Sequels Singer intereated on directing Superman vs Batman

[Spade]

I have no idea where all this Singer bashing is coming from. X3 did horribly because it lacked his direction, and considering that we could have had Tim Burton running the show with his quasi-Superman I think we should all be appreciative that out of the development hell this film went through someone had the incentive to hire a director who at least has the semblance of a desire to stay true to the original material instead of bashing him because he doesn't see the minority's vision of how a Superman film should be directed.

I posted this in the Returns forum, but I geuss it belongs here as well......

LEAVE IT TO CHRISTOPHER NOLAN GOD DAMNIT

If I can be totally tasteless for a minute, Singer you son of a b*tch, if you touch this movie I'll kill you. Me, killing you, remember it. Leave this film to Nolan and Goyer, don't you or your pathetic lackeys Harris and Dougherty get near this precious piece of work, we don't need two and a half hours of nothing, just plain and simply mother *****ing nothing.

Nolan will own your god damn, mother *****ing soul Singer and you better remember that. Go make Logans Run and stay the ***** away from Batman. You have no right, no god damn right, to ***** on what Nolan has started, just like you ***** on everything that has helped the character of Superman evolve post-Donner.

DO NOT HARM BATMAN!

Not to be controversial with such few posts, but seriously...is there something wrong with you? You probably haven't even met the man. I'm no Singer-lover, but he's a lot better than Nolan in a lot of respects.

 

[retconned]

you've got issues my friend. ps singer did an awsome job on superman.

You obviously don't know what an awesome job is, but I don't have time to explain to you what is wrong with Returns.

 

[retconned]

I just wanted to add that while Ive read a couple poster's call Nolan overrated, Id like to say that both of Singer's X2 falls into that category, very overrated, although I will be the bigger man and say the first X-Men was a damn good movie, unlike Superman Returns.

 

[dpm07]

you've got issues my friend. ps singer did an awsome job on superman.

Singer did a poor job on Superman Returns. This is reflected in his blind insistence of just using the Donner film, and the fact that the film is not what audience's wanted to see in a Superman film. One only has to look at the box office to see that.

Devil Wears Prada was actually competitive with Superman Returns. Either that film is very good or SR is very poor. Either way, it's a sad testament to SR when a niche film like DWP can compete against a film that is "supposed" to be the biggest film of the year. POTC 2 has literally blown SR out of the water.

People who say well box office receipts don't mean a film is good are on crack. People do thinks because they like them when it comes to consumer products, and films are consumer products. One doesn't buy a luxury item because they don't like it. One goes to see a film because they do like it. It's really rather simple. People are not going to see Superman Returns because it's really not a film that people are interested. Hence, they don't like what they are seeing or hearing. This is a poorly written film, and it's paying the price for that at the box office.

POTC 2 is a film that has all the ingredients needed to make a great film, and it works. Why? It has a strong balance of those ingredients. This is something SR is severely lacking.

Making a Superman film exciting, entertaining, and interesting should not be hard. There's no reason Spiderman should be successful and Superman is not. Both are exciting heroes and entertaining. The difference is that Raimi didn't have poor writers doing the movie who are just his friends. He may have had friends, but they were talented. Also, Raimi understands what it takes to make a great superhero film in today's world. Singer either doesn't know or has forgot.

 

[Spade]

Making a Superman film exciting, entertaining, and interesting should not be hard. There's no reason Spiderman should be successful and Superman is not. Both are exciting heroes and entertaining. The difference is that Raimi didn't have poor writers doing the movie who are just his friends. He may have had friends, but they were talented. Also, Raimi understands what it takes to make a great superhero film in today's world. Singer either doesn't know or has forgot.

Though I can agree with you on everything else, don't you think that part of the issue here is that they're using a Superman who is seemingly god-like whereas Spider-Man has at least the average identification with the average moviegoer through Peter Parker is part of the flaw? Not everyone can relate to a character who can move continents with a mild (Kryptonite-impeded, even) effort.

