Sequels SHOULD Singer even return to the X-Men franchise?

[Specter313]

I'm sure you've all seen the news where Singer and Fox have talked about him possibly returning to the franchise that he helped to kick off, but the question that some are asking is, "Should he?" I'm sure there are pros and cons to going both ways. Below is an interesting article that argues for him not returning. Sound off on whether you agree or disagree, obviously keeping it civil, and post any articles you want stating the same or stating that he could return.



When Bryan Singer left the X-Men film franchise to film the reboot of the Superman, comic fans were torn: on the one hand, he was leaving the characters he'd knocked out of the park twice already, in X-Men and X2: X-Men United, but on the other hand he was hopefully going to make Superman cool again. It's a win-win! Well, cut to a few years later, and it's a lose-lose: the retro throwback Superman Returns is underperforming at the box office and Brett Ratner's X-Men: The Last Stand is underperforming in fans' expectations. With Superman in line to get another, more reboot-y reboot, Singer is no longer involved, and is now talking to Fox about rejoining the X-Men franchise. While a small part of us would love to see a proper sequel to the first two decent X-Men movies, we mostly want him to stay far, far away. Here's why.

1. It's too little, too late.
Since Singer's departure, the X-Men franchise has mutated -- no pun intended -- into a completely different Beast. (Okay, that one was intentional.) For better or worse, Ratner's Last Stand completed the traditional trilogy by killing Jean Grey and Professor Xavier, although the latter's mental resurrection was hinted at in the final scene. Singer's muse Hugh Jackman has gone on to star in his own solo film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and a sequel is already in the works, so his availability for another X-Men might be in question. That, combined with plans for a prequel film, X-Men: First Class, which would feature Xavier's young, original students, and a spin-off starring Ryan Reynold's Deadpool, doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for Singer, whose strength so far seems to be adult ensemble pieces with largely male casts, like The Usual Suspects and Valkyrie.

2. Superman Returns was... disappointing.
We get what Singer was trying to do -- he was trying to pay homage to and update the first two cheesy-yet-beloved Superman movies from 1978 and '80. Except Brandon Routh, while chiseled from the same stone as Christopher Reeve, lacked the original actor's charm, and the idea that Lois had given birth to Clark's illegitimate, super-powered son while he was away in space didn't sit well with some fans. Kevin Spacey was a wonderfully villainous Lex Luthor, but his continued fixation on real estate is getting a little old. Overall, the movie was heavy on disasters and soap opera-like relationships, but light on any other action, mainly due to there not being any supervillain who could stand toe-to-toe with the hero -- or any supervillain at all, for that matter. If this was how he followed up Superman I and II, how would he follow up X-Men 1 and 2? We shudder to think.

3. We get it: He has something to say.
In the article, Singer says that he likes to "trick audiences into thinking they're seeing fireworks, but they're learning about themselves and listening to what I have to say." That's all well and good, and we certainly appreciate the parallels drawn in the X-films between being a mutant and being gay or a minority, but at some point you need to quit tricking and start focusing on the fireworks. If you emphasize your message too much, then you get what happened on Superman Returns, where the production was overshadowed by the rumor that Routh would come out of the closet, a rumor not helped by his appearance on the cover of The Advocate next to the headline, "How Gay is Superman?" (The comparison was to Clark Kent's hidden life as a hero, but Warner Bros. certainly didn't appreciate the implication.) If the comparison can be made subtly or humorously within the context of a good story -- as in X2: "Have you tried not being a mutant?" -- then it's not a problem, but if your goal is always to "trick" the audience, then you clearly like superheroes for the wrong reasons.

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.co...-bryan-singer-should-not-re.php#blog_comments

 

[CelticPredator]

****ing yes. Valkyrie was ****ing good.

 

[katie_girl09]

Singer had his time. Let someone else have a go at it.

 

[CelticPredator]

And we let two people in...and they screwed it up.

 

[katie_girl09]

... So that means that everyone will? And that also means that Bryan Singer won't? And anyway, the problem with Wolverine was with the script, not the director per se.

 

[CelticPredator]

The director didnt do anything. The acting sucked --- fault of the director----the movie had no visual flair, looked boring ----- fault of the director.

Singer did 2 fantastic movies. Superman sucked, but the movie had good acting, and it DID look good.

