Superman Returns For those that disliked SR... Why blame Singer instead of writers?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I've seen everything Singer has directed. He's very talented imo, which is why I was pumped for him to direct Superman.

I understand some people weren't happy with Superman Returns. What I wonder is, why aren't Dan Harris and Mike Dougherty getting more of the blame in not liking it?

Ok, Singer has control of the movie. He made the idea to do a returns story. The concept itself is usually not the probolem. Take the story out of the equation for a moment.

The way he directed the plane sequence, the NK Lex/Superman encounter with the stabbing of kryptonite... Etc... I believe it was all shot quite well. It was their writing that determined the pacing of the story imo. Yeah you will want to blame it on editing, but if the source material isn't strong, what's left to edit will all be pretty bland. I mean... 3 hours of material to shoot? If you think there was a problem with that, I think it stems from a script that wasn't focused enough or balanced for that matter (missing some beats). A lot of people are like "Singer had all the control" but the truth is, he didn't write it. Dan and Mike did... Yet for those that didn't like SR typically they hate Singer and say NOTHING of the actual writers.

You want the next Superman movie better? Don't look to firing Singer as a solution... Maybe look too either getting new writers, or giving Dan and Mike another writer to work with.

 

[Super Kal]

because he's the one in charge of it all. He had the final say in everything in this movie, so he is the one to blame.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

because he's the one in charge of it all. He had the final say in everything in this movie, so he is the one to blame.

But yet everything else he'd directed such as Apt Pupil, Usual Suspects... It all was shot with no problems and have become pretty widely appreciated films. It comes down to the writing more than anything. The guy knows how to shoot.

 

[Showtime]

With all due respect DC, you're off base in this instance. Mike and Dan turned in what my opinion was a really solid script, have you read it?

Alot of what was in that script didn't make the movie, it was either cut from the script, or cut in the editing phase. That being said, Mike and Dan themselves have said that Singer was constantly asking them to do rewrites, that is why they were on set. In this case if people want to blame anybody it's Singer.

I don't think anybody deserves blame, only because I enjoyed the film.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I enjoyed the film too. In agreement there. I'm saying for those that didn't, I personally feel Singer gets a bit too much of the blame. I imagine people with pitchforks running down a street that says "Singerville" LOL

It was more than just him if you didn't like it. Accept it.

 

[Showtime]

I enjoyed the film too. In agreement there. I'm saying for those that didn't, I personally feel Singer gets a bit too much of the blame. I imagine people with pitchforks running down a street that says "Singerville" LOL

It was more than just him if you didn't like it. Accept it.

I disagree on that front, he was his own judge, jury, and executioner on this one. He was the head of the fish, that's what they always cut off first.

 

[The Kid]

Everyone in the story department has been blamed, not just Singer. Where do you get the idea it's just singer. Of course since he's captain of the ship, it's his call in the end.

Ottman deserves some too for editing so poorly, but I guess singer's the one who told him how to edit the movie.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Well, you tell someone to write a returns story... Do you ask them to include Lois going onto a boat with her small child? I don't see Singer going "Man you know what this movie needs? We need Lois to put her child in danger. Dan! Mike! WRITE IT!"

Certain things people didn't like were totally dependant on the writing.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Everyone in the story department has been blamed, not just Singer. Where do you get the idea it's just singer. Of course since he's captain of the ship, it's his call in the end.

Ottman deserves some too for editing so poorly, but I guess singer's the one who told him how to edit the movie.

Rarely do I see another person's name mentioned when it comes to complaining about SR. It's most Singer this and that...

 

[Excel]

thing is, if you didnt like the film, bryan isnger is ultimatly in charge.

BUT the thing is; the script was the major problem.

singer was busy making
-routh a fantastic superman
-capturing routh and bosworth chemistry
-overseeing the guge special effects
-over seeing the amazing score
-trying as hard as possible not to make the kid bad
-trying to capture all the emotion from the actors he could

the writers had 1 task-write a script. it needed to be
-big
-fun
-dramatic
-funy
-romantic

they got all of these things. the main problems come from the pacing/lack of action, which can be directly contributed to two groups

-budget
-writers

sorry, but isnt it hypocritical to make fun of superman enmorous budget AND make fun of its lack of action?

my point is, its up to the writers to determine what is said/done in the movie. its up tot he director to make it come to life, and singer def. did the best job he could.

 

[The Kid]

that's wrong, jcdc. Someone coined the name "wackpack of fools" for Singer's writing team and it was used by a few to describe them around here.

 

[Excel]

No they aren't--Dew

becvause plot wise, character wise, acting wise, superman returns is a VERY GOOD movie.

it just, quite simply, coulda been better. not a lot, just a bit. it just needed a BIT more excitment.

 

[The Kid]

And Jcdc, Everyone knows the writers didn't know what they were doing. In interviews before the movie, they didn't seem to me to agree on whether they were making a sequel to superman II or not.