 

[dpm07]

Though I can agree with you on everything else, don't you think that part of the issue here is that they're using a Superman who is seemingly god-like whereas Spider-Man has at least the average identification with the average moviegoer through Peter Parker is part of the flaw? Not everyone can relate to a character who can move continents with a mild (Kryptonite-impeded, even) effort.

I don't have a problem with the allegories and metaphors via visuals like seeing Superman near the sun. This is actually no great revelation. What is an issue is making Superman (like you say) so god-like powerful. I also feel that providing him a son really hurt the film as well, because now you have to either include him in every sequel, or find a reason not to since he has now become so intertwined to Singer's franchise. Singer wouldn't have put the son in their unless he wanted him to be a focal point.

One rule of film, is that when you make children or animals a major character in a film, they take the focus off of the primary character. This is simple filmmaking 101. One doesn't put either into a film unless they want them to be part of the franchise. Again, really including the child was a mistake, and something that has probably alienated many fans of Superman.

Not including a supervillain was a recipe for disaster. It may have worked in the 70's, but here's a reality check...It's not only not the 70's, it's not even the 20th century. Audiences change, and to be a successful writer or filmmaker, one needs to be cognizant of the changes, and have the ability to adapt. Singer gambled and lost. He's a competent director, and I'm sure his career will rebound. I don't think he was the right man to provide a Superman film. He excluded too much of what has made Superman popular in the past decade for what made Superman popular 30+ years ago.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

Singer for the fights. Nolan for everything else.

That's insane. Nolan isn't a Batman fan at all... watching Begins shows us that, just like Singer clearly had no idea what X-Men was. The Spidey films and Superman Returns were clearly films made by guys who LOVED the material and knew how to handle the characters... they didn't just throw some cheeseball rugged one liners up on screen. Nolan doesn't understand how to give a MYSTIQUE to Batman, and he'd probably ruin Superman even more. Just my opinion, but 20 years from now, Nolan's Batman won't have that epic or special feel to it... it'll just feel like the popular "darkness" trend of the early millenium. My favorite films are the ones made BY TRUE FANS who UNDERSTAND THAT CHANGE IS NECESSARY WHEN ADAPTING TO THE BIG SCREEN. Those were all in big letters because somebody will read the "true fans" part and reply that a fan doesn't know how to appeal to the big audience or something. Anyways, that's my take on it... I just hope it's made out of love for the characters, not out of just trying to make it happen for money and bragging rights.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

I don't have a problem with the allegories and metaphors via visuals like seeing Superman near the sun. This is actually no great revelation. What is an issue is making Superman (like you say) so god-like powerful. I also feel that providing him a son really hurt the film as well, because now you have to either include him in every sequel, or find a reason not to since he has now become so intertwined to Singer's franchise. Singer wouldn't have put the son in their unless he wanted him to be a focal point.

One rule of film, is that when you make children or animals a major character in a film, they take the focus off of the primary character. This is simple filmmaking 101. One doesn't put either into a film unless they want them to be part of the franchise. Again, really including the child was a mistake, and something that has probably alienated many fans of Superman.

Not including a supervillain was a recipe for disaster. It may have worked in the 70's, but here's a reality check...It's not only not the 70's, it's not even the 20th century. Audiences change, and to be a successful writer or filmmaker, one needs to be cognizant of the changes, and have the ability to adapt. Singer gambled and lost. He's a competent director, and I'm sure his career will rebound. I don't think he was the right man to provide a Superman film. He excluded too much of what has made Superman popular in the past decade for what made Superman popular 30+ years ago.