 

[Project862006]

sm was a good directed movie as well just had no action lol

the script would be good because singer works with Michael Dougherty when doing the script for the 2 x men films he did

having singer back cant be bad at all you can only go up from here imo

 

[Deaths Head II]

I don't really care at this point. I don't think Singer suits any project other then Wolverine 2, which isn't really enough to "save" the franchise unless the plan is just drop the X-Men and make a franchise of Wolverine films. If an X4 is made, Singer probably will not be the one to offer the one the fans want since I doubt he'll retcon most of X3. Singer would probably not want to do First Class because the way he talks makes me believe he misses working with Hugh the most. I don't consider Deadpool to be an actual X-Men film and I don't know how appropriate he would be for a Deadpool film. And Magneto is not getting made.

So all we have is Wolverine 2 (which may be a perfect fit but I don't care that much), X-Men 4 (which may be an objectively good film but won't bring back my love for the series), or First Class (which he probably doesn't wanna do)

So yeah, even if Singer comes back it's not going to make me more hopeful for the franchise. If he had stayed on for X3, we would have an X4 and an X5 would be in the works. Now the only thing there is in the franchise is spin offs and an unlikely X4 that has to pick up the pieces after X3 if it ever does get made.

 

[Manic X]

I don't really care at this point. I don't think Singer suits any project other then Wolverine 2, which isn't really enough to "save" the franchise unless the plan is just drop the X-Men and make a franchise of Wolverine films. If an X4 is made, Singer probably will not be the one to offer the one the fans want since I doubt he'll retcon most of X3. Singer would probably not want to do First Class because the way he talks makes me believe he misses working with Hugh the most. I don't consider Deadpool to be an actual X-Men film and I don't know how appropriate he would be for a Deadpool film. And Magneto is not getting made.

So all we have is Wolverine 2 (which may be a perfect fit but I don't care that much), X-Men 4 (which may be an objectively good film but won't bring back my love for the series), or First Class (which he probably doesn't wanna do)

So yeah, even if Singer comes back it's not going to make me more hopeful for the franchise. If he had stayed on for X3, we would have an X4 and an X5 would be in the works. Now the only thing there is in the franchise is spin offs and an unlikely X4 that has to pick up the pieces after X3 if it ever does get made.

Why are there fans always talking about 'retconning' X3? Retcon what?

The death of Xavier? He's still alive.
The death of Cyclops? He's never even shown dead.
The death of Jean Grey? She's the bloody Pheonix.

The curing of Magneto, Rogue, and Mystique? The cure was hinted at being temporary.

It just doesn't make sense what all the *****ing about X3 was over. And I'm a cyclops fan to boot, and loved X3.

 

[Deaths Head II]

The death of Cyclops? He's never even shown dead.

The natural assumption of the audience is that he is dead. The effect on his face was the same as the Professor's before he died. Jean told Wolverine to stop her before she kills somebody else. Professor X says that she killed the man she loved because she couldn't control her powers. Wolverine tells the rest of the team that he is dead. The X-Men made a grave for Cyclops. The natural assumption is that he's dead.

If they have to reshoot the scene or explain it away to show that the natural assumption is wrong because the studio changed their minds later that is by its very definition a retcon. In the comics, is there ever a "real" resurrection? Everytime it is the character saying that everyone else was wrong to assume they were dead and offscreen they managed to recover or avoid from whatever supposedly killed them. If they show a flashback where Cable travels back in time to save Cyclops or Cyclops simply says that Sinister captured him, that's a retcon.

On top of that, Cyclops isn't liked or important enough in the films to have a retcon be demanded. Jean and the Professor got better treatment in the films so when she died in X2 people cared to see her again in X3 and people would care to see the Professor in X4. Cyclops was unimportant enough to get an offscreen death fifteen minutes in. The only way he's coming back is if the director cares. Singer got Cyclops where he is now in the first place so he won't be the one to bother with a "Search for Cyclops" story. And audiences would just say "Who gives a damn about Cyclops? This movie blows."

The death of Jean Grey? She's the bloody Pheonix.

Yeah, having her come back to life in the comics over and over again didn't diminish her character and make her a walking joke.

The curing of Magneto, Rogue, and Mystique? The cure was hinted at being temporary.

