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

[SuperDaniel]

Why can't he stick with both?

Who said he can't? If you guys like SR, good for you. I'll stick with Lois & Clark, the Donner movies, STAS, Smallville, the comics and the reboot!

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?

No. I m saying that 30 years down the line SR will be considered what it is now: A disappointment that never got a sequel and is getting a reboot.

And please don't quote me anymore. I said I had enough.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

And please don't quote me anymore. I said I had enough.

You don't get to make that call. So I suggest you don't order fellow posters around with demands.

 

[Showtime]

Who said he can't? If you guys like SR, good for you. I'll stick with Lois & Clark, the Donner movies, STAS, Smallville, the comics and the reboot!

No. I m saying that 30 years down the line SR will be considered what it is now: A disappointment that never got a sequel and is getting a reboot.

And please don't quote me anymore. I said I had enough.

You're confusing. If you've had enough. Stop posting in this section, The Superman Returns section.

 

[mikey1974]

the biggest problem was what the film actually was...

Superman III , the Re-Do....

which most of today's audiences DIDN'T want...they wanted the balls-to-the-wall, action-packed Superman movie that they've been waiting for....

instead,Singer decided to make a homage to the Donner films...and he made a good homage to the Donner films....but this was neither the time nor the place for that...

A) audiences don't want films with that type of pacing...not today,where you expect more bang for your buck...
B) it was hopelessly destroyed before it ever premiered because you had 2 new actor's (Routh and Bosworth) attempting to fill the shoes of 2 previous actor's (Reeve and Kidder) who made their versions of these roles iconic...i mean,they LITERALLY were meant to be the Reeve and Kidder versions of Supes and Lois,and it was just destined to fail on that respect...and when the 2 leads are destined to fall on their faces,well then the movie doesn't stand much of a chance,does it?

i WILL commend Singer for making the movie HE wanted,and as a kid who was born in the 70's and grew up with the original films,i can appreciate the sentiment of going back there...but Singer SERIOUSLY miscalculated the "Modern" audience for a Superman film in assuming that everyone would want to see the past brought back again...

 

[SuperDaniel]

You don't get to make that call. So I suggest you don't order fellow posters around with demands.

It wasn't meant to be an order. I mean that if people keep quoting me, ill have to answer and i just realized this conversation with these select posters about the movie isnt going anywhere because there are huge differences of opinions and understanding of the movie. So i said, leave me out of this conversation because i've talked enough about SR for the past 5 years. Agree to disagree is what I meant. Time to move on.

 

[SuperDaniel]

You're confusing. If you've had enough. Stop posting in this section, The Superman Returns section.

Im trying! lol

 

[Zack Snyder]

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 hell away from Superman and im sure he will!

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

You may be right in what you said, the simplest response would have been...

SR=no sequel.

MOS=reboot

Obviously something didn't work, and hopefully they are correcting it with the new film.

 

[Zack Snyder]

You don't get to make that call. So I suggest you don't order fellow posters around with demands.

I gotta say after seeing how forceful you have been with opinions in the past, this is like Twilight Zone territory

 

[herolee10]

For me, SR came off more as a closure to the Donnerverse/CR Series than the start of a new franchise.

I'll admit that I enjoyed SR, but like BR, there were a good amount of flaws for the film.

Every route that they should have take, thy either missed it or went about it the wrong way, while every route that they shouldn't have taken, they took in a sense.

From the color tone of the film, to the large amount of usage of CGI Superman, to the uninspired villainous plot, etc.

Granted, SR was miles better than the ideas that were being thrown around for a new superman movie prior to SR's release, but SR was still a badly executed film on a great subject.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

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.

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.

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.

It's not 2,000 different points that we are talking about. It's the popular few... i'd say these two are the one's that need acknowledging the most.

1. The kid (and the fact Lois doesn't remember even having sex with Superman in the first place).

2. The rehashing of Lex's 'land' plan, that also made no sense (he was going to kill millions of people by launching an illegal weapon into the sea and created a land mass... how he thought he would OWN the rights to it, and be able to sell it and make money is beyond me. Ever heard of planning permission?).

I'm not saying he should have to answer for his casting choices, or the chemistry in the movie, because those were, in his opinion, fine. Like you say, it would be pointless to say to him 'so how do you respond to fans thinking Bosworth was a bad Lois', because you know he'd just say 'well I thought she was a great Lois'.

