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

[Micromind]

Since many here are determined to compare Spider-Man movies to SR.

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.

And where is Spider-Man 4 ? A movie with stranger plot points (Spider-Man 3) which many considered as exciting when it was released and made ton of money ?

Lets face some facts, both Singer and Sam Raimi are a fan of Donner Superman movies (So is Nolan.) In fact the first Spider-Man movie has many parallels with STM, second Spider-Man movie follows Superman 2 in many areas, third Spider-Man movie is close in many respects to Superman 3.

Superman as a Character is often compared to Moses and Jesus both in Comics and Movies, as Singer was making SR a part of existing Donnerverse Superman, it was to be expected.

I would say that Spider-Man character was created by taking inspiration form Superman.

Anyone who disagrees is not willing to look at these points.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

Where exactly does Singer blame the audience? That's simply not true.

He said that the taget audience was wrong. And guess who was the obvious one to think about it in the first place? Himself.

He never said "Audiences didn't get the movie." He said that the target audience for his Superman movie wasn't the right one for a Superman/action/summer blockbuster movie.

He even says that he should have thought about it but that "when you're making a movie, you're not thinking about that stuff." That is where he puts the blame on himself. He favored his approach over the target audience for a summer blockbuster movie. And that's the mistake he admits.

And even says that if he were to make another Superman movie he wouldn't do it that way. If he were blaming the audience he wouldn't be admitting that a different approach would have been better.

Since many here are determined to compare Spider-Man movies to SR.



And where is Spider-Man 4 ? A movie with stranger plot points (Spider-Man 3) which many considered as exciting when it was released and made ton of money ?

Lets face some facts, both Singer and Sam Raimi are a fan of Donner Superman movies (So is Nolan.) In fact the first Spider-Man movie has many parallels with STM, second Spider-Man movie follows Superman 2 in many areas, third Spider-Man movie is close in many respects to Superman 3.

Superman as a Character is often compared to Moses and Jesus both in Comics and Movies, as Singer was making SR a part of existing Donnerverse Superman, it was to be expected.

I would say that Spider-Man character was created by taking inspiration form Superman.

Anyone who disagrees is not willing to look at these points.

Absolutely. The approach was nmpot for everybody. But complaining about the Jesus references as if they were Singer's idea when there have been there from STM, well... I mean just google 'Superman Jesus' and you'll find a huge number of people who have made the parallels before around the world.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Where exactly does Singer blame the audience? That's simply not true.

He said that the taget audience was wrong. And guess who was the obvious one to think about it in the first place? Himself.

He never said "Audiences didn't get the movie." He said that the target audience for his Superman movie wasn't the right one for a Superman/action/summer blockbuster movie.

He even says that he should have thought about it but that "when you're making a movie, you're not thinking about that stuff." That is where he puts the blame on himself. He favored his approach over the target audience for a summer blockbuster movie. And that's the mistake he admits.

And even says that if he were to make another Superman movie he wouldn't do it that way. If he were blaming the audience he wouldn't be admitting that a different approach would have been better.

Thats funny. He still doesnt get it, imo. SR isnt romantic in any form( Donners is much more and done right). The romance between lois & superman which is one of the core aspects of the mythology is misguided and wrongly interpreted. And the female character of the movie is a train wreck. So i cant imagine how a romantic would find SR appealing. Unless he believes in ruining familes, breaking up relationships and being deadbeat dads. So,he never appealed to any of the audiences at all.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

SR isnt romantic in any form

Romantic in the aesthetic form, at least.

The romance between lois & superman which is one of the core aspects of the mythology is misguided and wrongly interpreted.

Circumstances didn't allow them to play their "traditional" romantic roles. Superman abruptly left her after sweeping her off her heels and with a child to boot. Plus, she wrote her Pulitzer prize winning article on "why the world doesn't need Superman". But there he was again, back from obscurity. In this circumstance, I see any (proper), and especially Donner's iteration of them (Superman & Lois) acting the same. In that respect, they weren't wrongly interpreted at all.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

I believe there was indeed a certain romanticism to SR in a similar way to Donners style.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Romantic in the aesthetic form, at least.
Circumstances didn't allow them to play their "traditional" romantic roles. Superman abruptly left her after sweeping her off her heels and with a child to boot. Plus, she wrote her Pulitzer prize winning article on "why the world doesn't need Superman". But there he was again, back from obscurity. In this circumstance, I see any (proper), and especially Donner's iteration of them (Superman & Lois) acting the same. In that respect, they weren't wrongly interpreted at all.