Great, so Magneto and Mystique have to appear to explain their circumstances. Which means this will either HAVE to be a Magneto and Mystique movie or the aftermath of the cure will be squeezed in with some other plot.

It just doesn't make sense what all the *****ing about X3 was over. And I'm a cyclops fan to boot, and loved X3.

Well it halted the franchise. So that film you loved so much is why we'll probably never get an X4.

 

[CelticPredator]

X-3 sucks. It sucks hard. And I'm a movie's fan only.

 

[BMM]

I’m indifferent to Singer returning. The movie I wanted to see Singer direct was X-Men 3. Since then, I’ve grown increasingly apathetic toward the franchise. The one thing I do like about Singer in relation to the X-Men films, and what might help the franchise, is that he doesn’t seem particularly intimated by Fox and he may have more leverage than a newcomer. If Singer returns, great. If not, it won’t kill me. It’s not exactly like Fox has me on the edge of my seat, waiting to see where the studio takes the franchise next.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

ya, but, if he returns now, will he still have that leverage, or will he basically be starting over as a newcomer in fox’s eyes

I mean, I would imagine Fox wasn't too happy with him leaving the franchise in the first place, and would probably hesitate to bring him back, and would most likely feel like their doing him a favor by doing so, thinking they now have leverage on him

 

[Deaths Head II]

I’m indifferent to Singer returning. The movie I wanted to see Singer direct was X-Men 3. Since then, I’ve grown increasingly apathetic toward the franchise.

I feel the same way except I was interested in where the franchise was going next. I wanted Singer to direct X3 because if he had the franchise wouldn't have been halted and the films wouldn't started a decline in quality. And I would still care to see them.

ya, but, if he returns now, will he still have that leverage, or will he basically be starting over as a newcomer in fox’s eyes

I mean, I would imagine Fox wasn't too happy with him leaving the franchise in the first place, and would probably hesitate to bring him back, and would most likely feel like their doing him a favor by doing so, thinking they now have leverage on him

I think so too. People point out that it looks like Singer is crawling back to Fox after Superman Returns bombed so I don't think Singer is going to have any leverage with Fox.

 

[The Guard]

1. Too little, too late is just nonsense.

2. SUPERMAN RETURNS was disappointing for the same reason X-MEN and X2 were somewhat disappointing. There's just not a lot of comic book source material in the film. Singer went too far with his concept. Granted, FOX is more to blame for certain elements of the three X-movies, but Singer will never be bringing the "perfect" X-Men movie to theatres. However, that's an issue you'll likely have with other directors as well.

3. At no point should Singer simply focus on the fireworks. This franchise was great when it had something to say, and the best parts of X3 were when it had something to say.

I look at it this way. You're unlikely to find anyone with Singer's sensibilities toward the material. Ratner mimiced them, and the writers explored the concept, but Singer had a particular approach to it.

Basically, there are worse choices.

 

[Manic X]

The natural assumption of the audience is that he is dead. The effect on his face was the same as the Professor's before he died. Jean told Wolverine to stop her before she kills somebody else. Professor X says that she killed the man she loved because she couldn't control her powers. Wolverine tells the rest of the team that he is dead. The X-Men made a grave for Cyclops. The natural assumption is that he's dead.

If they have to reshoot the scene or explain it away to show that the natural assumption is wrong because the studio changed their minds later that is by its very definition a retcon. In the comics, is there ever a "real" resurrection? Everytime it is the character saying that everyone else was wrong to assume they were dead and offscreen they managed to recover or avoid from whatever supposedly killed them. If they show a flashback where Cable travels back in time to save Cyclops or Cyclops simply says that Sinister captured him, that's a retcon.

On top of that, Cyclops isn't liked or important enough in the films to have a retcon be demanded. Jean and the Professor got better treatment in the films so when she died in X2 people cared to see her again in X3 and people would care to see the Professor in X4. Cyclops was unimportant enough to get an offscreen death fifteen minutes in. The only way he's coming back is if the director cares. Singer got Cyclops where he is now in the first place so he won't be the one to bother with a "Search for Cyclops" story. And audiences would just say "Who gives a damn about Cyclops? This movie blows."

Yeah, having her come back to life in the comics over and over again didn't diminish her character and make her a walking joke.

Great, so Magneto and Mystique have to appear to explain their circumstances. Which means this will either HAVE to be a Magneto and Mystique movie or the aftermath of the cure will be squeezed in with some other plot.