But I would like him to acknowledge some of the movies faults. Because those faults are clear as day to me, and he seems to like to pretend they aren't there.

For me, SR came off more as a closure to the Donnerverse/CR Series than the start of a new franchise.

I'll admit that I enjoyed SR, but like BR, there were a good amount of flaws for the film.

Every route that they should have take, thy either missed it or went about it the wrong way, while every route that they shouldn't have taken, they took in a sense.

From the color tone of the film, to the large amount of usage of CGI Superman, to the uninspired villainous plot, etc.

Granted, SR was miles better than the ideas that were being thrown around for a new superman movie prior to SR's release, but SR was still a badly executed film on a great subject.

Agree with all of that,

And yes, it most certainly is the lesser of the evils. I would take SR over ANY of the 'almost' scripts i've read (other than a good Batman/Superman one I read on superman homepage... can't rememeber who it was by though).

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

It wasn't meant to be an order. I mean that if people keep quoting me, ill have to answer and i just realized this conversation with these select posters about the movie isnt going anywhere because there are huge differences of opinions and understanding of the movie. So i said, leave me out of this conversation because i've talked enough about SR for the past 5 years. Agree to disagree is what I meant. Time to move on.

That's how it came off, and you know it. You're a smart enough poster to know what you were saying when you typed it out.

If they want to quote you during a debate (especially in a thread intended to be a debate arena like this), they can if they so please. Now. It's time to move on.

I gotta say after seeing how forceful you have been with opinions in the past, this is like Twilight Zone territory

Unlike you pulling up old quotes to passively aggressively start fights and then claim you weren't trying to (when it was clear to everyone else you were being troll-ish)? Or making up claims, acting "cranky" and then backing down because "you've been up since 5" after being called out on it?

Keep it up.

 

[Dr.]

It's not 2,000 different points that we are talking about. It's the popular few... i'd say these two are the one's that need acknowledging the most.

1. The kid (and the fact Lois doesn't remember even having sex with Superman in the first place)...

Is that bit of exposition in an extended cut? The theatrical and home video versions I've seen (they appear to be identical) don't (I’m fairly certain) make any mention of amnesia.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

That's exactly the point... it's not mentioned, and very much should be, since SR is supposedly a sequel to Superman 2, set 5 years into the future...

And yet they fail to mention the fact that in Superman 2, we have a 'super kiss' that makes her forget who he is and what they 'did'.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

I thought we both were already stuck in bashing and defending?

Now I'd let the lady (hopeful s.) decide.

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.

Again I know many women who liked it, and that's why our personal friends are not representative of what people out there think.

That said, people complained about lack of action and Singer addressed that as a problem.

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.

Well, everything I've seen from SV has been annoying.

That said, what was outr of character for Lois exactly? Bosworth might have done a bad work - and how many superhero movies' love interests haven't? - but out of character? What exactly?

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 point is, this is his opinion, not yours.

Certainly he did for Donner's fans like me.

Singer already said SR wasn't what people expecting for a fun blockbuster were expecting. So it's good to see that, in spite of all the effort, you agree with him.

And what's this "whatever that means"? You've talked a lot about that for not knowing what it is.

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.

So:

- It split a base that loves to be split fpor any reason.
- Lazenby was in a great Bond movie. Btw, do you think Kilmer was the Bat-Lazenby?
- It will not get a sequel but Transformers 2 will. What does that tell you?
- If you think Donner movies "need" to be put in the past, you should thank the man.
- Same with the reboot.
- Singer is still respected and getting jobs. Superman is not important for most humans. But do you think Snyder's Sucker Punch megabomb will make him less respected just like you think SR did for Singer?

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 hell away from Superman and im sure he will!

See? You and I respect the man.

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

Ok then.

 

[El Payaso]

It's not 2,000 different points that we are talking about. It's the popular few... i'd say these two are the one's that need acknowledging the most.

1. The kid (and the fact Lois doesn't remember even having sex with Superman in the first place).

What is really rong about the kid? The fatherhood theme has been there since the very first movie with Jor-El.

Now, where is this "fact" ever mentioned in the movie? Because it is not. How can, then, be a fact?