Exactly. Those circumstances are exactly what is completely wrong about this movie because if it wasn't for them, Superman wouldnt act out of character. The core aspect of the mythology is the love triangle built around 2 people and not some outsider and them.

How is Superman ever be with Lois or be able to be a father to his son without ruining a decent family and a decent person? Sorry but I don't want these kind of problems associated to Superman or in a summer blockbuster.

Moreover, the whole movie based around the idea that Superman left without saying goodbye. Sorry but the Superman I know and the Superman showed in SII specifically said "I won't let you down again". Singer didnt even get the facts right when he wrote his messed up story and sequel that not even him understood what was cannon or not. He simply selected parts from it that he liked or not. Moreover, Superman would call a press conference, like Superman IV or even Lois & Clark, and explain what is going on. And he would also tell Lois if they were romantically involved and that is what a Superman does.

This "I was afraid to tell the truth" simply doesn't work with Superman.

It's a half-assed explanation thought about someone who didnt know Superman as a character and his motivations at all.

These fundamental flaws with the story just makes it a bad Superman movie. Sorry. And didnt even talk about Luthor's plan...

 

[SuperDaniel]

I believe there was indeed a certain romanticism to SR in a similar way to Donners style.

Romance with Lois Lane was simply not possible because of the whole circumstance that Richard created. What was shown in the movie wasnt romantic at all. At least not to me.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Those circumstances are exactly what is completely wrong about this movie because if it wasn't for them, Superman wouldnt act out of character. The core aspect of the mythology is the love triangle built around 2 people and not some outsider and them.

And the core aspect of Batman is that he won't ever kill. Yet at the end of TDK, he more or less did. But it was generally accepted, but why? Its because it took Batman to a place that he had never been before while sustaining his character. Singer also took Superman and Lois, as we know them, to a place they've never ventured into before. In order to do that you've got to have a solid grasp on the mythology.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Moreover, the whole movie based around the idea that Superman left without saying goodbye. Sorry but the Superman I know and the Superman showed in SII specifically said "I won't let you down again". Singer didnt even get the facts right when he wrote his messed up story and sequel that not even him understood what was cannon or not. He simply selected parts from it that he liked or not. Moreover, Superman would call a press conference, like Superman IV or even Lois & Clark, and explain what is going on. And he would also tell Lois if they were romantically involved and that is what a Superman does.

Superman has human emotions just like any other man. Nobody would be on their right mind if they had the opportunity to visit the remnants of their home with the faintest chance that there might be any survivor.

He gave Lois that interview as to why he left, so that covers any press conference.

This "I was afraid to tell the truth" simply doesn't work with Superman.

It worked wonders when he turned back time to distort, or sometimes even vanquish the truth.

What a model fella.

 

[El Payaso]

Thats funny.

What exactly is?

SR isnt romantic in any form( Donners is much more and done right). The romance between lois & superman which is one of the core aspects of the mythology is misguided and wrongly interpreted. And the female character of the movie is a train wreck. So i cant imagine how a romantic would find SR appealing. Unless he believes in ruining familes, breaking up relationships and being deadbeat dads. So,he never appealed to any of the audiences at all.

Lois has always been a train wreck in these movies. Getting herslef in an elevator under an atomic bomb and whatnot.

And what, have you ever heard of families killing each other, unfaithfulness, murdering the person you love? Try Shakespeare and you'll find that in his romantic plays. Best romantic stories are not always about red roses and walking alon g the seashore.

Exactly. Those circumstances are exactly what is completely wrong about this movie because if it wasn't for them, Superman wouldnt act out of character. The core aspect of the mythology is the love triangle built around 2 people and not some outsider and them.

Says who? Why can't a third character be there in the mix? Triangles about 3 characters are a usual device and there's no reason why can't this be one of those cases.

How is Superman ever be with Lois or be able to be a father to his son without ruining a decent family and a decent person?

First of all things, Lois doesn't even love that decent man or else she would have married him. That's why she doesn't hesitate in going towards Superman again.

Sorry but I don't want these kind of problems associated to Superman or in a summer blockbuster.

We all know that Transformers 2 and those kinds of formulaistic movies are the right ones to be labeled as summer blockbuster. I'm not ashamed or anything that SR doesn't fit that label.

But then agauin, wasn't Bryan Singer himself the one saying that "Superman Returns was a bit nostalgic and romantic, and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer," and that SR was "probably too "heavy" for a summer movie."