Well it halted the franchise. So that film you loved so much is why we'll probably never get an X4.

What you are describing are not retcons. What you are describing are is simply normal storytelling.
Retcon involves taking something, and just blatantly saying it did not happen. Without Cyclops being shown dead, you can progress the story without retconning by coming up with well, whatever the writer feels like coming up with.

 

[Construct]

The natural assumption of the audience is that he is dead. The effect on his face was the same as the Professor's before he died. Jean told Wolverine to stop her before she kills somebody else. Professor X says that she killed the man she loved because she couldn't control her powers. Wolverine tells the rest of the team that he is dead. The X-Men made a grave for Cyclops. The natural assumption is that he's dead.

If they have to reshoot the scene or explain it away to show that the natural assumption is wrong because the studio changed their minds later that is by its very definition a retcon. In the comics, is there ever a "real" resurrection? Everytime it is the character saying that everyone else was wrong to assume they were dead and offscreen they managed to recover or avoid from whatever supposedly killed them. If they show a flashback where Cable travels back in time to save Cyclops or Cyclops simply says that Sinister captured him, that's a retcon.

On top of that, Cyclops isn't liked or important enough in the films to have a retcon be demanded. Jean and the Professor got better treatment in the films so when she died in X2 people cared to see her again in X3 and people would care to see the Professor in X4. Cyclops was unimportant enough to get an offscreen death fifteen minutes in. The only way he's coming back is if the director cares. Singer got Cyclops where he is now in the first place so he won't be the one to bother with a "Search for Cyclops" story. And audiences would just say "Who gives a damn about Cyclops? This movie blows."

You raise interesting points. The natural assumption is that he is dead, and perhaps he should stay that way to avoid making the story seem unstable.

Still, he probably isn't dead. If you notice when the Phoenix kills Xavier and anyone else after him, objects around her are in a state of suspended animation just before she completes her kill, and right after, they fall back under normal gravity. In addition, under no circumstance during those kills is she found unconscious afterward.

When Storm and Wolverine go to Alkali Lake, objects are still found in a state of suspended animation and Jean is found unconscious, which leads one to believe that she was stopped just before she was to kill Cyclops; this makes his survival probable.

Why should Cyclops return anyway? As this series is a saga where every film is a direct sequel, the stakes are likely to become higher and more different characters are likely to be introduced. Two inclusions in particular would signal those shifts, Mr. Sinister and Cable, both of which are tied to Cyclops and are maximized with his involvement.

Moreover, Jean's death opens the door for Madelyne Pryor to be introduced to explore the dramatic possibilities involving her and Scott's relationship, as well as Scott and Sinister's relationship. That's enough drama to warrant Scott as a focus in a subplot, at least, to finally give him the attention that many fans feel that he deserves in a film; it would also be appropriate given the storyline.

 

[X-Maniac]

1. It's too little, too late.
Since Singer's departure, the X-Men franchise has mutated -- no pun intended -- into a completely different Beast. (Okay, that one was intentional.) For better or worse, Ratner's Last Stand completed the traditional trilogy by killing Jean Grey and Professor Xavier, although the latter's mental resurrection was hinted at in the final scene. Singer's muse Hugh Jackman has gone on to star in his own solo film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and a sequel is already in the works, so his availability for another X-Men might be in question. That, combined with plans for a prequel film, X-Men: First Class, which would feature Xavier's young, original students, and a spin-off starring Ryan Reynold's Deadpool, doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for Singer, whose strength so far seems to be adult ensemble pieces with largely male casts, like The Usual Suspects and Valkyrie.

I don't believe it's too little, too late, at all. Singer is now well aware that he gained, or at least consolidated, his acclaim on the X-Men franchise.

I think he'd be best suited to X-Men 4 and also Magneto. But he is a great fan of Wolverine, so he may end up doing that, even though i'm not sure he will handle its need for kinetic martial arts ninja/samurai sequences that well.

