I never said they were perfect directors; only that they were good. Sure, there are things both of them could have done better, but perhaps another director who did said things would have missed out on other stuff.
Anyway, the only reason I felt a need to comment on your post was due to past posts you've made where you flat out attacked Singer and his X-Men films completely... back then it seemed like you didn't like ANYTHING about his movies... apparently your position has changed somewhat. Regardless, if his films seemed to lack imagination, I think it was because he was trying to blend realism with fantasy and also spent a lot of time developing the characters. I know that I'd much rather see a superhero movie where I give a crap about the hero versus one where I get to see some guy I don't give a rat's ass about throw cars at people. As for the story... what was so wrong with it? I'll admit, the "change humans to mutants" machine felt a little forced and silly, but everything else... the political parallelism, the character development and interaction... it was all well-done in my opinion except for 2 characters... Cyclops and Storm. These two were not only miscast, but also should have been much more central and interesting (Cyke anyway... Storm I've always found pretty dull, even in the comics). Other than that though... how can you say Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, etc. were miscast? Who would you have casted?
I will agree that Fantastic 4 was pretty bad though. It was almost like watching a plotless superhero movie. As I watched that film and saw the heroes and the villain wander around aimlessly because they didn't know what to do with their powers, I began to realize that this may have been a metaphor for what the screenwriter and the director did while making this movie. And making Dr. Doom a complete Norman Osborn clone (the villain story was almost word-for-word the same as Spider-Man 1) was unforgiveable.