So I see you and Singer agree on that. Which makes me wonder why you keep saying he doesn't get it.

Moreover, the whole movie based around the idea that Superman left without saying goodbye. Sorry but the Superman I know and the Superman showed in SII specifically said "I won't let you down again".

And I believe Superman was told that he couldn't change human history, and yet he did when it was about resurrecting Lois. You see how this Superman has often to go on different directions of what he says. And, Donner or not, it's totally against Superman to have a personal vendetta abusing and showing off his powers, and yet he did in SII.

Singer didnt even get the facts right when he wrote his messed up story and sequel that not even him understood what was cannon or not. He simply selected parts from it that he liked or not. Moreover, Superman would call a press conference, like Superman IV or even Lois & Clark, and explain what is going on. And he would also tell Lois if they were romantically involved and that is what a Superman does.

Sorry, did Superman call a press conference when he decided to quit his powers in order to be with Lois? No. Right or wrong, this is the same Superman.

This "I was afraid to tell the truth" simply doesn't work with Superman.

It's a half-assed explanation thought about someone who didnt know Superman as a character and his motivations at all.

Wasn't he afraid to tell Lois the truth about his identity in STM right after the romantic flight? Yes, he was. Right or wrong, this is the same Superman.

These fundamental flaws with the story just makes it a bad Superman movie. Sorry. And didnt even talk about Luthor's plan...

Luthor's plans, same as Superman motivations can be seen in Donner movies, which this movie is a sequel of.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Where exactly does Singer blame the audience? That's simply not true.

Here:

'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 he tried to insert a religious analogy his storytelling, which was probably too "heavy" for a summer movie.'

'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."

As you can clearly see, continually blaming the lack of success on the film being 'too heavy' for an audience expecting a blockbuster summer movie.

My interpretation of 'too heavy' = too intelligent, too deep, too thought provoking...

But it's NOT thought provoking IMO.

 

[El Payaso]

Here:



As you can clearly see, continually blaming the lack of success on the film being 'too heavy' for an audience expecting a blockbuster summer movie.

Yes, he never says that Superman shouldn't be a summer blockbuster or that people were wrong by expecting a summer blockbuster in a Superman movie. He is not blaming the audience. In fact, as I said and you probably didn't read, he blames himself because he admits he never thought of what the audience was expecting, he just made the movie he wanted.



Here I go all over again:

He said that the target audience was wrong. And guess who was the obvious one to think about it in the first place? Himself.

He never said "Audiences didn't get the movie." He said that the target audience for his Superman movie wasn't the right one for a Superman/action/summer blockbuster movie.

He even says that he should have thought about it but that "when you're making a movie, you're not thinking about that stuff." That is where he puts the blame on himself. He favored his approach over the target audience for a summer blockbuster movie. And that's the mistake he admits.

And even says that if he were to make another Superman movie he wouldn't do it that way. If he were blaming the audience he wouldn't be admitting that a different approach would have been better.

My interpretation of 'too heavy' = too intelligent, too deep, too thought provoking...

Well, if you're going to interpret things the way you want, then I can say "heavy" is just too complicated. But you're just poutting words in Singer's mouth and speculating what he might have said.

Had he said "a summer blockbuster is always too light for my taste" I'd agree with you.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

He never said "Audiences didn't get the movie." He said that the target audience for his Superman movie wasn't the right one for a Superman/action/summer blockbuster movie.

He even says that he should have thought about it but that "when you're making a movie, you're not thinking about that stuff." That is where he puts the blame on himself. He favored his approach over the target audience for a summer blockbuster movie. And that's the mistake he admits.

And yet he says at the end, that he's proud of the movie, and would only like to tighten the first act...

When your making a movie, OF COURSE your thinking about that stuff... ESPECIALLY when your making a summer blockbuster superhero movie!

And beyond that point, it's still him blaming the audience he aimed it at...

He's saying he was aiming it at women, as well as saying he was aiming it at Superman: The Movie nostalgia fans.

I'm a woman, and I didn't like the movie. I know plenty of people who loved Superman: The Movie and it's sequels, and find Superman Returns an awful attempt at following it. So IMO he failed to even achieve what he was aiming for.

The movie failed because it was a bad storyline, with badly written dialogue, terrible casting and a lack of charecterisation IMO.

Not because it was aimed at women, or because it was released in summer and everyone expected a blockbuster.