2. Superman Returns was... disappointing.
We get what Singer was trying to do -- he was trying to pay homage to and update the first two cheesy-yet-beloved Superman movies from 1978 and '80. Except Brandon Routh, while chiseled from the same stone as Christopher Reeve, lacked the original actor's charm, and the idea that Lois had given birth to Clark's illegitimate, super-powered son while he was away in space didn't sit well with some fans. Kevin Spacey was a wonderfully villainous Lex Luthor, but his continued fixation on real estate is getting a little old. Overall, the movie was heavy on disasters and soap opera-like relationships, but light on any other action, mainly due to there not being any supervillain who could stand toe-to-toe with the hero -- or any supervillain at all, for that matter. If this was how he followed up Superman I and II, how would he follow up X-Men 1 and 2? We shudder to think.

Superman Returns was actually critically well-received, but divided the fanbase and it's only now that many movie sites are calling it 'disappointing' and 'lacklustre' - most of them were defending it at the time. To me, it was obvious at the time that SR was over-indulgent and not exciting enough, even though I could see Singer had poured his heart into it (so much so that he couldn't see the wood for the trees).

If Superman was Singer's dream project, then I can see why he left to do it, especially if he wasn't locked down into an X3 deal. But it's odd that he didn't finish his vision for the series.

However, his work on X-Men was less indulgent, more respectful of the source material, more exciting (if sometimes a little restrained) and better regarded.

3. We get it: He has something to say.
In the article, Singer says that he likes to "trick audiences into thinking they're seeing fireworks, but they're learning about themselves and listening to what I have to say." That's all well and good, and we certainly appreciate the parallels drawn in the X-films between being a mutant and being gay or a minority, but at some point you need to quit tricking and start focusing on the fireworks. If you emphasize your message too much, then you get what happened on Superman Returns, where the production was overshadowed by the rumor that Routh would come out of the closet, a rumor not helped by his appearance on the cover of The Advocate next to the headline, "How Gay is Superman?" (The comparison was to Clark Kent's hidden life as a hero, but Warner Bros. certainly didn't appreciate the implication.) If the comparison can be made subtly or humorously within the context of a good story -- as in X2: "Have you tried not being a mutant?" -- then it's not a problem, but if your goal is always to "trick" the audience, then you clearly like superheroes for the wrong reasons.

Themes and social commentary are good. District 9 thrived on such things, The Dark Knight had a lot of them, so did Iron Man, and X3 also dealt with a lot of them.

A story with meaning and relevance is a good thing. And, in comic book adaptations, if it's a story that brings us those requisite fireworks, then I want it now! We don't want to see superpowered beings sitting round knitting.

The extent of the fireworks depends on the movie. I wouldn't expect huge spectacle and fireworks in Magneto (but what is in the script, which I have here, is perfectly adequate). Nor would I expect earth-shaking spectacle in First Class, but it will need fireworks - you can't have a building full of people with mutated DNA AND teenage hormones and expect just to see them silently studying textbooks.

 

[BMM]

ya, but, if he returns now, will he still have that leverage, or will he basically be starting over as a newcomer in fox’s eyes

I mean, I would imagine Fox wasn't too happy with him leaving the franchise in the first place, and would probably hesitate to bring him back, and would most likely feel like their doing him a favor by doing so, thinking they now have leverage on him

That's a good question. In my opinion, Singer certainly doesn't have the same kind of leverage as when he left after X2. Then again, Fox isn't in the same position either. The studio hasn't exactly been releasing the best or most successful films, and the X-Men franchise has taken a beating since Singer's departure.

 

[chaseter]

Yes, let him come back. He is the only hope I have for any of these films being good again. X3 and Wolverine were trash.

 

[Raiden]

I think they should get another director for next X-Men movie. Singer's two X-Men movies were pretty good, and way better than that disappointing X3 and XMO: Wolverine. However, the problem is that Singer takes alot of liberty with the source material, and he changes many things that aren't consistent with the X-Men comics. I'd like to see another director taking a crack at it, and not having to adhere to Singer's vision for this series. However, they must do a better job at finding the right director for it because the last two directors they hired pretty much su*k.

 

[Deaths Head II]

What you are describing are not retcons. What you are describing are is simply normal storytelling.
Retcon involves taking something, and just blatantly saying it did not happen. Without Cyclops being shown dead, you can progress the story without retconning by coming up with well, whatever the writer feels like coming up with.

I'm not going to argue semantics, but I don't see what is a retcon is if Cyclops coming back isn't one. Every retcon follows the same exact format that a Cyclops return would, like I said before.