2. The rehashing of Lex's 'land' plan, that also made no sense (he was going to kill millions of people by launching an illegal weapon into the sea and created a land mass... how he thought he would OWN the rights to it, and be able to sell it and make money is beyond me. Ever heard of planning permission?).

Wel, let's say Luthor has an alien weapon that can destroy any country that dares to interfere with him. Which wasn't the case in STM. Old-school world taking-over villian.

That's exactly the point... it's not mentioned, and very much should be, since SR is supposedly a sequel to Superman 2, set 5 years into the future...

And yet they fail to mention the fact that in Superman 2, we have a 'super kiss' that makes her forget who he is and what they 'did'.

You're apparently thinking that the sex scene in SII as the only time they had sex. Not necessarily.

But yes, I agree, some subjects should have been explained more. That is in my personal list of SR flaws.

 

[Dr.]

That's exactly the point... it's not mentioned, and very much should be, since SR is supposedly a sequel to Superman 2, set 5 years into the future...

Well, that’s a somewhat problematic conclusion to draw… as the “consummation act” in SII appears to have happened around 1978-80 while SR (explicitly – the date is shown on the front page of the DP) takes place in 2006. Jason would be over 25 years old.

And yet they fail to mention the fact that in Superman 2, we have a 'super kiss' that makes her forget who he is and what they 'did'.

Taking SR as “stand-alone,” the assumptions one makes about its “pre-narrative” events are fairly modest and straightforward: shortly prior to the 5-year absence, Supes and Lois (must have) had sex – which (apparently) resulted in a pregnancy.

In the grand scheme, this is not a profoundly mysterious occurrence which requires Sherlock Holmes–like powers to figure out. And it's not one which remotely inspires the speculation that “amnesia” must somehow be involved.

 

[Zack Snyder]

I posted different comments, not just yours. It was just to show how many people thought it would never happen, and it's cool that it did. Why can't you laugh about being wrong Also for me, I wasn't making an excuse about no sleep, I read something from you that I thought was rude but figured it just bugged me because I honestly was on no sleep. Truth like it or love it.

 

[Zack Snyder]

Go back and read that thread, what I got mad about was how your attitude read. Arrogant and pushy. I know you don't mean it bad, as it's just the way you are, but that's why sometimes people get annoyed with you. Just some advice. Now that you are a mod you should probably tone down on how you talk to people at times. It's not always civil enough. I suppose we've gone off topic. Cheers, just advice.

 

[Showtime]

Well to be honest...Zack...you've been annoying the moderating team and some of the posters for a little while now. So some advice to you, stop doing what you're doing.

You came in this thread strictly to comment on Jamie's post as he was addressing another poster as a Moderator. You were bringing nothing to the thread in regards to Superman. You want to talk about Returns, talk about Returns. You want to talk about people's approach as posters or your thoughts on moderation, you can have a couple days off for spamming.

Cheers.

 

[Zack Snyder]

That's not my perspective, but I respect your civility in all honesty. I'll try not to annoy if I've been doing so.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Well, that’s a somewhat problematic conclusion to draw… as the “consummation act” in SII appears to have happened around 1978-80 while SR (explicitly – the date is shown on the front page of the DP) takes place in 2006. Jason would be over 25 years old.

Sliding timeline.

Iron Man 2 takes place six months after Iron Man. Does Iron Man 2 take place in November 2008? No.

Does the Dark Knight take place in December 2005?

 

[Dr.]

Sliding timeline.

Iron Man 2 takes place six months after Iron Man. Does Iron Man 2 take place in November 2008? No.

For direct sequels, there’s no great confusion for audiences. For example, the events of The Bourne Ultimatum immediately follow The Bourne Supremacy – even though the films, themselves, were released three years apart. Similarly: Iron Man 1 & 2 or STM & SII. There’s an internal timeline that can be understood. And it certainly helps that there are no obvious discontinuities with, say, electric typewriters in a first film suddenly being upgraded to keyboards and flatscreens in its sequel.

