the look of the Daily Planet had a Fleischer feel to it, which I loved btw. But among the homages, the comics should've been the base source to go from.

I recall reading Routh's interviews when the movie and reading him discussing Superman. He came across as pretty knowledgeable and it almost felt like he knew more about Superman than Singer did.