Regardless if it's a retcon or not, it's not going to happen. Like I said, Cyclops isn't important enough to bother bringing back. The general audience isn't going to be drawn by the search for Cyclops nor are they waiting in anticipation for the outcome. Cyclops only is coming back if the crew feels like doing it and most crews would definitely not feel like doing it. Fox is concerned with Wolverine.

You raise interesting points. The natural assumption is that he is dead, and perhaps he should stay that way to avoid making the story seem unstable.

Still, he probably isn't dead. If you notice when the Phoenix kills Xavier and anyone else after him, objects around her are in a state of suspended animation just before she completes her kill, and right after, they fall back under normal gravity. In addition, under no circumstance during those kills is she found unconscious afterward.

When Storm and Wolverine go to Alkali Lake, objects are still found in a state of suspended animation and Jean is found unconscious, which leads one to believe that she was stopped just before she was to kill Cyclops; this makes his survival probable.

Why should Cyclops return anyway? As this series is a saga where every film is a direct sequel, the stakes are likely to become higher and more different characters are likely to be introduced. Two inclusions in particular would signal those shifts, Mr. Sinister and Cable, both of which are tied to Cyclops and are maximized with his involvement.

Moreover, Jean's death opens the door for Madelyne Pryor to be introduced to explore the dramatic possibilities involving her and Scott's relationship, as well as Scott and Sinister's relationship. That's enough drama to warrant Scott as a focus in a subplot, at least, to finally give him the attention that many fans feel that he deserves in a film; it would also be appropriate given the storyline.

I've heard the arguments for Cyclops being alive but like I said they're not going to bring Cyclops back unless the crew feels like it and they most likely won't. Cyclops was viewed as unimportant enough to be apparantly killed off 15 minutes into a film offscreen.

Cyclops' ties to Sinister, Cable, Madelyne are irrelevant. They gave the Phoenix Saga to Wolverine, they can give those stories to him too. I can even see it now: Wolverine is the ultimate mutant and Sinister wants him to procreate with Jean Grey to create more super mutant babies. Sinister creates Madelyne to replace Jean so she and Wolverine make sweet music together. Cable is Wolverine from the future like in the Ultimate X-Men universe.

I think X3 also revealed that aspect to the X-Films to me as well: Fox is willing to take whatever X-Men story they can and make Wolverine the center regardless of how well he suits the role. At least in X1 and X2 his storyline was not being Cyclops like it was in X3.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Nope. Cause you see while the man makes a good film, and even a good science fiction film (X-Men and X2 show this), he just simply doesn't get the X-Men. He gets Wolverine, Magneto, and Xavier, but asides from that, he's got no clue what to do.

He's better than Ratner for sure, but he's like Raimi to Spider-Man (who admittedly got a few more things right than Singer did.) not aware to make a film that feels like X-Men, he can make a good movie, just don't ask it to feel like X-Men.

It's just best to let Fox run this into the ****ing crapper and let someone else reboot it in a couple years.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Nope. Cause you see while the man makes a good film, and even a good science fiction film (X-Men and X2 show this), he just simply doesn't get the X-Men. He gets Wolverine, Magneto, and Xavier, but asides from that, he's got no clue what to do.

He's better than Ratner for sure, but he's like Raimi to Spider-Man (who admittedly got a few more things right than Singer did.) not aware to make a film that feels like X-Men, he can make a good movie, just don't ask it to feel like X-Men.

It's just best to let Fox run this into the ****ing crapper and let someone else reboot it in a couple years.

I think Singer understands what X-Men is about: oppression, bigotry, acceptance, and the slow, painful growth of society when accommodating different groups and kinds of people. You could say it's about reaching maturity and understanding in general.

The only thing he probably needed to have emphasized more is the flashiness and adventurous feeling of X-Men.

It's Superman he has no clue about.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

I think Singer understands what X-Men is about: oppression, bigotry, acceptance, and the slow, painful growth of society when accommodating different groups and kinds of people. You could say it's about reaching maturity and understanding in general.

The only thing he probably needed to have emphasized more is the flashiness and adventurous feeling of X-Men.

It's Superman he has no clue about.

It's BOTH he has no clue about. He's not made to be making comic book movies.

The man is a great director, but he should stick to doing his own projects, and not handling things that are already pre-created/adaptions.