Honestly, I think that giving a main character a son is usually a cheap way to spawn sequels, but I was surprised that I thought it worked brilliantly this time. He wasn't a sassy, annoying, blockbuster stereotype wise cracking son (see Mummy Returns for best example). He was quiet, and he served a very important purpose. He made Superman more relatable in that he's now a father (people always whine that he's not relatable, do they not?) and he completed the cycle from Jor-El to Kal-El to Jason. I think the boy will be raised by Marsden, not Superman.... just like SUperman was raised by Johnathan Kent, not Jor-El... both are good MEN who will raise him to see the new world through the eyes of a human, not a stranger. I honestly think that Superman's son will be dead by the third movie because there is no better way to relate Superman to the world of 2006 than to have him bury his own son, something nobody should ever have to do but so many people have recently. I think the son works so well because he merely serves his purpose and advances the story into the unknown, which is far more important than advancing it into the freak of the week formula we may get w/ the Batman sequels (or like Smallville lol). Roger Ebert claimed that the child should have been "sassy". That alone proves that the audience is getting dumber and the bar for greatness is sadly lowering. No kid with a serial killer watching over him and his mom would be cracking jokes. Ebert, you've fallen hard.

On a side of a side note... I predict that ZOD will return. Why? Superman = Jesus. Jor-El, having sent his only son to better the world, = God. Zod, banished by Jor-El from Krypton like Lucifer was banished from Heaven by God, = Satan. What better direction to take the story than to have Zod temping Superman w/ the possibility of darkness... or better yet, tempting his son?

 

[LongDong]

I have no idea where all this Singer bashing is coming from. X3 did horribly because it lacked his direction, and considering that we could have had Tim Burton running the show with his quasi-Superman I think we should all be appreciative that out of the development hell this film went through someone had the incentive to hire a director who at least has the semblance of a desire to stay true to the original material instead of bashing him because he doesn't see the minority's vision of how a Superman film should be directed.



Not to be controversial with such few posts, but seriously...is there something wrong with you? You probably haven't even met the man. I'm no Singer-lover, but he's a lot better than Nolan in a lot of respects.

It came from Singer giving us a crappy fillm. 2 in a row in fact.

 

[retconned]

Would Burton's Superman Lives have been f#cking awful.........Yes

Is that an excuse for Singer and the wack pack's piece of sh#t adaption.....No

 

[Spade]

It came from Singer giving us a crappy fillm. 2 in a row in fact.

Yes, but to actually curse out the guy for being who he is before the idea has even gone into the pre-production phase and before we even know if he will be considered for directing this film is rather harsh.

 

[retconned]

Yes, but to actually curse out the guy for being who he is before the idea has even gone into the pre-production phase and before we even know if he has a great interest in directing this film is rather harsh.

Yea well Singer was being pretty harsh to me when he made Superman Returns.

 

[retconned]

And I want to know who the 7 guys are that want Singer to ruin Batman?

 

[Steelsheen]

i voted OTHER.

i just think that a neutral director, one who hasnt worked with either franchise would do a better job in portaying each character equally instead of overemphasizing one or underrepresenting the other.

 

[GL1]

While I certainly enjoyed Superman Returns, and appreciate it for invigorating the Superma mythos in a way rarely seen, and even though I beleive he has some ability to balance these two characters evenly, I don't know that he WILL. I'm not sure Singer won't change Batman's personality and M.O, or would in some other way make him inequal to the great Superman. I'm not sure Singer would keep it fair, or fun.

It's possible, the idea of Batman being a "villain" in a movie where the twist is that the villain is trying to save lives and the "hero" is the pawn is an exciting one, but I'd rather have an impartial third party, as someone else stated.

 

[chosen1]

Keep Singer Away From All Projects Batman

 

[Clouseau]

what about a possible joint venture between Singer and Nolan??? i think i'd like to see that...

what i'm debating, though, is while i think i'd like to see a Superman vs. Batman movie, i'm not sure about Routh vs. Bale... i'm not sure who i'd prefer, though, so i guess it doesn't matter...