 

[El Payaso]

And yet he says at the end, that he's proud of the movie, and would only like to tighten the first act...

So? He's proud of the movie. Doesn't mean he can't tell why more people didn't relate to it.

When your making a movie, OF COURSE your thinking about that stuff... ESPECIALLY when your making a summer blockbuster superhero movie!

Really? How many summer blockbusters have you made so you can tell me that with such certainty?

No, many times directors don't think of the audience while making a movie, just the movie they want to make. People like Bay or Snyder do it more than others and yet sometimes they fail to connect the audience (Sucker Punch). That being good or bad is material for discussion. In the end, every Hollywood producer or director agree that no one knows for sure when a movie is going to succeed or not.

And beyond that point, it's still him blaming the audience he aimed it at...

Not at all.

He says he should have done the movie differently if he wanted to make more people go and see it. He even says what things should have been differently. He never blames the audience.

He's saying he was aiming it at women, as well as saying he was aiming it at Superman: The Movie nostalgia fans.

I'm a woman, and I didn't like the movie. I know plenty of people who loved Superman: The Movie and it's sequels, and find Superman Returns an awful attempt at following it. So IMO he failed to even achieve what he was aiming for.

I'm a man and I don't eat pizzas. Does it mean men don't eat pizza?

Really, hopeful, you can't tell me what people do based on 2 or 3 cases. I can immediatelly tell you of people who don't know the old Donner movies and yet they liked SR. Big deal.

The movie failed because it was a bad storyline, with badly written dialogue, terrible casting and a lack of charecterisation IMO.

Not because it was aimed at women, or because it was released in summer and everyone expected a blockbuster.

Good. And his opinion is different. U mad because he doesn't agree with you?

But right or wrong, he's not blaming the audience.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Really, hopeful, you can't tell me what people do based on 2 or 3 cases. I can immediatelly tell you of people who don't know the old Donner movies and yet they liked SR. Big deal.

Good. And his opinion is different. U mad because he doesn't agree with you?

But right or wrong, he's not blaming the audience.

I'm not TELLING you anything. I (as you can tell by my repeated use of IMO) am just giving my opinion.

The way that the interview reads, to me, does not sound like he is owning up to the flaws of the movie.

It sounds like a man who is reluctant to admit there is anything wrong with his movie, and that it failed due to reasons outside of the movie itself.

Other than admitting that he made the movie HE wanted, he doesn't admit any of it's flaws.

I personally found the tone of the interview a bit arrogant.

I've seen an interview with J.J Abrams where he gets asked about his Superman script and makes a joke at his own expense. He understands that he really missed the mark with that. I just wish that Singer would have that sense of humility and be able to look back and go 'yeah, maybe the super kid was a bad move'.

 

[SuperDaniel]

As if the only problem of the movie is to tight the first act. LOL What does he have to say about Luthor's ridiculous scheme?

Singer's is clearly arrogant in that interveiw, doesnt know the flaws of the movie and is clueless about Superman. Big Surprise. This is the same guy that wasted 300 million to make SR. May he never be close to a Superman movie again. Im sure he won't. The only good thing he did for Superman was that Up in the Sky documentary.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm not TELLING you anything. I (as you can tell by my repeated use of IMO) am just giving my opinion.

Same way, Singer is not telling anything but his opinion.

Now, if you tell me he's blaming the audience at least tell me how. Because he keeps saying that it was the movie that wasn't aimed to the right audience and that he would make it different if he were to make another one, not that the audience was uanble to 'get it' or anything of the like.

The way that the interview reads, to me, does not sound like he is owning up to the flaws of the movie.

The flaws he sees in the movie or the flaws you see? Should we blame the guy for not having the same opinion about the movie that you have?

Nolan liked the movie and also did Raimi, what can I tell you? Different people, different opinions.

It sounds like a man who is reluctant to admit there is anything wrong with his movie, and that it failed due to reasons outside of the movie itself.

Other than admitting that he made the movie HE wanted, he doesn't admit any of it's flaws.

First thing he says: "I think that Superman Returns was a bit nostalgic and romantic." Is that blaming the audience or the movie?

Second thing: "and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer." Is that blaming the audience? He knows what people wants to see but he was thinking of something else. Is that blaming the audience?

Now, what seems to be unforgivable for you is that he's not saying the things you want to hear about the movie. Just his opinion. Hopeful, as you are well-educated on what opinions are, you'll understand.

I personally found the tone of the interview a bit arrogant.