It’s a different situation, though, trying to couple the Donner films with SR. Quite apart from changes in clothing, décor and technology, specific dates – separated by nearly three decades - are referenced. Even with generous wiggle room, a “sliding timeline” can’t reconcile a conception that occurs in or around 1980 and the birth of a child some twenty years later. Reasonable to conclude, therefore, that separate iterations and continuities are involved.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

There’s an internal timeline that can be understood. And it certainly helps that there are no obvious discontinuities with, say, electric typewriters in a first film suddenly being upgraded to keyboards and flatscreens in its sequel.

No, its the same principle. Only the gap is larger. If Iron Man takes place in 2009, why is Stark using cell phones from 2007? Someone so up to date on the latest tech would never carry such "outdated" gadget.

Even with generous wiggle room, a “sliding timeline” can’t reconcile a conception that occurs in or around 1980 and the birth of a child some twenty years later.

But it can. Because the child won't be conceived in the 80's but closer to the millenium. It is the same concept applied in the comics. How long has it been in the Marvel universe since Superheroes started appearing? A little over a decade. Yet "over a decade" was the 40's. It is all part of the suspension of disbelieve process.

 

[M.E.H.Z.E.B]

My personal reasons and understanding for not thinking that Superman Returns worked:

1. The overall storyline was more indie-romedy than summer blockbuster. People expect popcorn movies at that time, not ones which make you reach for the tissues, sigh, or hold your date in your arms.

2. The setting, and the blandness of how Metropolis was shown without colour and without life. It was too unemotional, and at no point was there any scene which showed that the city had actually "moved on" from Superman - something which should have been highlighted, considering that was what Bryan Singer was going for.

3. The fact that Superman was less "super" and more below-average in terms of morality; showing him to be a deadbeat dad... not a good idea. People don't even want to see him being a father, and a deadbeat deserter? No way. Women see Superman as the ultimate embodiment of what a man should be, and men aspire to be like him... not Singer's Superman, though.

4. There was no excitement or wow factor to attract audiences for a second-viewing, as the action was minimal, the drama was soap opera-ish, and there was a lack of comedic sharpness.

5. The villains were too campy... and the decision to have Kevin Spacey do an impression of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, an interpretation of the character which had been dead for the last 30 years, was a supremely poor decision. The animated series, the first season of Lois and Clark, and recently Smallville have had sinister Luthors who the current generation relate to, and accept as the character's true calling.

6. Casting an unknown, and a relative-unknown to star as Clark Kent and Lois Lane. It did not help to fill the seats. Big names attract big money, well usually at least. If not, it has to be a great movie, with a great script. Three out of three wrong for SR.

7. A spunkless, and pre-occupied mother Lois Lane, who fans could not relate to. Most want to see the back-and-forths between Lois and Clark. Lois trying to outdo him and pip him to stories. Some inter-office competition; instances when they surprise each other.

8. People had more sympathy about James Marsden's character than Superman, because of the keyhole peeping, eavesdropping and other unethical stuff The Boyscout was doing to another man's fiancee.

9. The Jesus analogies and the religious overkill. Please, Superman is not a Christian hero, neither is a Jewish hero, nor a Muslim hero, nor a Buddhist... you get the idea. Why typecast him? Non-religious people, and those of us not of the Christian faith found it to be unnecessary, and somewhat alienated. He is supposed to be a hero of the world, irrespective of religion. Why use him as a tool to further religious beliefs?

10. And finally, the decision to stay within the Donnerverse and to be all nostalgic about it. There is a reason why Superman III and IV were less successful than the rest. By the end of Superman II, people wanted to see a different take on the character. That is why a very below-par Lois & Clark got so much attention in 1993.

Batman's reinvention in 1989 was a catalyst for the Superhero genre to be taken seriously in Hollywood. Essentially, to me, Batman 1989 was a step away from the 1966 Adam West Batman. Batman Begins (2005) was a move in the opposite direction from 1997's Batman and Robin.

Superman Returns should have gotten as far away from Donner as possible. It should have given us a Superman of the 2000s. Superman IV had done the franchise a huge amount of damage. It should have reinvented the character, rather than just the suit and the \S/.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Couldn`t have said it better. But about point 6, i dont think the problem were the actors because they are decent and even if i think that Routh is not a good actor and is very bland sometimes, he was a good Superman. Singer's idea and script were the main problem. Not even Oscar winner Kevin Spacey could save that stupid version of Luthor. Although i do agree that Lois should've been portrayed by a more experienced actress.