 

[Frodo]

Wasn't the story idea Singer's? I think the writers just expanded on Singer's premise. Yes , Singer isn't the only one to blame, but the film was his vision .
I think WB has to clean house and get new writers and a new director . IMO they need a fresh approach to Superman in the same way, L&C and SV were new takes seperate from the Reeve films .

 

[Showtime]

Well, you tell someone to write a returns story... Do you ask them to include Lois going onto a boat with her small child? I don't see Singer going "Man you know what this movie needs? We need Lois to put her child in danger. Dan! Mike! WRITE IT!"

Certain things people didn't like were totally dependant on the writing.

You're wrong actually, you know how many drafts they did of this script? Singer does exactly that on set, it was said in many interviews and its part of what Singer does, he changes on the fly.

 

[Showtime]

And Jcdc, Everyone knows the writers didn't know what they were doing. In interviews before the movie, they didn't seem to me to agree on whether they were making a sequel to superman II or not.

It had nothing to do with the writers, WB is supposed to create a partyline for interviews on what is to be said an not be said. Obviously they didn't.

 

[Showtime]

that's wrong, jcdc. Someone coined the name "wackpack of fools" for Singer's writing team and it was used by a few to describe them around here.

That is true that somebody made up that term to describe them, but it is not justified by any means.

 

[The Kid]

It seems justified after I saw SR though, show. After seeing x2 though, no but after SR, yes indeed. Justified.

 

[The Kid]

It had nothing to do with the writers, WB is supposed to create a partyline for interviews on what is to be said an not be said. Obviously they didn't.

huh?

 

[Superman45]

Singer had alot to do like, Oh bring back superman. Singer could have spent another year revising the script but he doesn't have that kind of time. So he does the next best thing gets a respectable script and starts shooting, thinking mabey he can change it in post production. Deadlines happen but still manages to get a good movie out.

Say Superman was brand new to people and no one knew about him. Then this is a great film about finding your place in the world. dealing with a lost love and her family. It's hard to say this movie was bad when most of the things people have a problem with is details like suit, characters, casting.

A side from not having the return to krypton sceen what was bad with the editing. i didn't have a problem with it. We need at least four major action sequences in #2 This one only had two(plane and climax)The return to krypton could have been a thrid only because it would get people excited more than lex with that old rich bat.

 

[Showtime]

huh?

I am saying that WB should have made sure they had a company line on whether this was a sequel or not. Everybody said something different. Singer said 8 different things.

 

[Showtime]

It seems justified after I saw SR though, show. After seeing x2 though, no but after SR, yes indeed. Justified.

Did you read the script?

 

[JBElliott]

Because.

 

[buggs0268]

Because a director brings in a writer and tells them how he wants the script to go, and hands in corrections and changes. They are just putting to page and fleshing out ideas. Singer, Doughery and Harris wrote this thing by comittee vie IM and email. But Singer directed them on exactly what he wanted and also was very involved in the process. And it was his story that he has been telling everyone about for the last 15 years. So that is his fault. They only wrote what he said, and he had final approval on what stayed in and what was out.

Also, in translating it to film, he is the director. He storyboards it, and he makes the pacing with the actors on set.

Then in editing, he is the one who was in the edit room wiht Ottman deciding pacing. And the effects guy told him what to excise and what to keep "because it looked cool" based on his friends and family showing. In the digital age more than ever, the director is God. No longer are the days of where even Hitchcock did not have direction of edit and so he decided to only shoot scenes exactly how he storyboarded them and he would yell cut at the scene at exactly the line of dialog or action where he wanted it edited so the editor had no choice but to edit the way he wanted it. Gone are those days and now directors have pretty much edit control unless the studio steps in. So this mess is his, and his alone.

 

[buggs0268]

Well, you tell someone to write a returns story... Do you ask them to include Lois going onto a boat with her small child? I don't see Singer going "Man you know what this movie needs? We need Lois to put her child in danger. Dan! Mike! WRITE IT!"

Certain things people didn't like were totally dependant on the writing.

Oh that was his decidision I guarantee you. It is a story motivation. He needed Lois to have the kid with her when she gets attacked for him to save her. No matter what, his big thing was to make a sequel to Superman 2, and I guarantee it was that Superman and Lois would have naturally have had a kid from the unprotected sex he had while he was human. Spacey had said that ever since he met him on "The Usual Suspects" he was running aroudn the set telling everyone his sequel to Superman 2 he wanted to make, and that the main idea was probably (thinking of what he was probably telling people) "Superman and Lois would have had a kid from that, and can you imagine the dynamic of Superman and Lois having a child?" so the kid needed to be with Lois, and lets face it, Lois is a character that is there for Superman to save. She always has been. So I am almost certain her bringing him with her is his idea.