As I read, he admits he didn't think of the audience and that sounds like his fault. He says that he would do a different thing if he made another one - reboot, wall-to-wall action movie - which sounds different from "Meh, I'd make a sequel of course since the movie was perfect."

I can respect your opinion, but what Singer says tells me a different thing than arrogance.

I've seen an interview with J.J Abrams where he gets asked about his Superman script and makes a joke at his own expense. He understands that he really missed the mark with that. I just wish that Singer would have that sense of humility and be able to look back and go 'yeah, maybe the super kid was a bad move'.

Yeah, well, Abrams' script was a different thing. When you make Luthor a Kryptonian and Krypton a planet that never exploded, that's a different story. But if Abrams said that the movie needed to be done first to see the possibilities of his script, who's to say it couldn't have?

In Singer's case, why admitting the kid was a bad move if he doesn't think so? And sincerely neither do I. SR needed more action, yes. But not everybody will think the same things as you, and not doing it is not being arrogant. Now, expecting other people to do it or you'll label them as arrogant on the other hand...



****************

As if the only problem of the movie is to tight the first act. LOL What does he have to say about Luthor's ridiculous scheme?

Nothing. Old-school supervilliains tend to take over the world. Like Zod and co. tried to do.

Singer's is clearly arrogant in that interveiw, doesnt know the flaws of the movie and is clueless about Superman. Big Surprise.

No, he just has a different opinion than you.

This is the same guy that wasted 300 million to make SR. May he never be close to a Superman movie again. Im sure he won't. The only good thing he did for Superman was that Up in the Sky documentary.

Well, next Superman movie's director has a couple of underdeveloping films and one fresh mega-bomb. Let's just hope and pray.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Other than admitting that he made the movie HE wanted, he doesn't admit any of it's flaws.

Since "flaws" in the realm of film (they are not automobiles) are wholly subjective, obviously Singer won't "admit" to any flaws because he doesn't see it. Because he made the film he wanted to make.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Same way, Singer is not telling anything but his opinion.

Now, if you tell me he's blaming the audience at least tell me how. Because he keeps saying that it was the movie that wasn't aimed to the right audience and that he would make it different if he were to make another one, not that the audience was uanble to 'get it' or anything of the like.

The flaws he sees in the movie or the flaws you see? Should we blame the guy for not having the same opinion about the movie that you have?

Nolan liked the movie and also did Raimi, what can I tell you? Different people, different opinions.

First thing he says: "I think that Superman Returns was a bit nostalgic and romantic." Is that blaming the audience or the movie?

Second thing: "and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer." Is that blaming the audience? He knows what people wants to see but he was thinking of something else. Is that blaming the audience?

Now, what seems to be unforgivable for you is that he's not saying the things you want to hear about the movie. Just his opinion. Hopeful, as you are well-educated on what opinions are, you'll understand.

Yes, I do want him to acknowledge some of the popular criticisms of the movie. Not just MY criticisms, but criticisms many many fans have made.

I don't feel he's done that at all. He seems to have turned a blind eye to all that, and given an opinion of why his films failed that makes him sound good. The 'mistakes' that he admits too, are IMO very reluctant. By saying that he made a 'nostalgic' movie and that if he had a chance again he'd make a balls to the wall action movie, it feels as though he's saying that if he could do it again, he'd make a movie that catered more towards people that don't go to the cinema for anything but thrills.

As a girl, I would probably have loved a girly, sentimental superman movie in some ways. A Lois and Clark love story, with some cool action moments. SR could have been this in a lot of ways, and there are parts of it that I do like. There just is so much more to the reasons it didn't work, than it being directed at the wrong audience IMO.

As I read, he admits he didn't think of the audience and that sounds like his fault. He says that he would do a different thing if he made another one - reboot, wall-to-wall action movie - which sounds different from "Meh, I'd make a sequel of course since the movie was perfect."

I can respect your opinion, but what Singer says tells me a different thing than arrogance.

I guess that's what bothers me though - that instead of analysing what is wrong with the actual storyline and casting and anything else of the film he created, he's just saying that the TYPE of movie that he created isn't what people wanted. That he'd make a different type of movie. But as he says, with the movie itself, he'd only tighten the first act.

Yeah, well, Abrams' script was a different thing. When you make Luthor a Kryptonian and Krypton a planet that never exploded, that's a different story. But if Abrams said that the movie needed to be done first to see the possibilities of his script, who's to say it couldn't have?