 

[larryfilmmaker]

I'm so confused here. Superman Returns was a bad movie but Batman Begins was great?! WHAT?! Turn down the testosterone and the hard on for grit and look at how two dimensional and cheesy Batman Begins was (though I admit, it was way better than "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin"). I don't know how big of a Batman fan Singer is... but Nolan clearly wasn't either, he just threw in some half assed "character development", some fight scenes where you couldn't tell what was going on, and Christian Bale doing a Henry Rollins impression. IF Singer is a Batman fan, I say he'd be great for this... simply because he was a Superman fan and he nailed every important aspect of the character with one outting, payed tribute, yet left openings for the unknown. For the complaint that he would make Batman inequal... how the hell do you NOT make him physically inequal? Batman fought Al Ghul on a train. Superman can lift a train. See the difference? The story, folks, is in their two completely different points of view. There is gold there, if it's handled right. A guy who doesn't have to work out, who has every reason in the world to do whatever he wants, but still walks a very straight moral line... paired with a mortal man who dresses like a bat to hide his mortality. Trust vs. Fear, that's the real story. I know Nolan would make it cheesy as hell with Batman zinging Supes with one liners and keeping up with him every step of the way by unpredictable means. He'd probably pull a Frank Miller, and make every character with integrity a screw up who's full of crap and doing it for selfish reasons. I don't think Singer would treat Batman like garbage, but I don't know for sure. I'm a huge fan of Superman and Batman both, character wise. In the movies, I think Superman Returns nailed Superman and Batman Begins was so insultingly stupid... but like Pirates, it's hailed as great because the bar is lowering so damn much because instead of great, inspiring and original storytelling, we're more obsessed with good guys with a bad side. haha, Superman and Batman have a bit of a war going on in our newest cartoon... I'll plug it when it's online to see.

 

[Hunter Rider]

^^^^^^^^Opinion and little more IMO

 

[el sensei]

Batman Begins like all of Nolans work is highly overrated.

thats so true and batman begins is no where near superman returns

 

[LongDong]

Keep Singer Away From All Projects Batman

Keep Singer away from HOLLYWOOD!!!!

 

[KaptainKrypton]

The fact that people are actually arguing over a Superman/Batman movie is RETARTED. World's Finest would be a waste of time. If you're going to do a crossover movie...do it right. Make a Justice League film. Establish each character (or a majority of the main ones) in their own franchises, then finish it off with JL. Wonder Woman and Flash are already in development. A well done JLA film would make enough money to literally swim in. I love how it's so en vogue to hate Singer these days, when a lot of the noobs don't even have any kind of clue as to the history of the production or of the previous franchise and all of the near-misses that were narrowly evaded. I loved SR and BB, even if they weren't exactly what I would've done (but then again I'm not a Hollywood director, either). Each to his/her own, I guess.

 

[Steelsheen]

KK, they need to start somewhere, a JLA movie (as much as i would love to have one) would be a bite too big to chew. even the thought of merging the creative teams that brought the BB and SR franchises to life would be pretty hard to wrap your mind around on, and you're not even considering the costs. if they do manage to bring a WF movie worthy of the name whatever work and cost they did on that will be at least double what they're gonna have to do for a JLA movie.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

KK, they need to start somewhere, a JLA movie (as much as i would love to have one) would be a bite too big to chew. even the thought of merging the creative teams that brought the BB and SR franchises to life would be pretty hard to wrap your mind around on, and you're not even considering the costs. if they do manage to bring a WF movie worthy of the name whatever work and cost they did on that will be at least double what they're gonna have to do for a JLA movie.

Not necessarily. It's all in how you shoot the film (locations, size and types of sets, etc.) and what the story is geared around. If they're fighting off a full-scale alien invasion on land, then it'd get costly, but the film wouldn't be slammed full of FX shots for the whole 2-3 hours, I'd hope. X-Men 3 cost around $200 million and was loaded with action (even if they forgot the story, the FX and action were pretty good). If the JLA movie was going to be good, the story would have to be a solid ensemble piece showing the strength of each character. Even the JLU series isn't wall-to-wall action, but also has it's primary strength with the character scenes.

 

[larryfilmmaker]

actually I thought the action in all of the X-Men movies was laughable wirework and kung fu crap