In Singer's case, why admitting the kid was a bad move if he doesn't think so? And sincerely neither do I. SR needed more action, yes. But not everybody will think the same things as you, and not doing it is not being arrogant. Now, expecting other people to do it or you'll label them as arrogant on the other hand...

He doesn't have to agree that the kid was a bad move. I'd just like him to acknowledge the reasons why people didn't think it worked, and give the reasons why he thinks it does.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, I do want him to acknowledge some of the popular criticisms of the movie. Not just MY criticisms, but criticisms many many fans have made.

I don't feel he's done that at all. He seems to have turned a blind eye to all that, and given an opinion of why his films failed that makes him sound good. The 'mistakes' that he admits too, are IMO very reluctant. By saying that he made a 'nostalgic' movie and that if he had a chance again he'd make a balls to the wall action movie, it feels as though he's saying that if he could do it again, he'd make a movie that catered more towards people that don't go to the cinema for anything but thrills.

As a girl, I would probably have loved a girly, sentimental superman movie in some ways. A Lois and Clark love story, with some cool action moments. SR could have been this in a lot of ways, and there are parts of it that I do like. There just is so much more to the reasons it didn't work, than it being directed at the wrong audience IMO.

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.

I guess that's what bothers me though - that instead of analysing what is wrong with the actual storyline and casting and anything else of the film he created, he's just saying that the TYPE of movie that he created isn't what people wanted. That he'd make a different type of movie. But as he says, with the movie itself, he'd only tighten the first act.

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.

He doesn't have to agree that the kid was a bad move. I'd just like him to acknowledge the reasons why people didn't think it worked, and give the reasons why he thinks it does.

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.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Sorry but anyone that defends Luthors plan as something acceptable for a villain in modern times just loses respect with me. Nothing cant be said about the subject anymore.

 

[El Payaso]

Sorry but anyone that defends Luthors plan as something acceptable for a villain in modern times just loses respect with me. Nothing cant be said about the subject anymore.

Welcome to the world of different opinions. Try to adapt.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Lets do this. You stick with SR, a movie you love so much and defend Singer all the time and Ill stick with the Cavill reboot. Theres no point in discussing this stuff with you anymore. Lets agree to disagree and hopefulsuicide should do the same.

What you dont see to get is that the target audience isnt the problem of the movie and thats what we're complaining. All the women that I know and went to see the movie didnt like it, i like romantic movies and didnt like SR and didnt find romantic at all. Lois is not a trainwreck because she is reckless in SR. Its because she is out of character, MISCAST and almost annoying as Lana in Smallville. The point is that, in our opinion, he didnt make a good movie for any target audience at all. Certainly not for Donner fans like me, certainly not for people who expected a modern take on Superman and a fun blockbuster and certainly not for the devil wears prada audience, whatever that means.

The facts are and the results of SR are that it disappointed, split the fanbase in half, Routh will be the Goerge Lazenby of the Superman movies, it will not get a sequel, the Donner movies will be in the past as they need to and we're movin on and geting a reboot. Oh..And people dont respect Singer as a filmaker anymore as they did before.

I like the guy, he directed on of my favorite movies of all time, the usual suspects, and i really like his X-men movies. He should just stay the bad place away from Superman and im sure he will!

Im done with you and dont want to talk about this movie anymore.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Lets do this. You stick with SR, a movie you love so much and defend Singer all the time and Ill stick with the Cavill reboot

Why can't he stick with both?

The facts are and the results of SR are that it disappointed, split the fanbase in half, Routh will be the Goerge Lazenby of the Superman movies, it will not get a sequel, the Donner movies will be in the past as they need to and we're movin on and geting a reboot. Oh..And people dont respect Singer as a filmaker anymore as they did before.

Wait? Are you telling me 30 years down the line SR will be considered among the greatest Superman movies just as On Her Majesties Secret Service?

 

[Micromind]

And the female character of the movie is a train wreck.

So was Mary Jane Watson in Spider-man 2 and Spider-man 3, maybe even more.

How is Superman ever be with Lois or be able to be a father to his son without ruining a decent family and a decent person?

In the beginning of the movie, Jimmy tells Clark that Lois is in a kind of prolonged engagement with Richard, and she is still in love with you know who (he is referring to Superman). There is no family as Richard and Lois are not married and Jason is not Richard's Son.

Sorry but I don't want these kind of problems associated to Superman or in a summer blockbuster.

You are entitled to your opinion, but same goes for the director of SR.