4:11 WITH BRYAN SINGER

[MattBrady]

by Daniel Robert Epstein

Bryan Singer received a variety of responses at the San Diego Comic-Con. From fans at panels to journalists asking him questions, everyone seemed to have an opinion they wanted to offer to him personally. I got a chance to talk with Singer for four minutes and 11 seconds.

Newsarama: Superman Returns of course, will make plenty of money. The DVD is going to be monstrous. But it seems it’s not as successful as everyone wanted it to be or as successful as people wanted it to be.

Bryan Singer: Domestically. Internationally it has so far exceeded our expectations. I was personally surprised because it is an American superhero. Compared to my experiences with the X-Men movies I feel disproportioned. The strangest surprise has definitely been the international gross.

NRAMA: What happened in America?

BS: In my personal estimation I felt it was an issue with the marketing. You’ve got a dense summer and you’re resurrecting a character. There’s a different kind of approach you’ve got to take when you bring in something new. Even though he’s Superman and the character is ubiquitous, a Superman movie is a very new thing and it has to be presented in a new way. So a lot of that burden falls on the kind of presentation it is given.

NRAMA: I was really surprised that the plot of Superman Returns mirrored the plot of Donner’s Superman movie so much.

BS: It takes you on the same journey that the original one did but as an adult which was quite intentional. Right down to him sinking in the water. It is not remaking the first one but I wanted to take the audience on the same kind of journey as the first one but with a mature guy who’s going through a dilemma that wasn’t in the first one. It’s in the marketing. I don’t know how to specifically qualify but it has to be understood how to present something that hasn’t been around for a while. The last Superman, Superman IV, in its American release made 15 million dollars. It is still something new and it has to be launched on the flip side of the other movies of its ilk.

NRAMA: After he gave up his powers in Superman II, Lois and Superman slept together. I’m going to assume that that’s when he got her pregnant…

BS: Possibly.

NRAMA: Then he gives her the kiss, which made her forget that they even slept together. Was the pregnancy a mystery for her?

BS: I ignored that part. I just assumed she remembered sleeping with him.

[gokujam]

But.....If she remebers sleeping with him, shouldnt she remember his secret identity too???



btw: first post . heh

[BlackDog]

Nice, the interviewer managed to point out two very important issues which many comicbook fans had gripes about. Singer did a great job on answering them, he was very straightforward about it, and I think he's right in regards to reintroducing Superman again.

IMO, Superman Returns is a great movie and the sequel will probably be outstanding.

[ZEBULON]

Looks like he shouldn't have abandoned ship on x-men.

[Beefcliff]

Oh please, he's blaming it on marketing? That's such an overused excuse. The movie didn't make more money because it could have been better. It would have made a great movie for 1980, but more people were expecting a comic book movie of the same vein of Spiderman and Xmen- namely the film's primary audience. The teens and early twenties who pack theaters every weekend weren't alive when the first two movies came out, so if he really wanted to cash in he shouldn't have played the nostalgia angle so high.

Of course, having someone for S to fight would have been nice too....

[dingo]

Originally Posted by ZEBULON

Looks like he shouldn't have abandoned ship on x-men.

Not if the rumours about his pay structure for Superman Returns are true. Apparently he got a very sweet deal with a cut of just about everything.

[mightymodok]

Originally Posted by Beefcliff

more people were expecting a comic book movie of the same vein of Spiderman and Xmen- namely the film's primary audience. The teens and early twenties who pack theaters every weekend weren't alive when the first two movies came out, so if he really wanted to cash in he shouldn't have played the nostalgia angle so high.

Yeah I have to disagree with what you said. I like the fact that you used the words 'cash in' though. This basically means that you expected Bryan Singer to just make a template Superman movie. I find this a sort of catch 22 for the director as had he made this movie the 'fans' would have accused him of selling out. Instead he makes the film he wanted to make as he himself is a fan and the 'fans' dont like it.

If you want to watch a comic book film purely created to make money might I suggest the disappointing X3. This is an example of a director who cares very little for the source material and hoped to 'cash in' on the popularity of the franchise already thanks to the direction of...... need I go on?

I wasnt alive when the first movies came out but the film worked for me, I know Superman's origin, infact I don't believe I know anyone who doesnt. However, I am prepared to give the benefit of doubt about your opinions as after we all have different tastes but I know that had Singer created 'a comic book movie of the same vein of Spiderman and Xmen', a great many people would be complaining that it wasnt original and people hated it.

So Kudos to Bryan Singer for creating an interesting superhero movie that I enjoyed and everyone I know enjoyed. I sincerely hope that the next one lives up to this new standard.

[Beheader]

I see the first 3 questions taking a minute to answer. The last two took 3 minutes 11 seconds, and probably whent more like this:

NRAMA: After he gave up his powers in Superman II, Lois and Superman slept together. I’m going to assume that that’s when he got her pregnant…

BS: Um... (that's a good question), I... Well... (I mean that sounds right), Um... (wow)... Don't quote me on any of that. Um... Yeah... My official answer... Possibly. Yeah, quote me on "Possibly".

NRAMA: Then he gives her the kiss, which made her forget that they even slept together. Was the pregnancy a mystery for her?

BS: Yes... wait, no. Um... (that doesn't make any sense) Ah... You know, you really should ask Mike Dougherty about that. Um.... Who's this for again? Oh yeah. Well... Remember don't quote me on any of that. I... Look, I ignored that part. I just assumed she remembered sleeping with him. I have to go now, it's been... yeah... later.

Singer isn't good under pressure. If you've ever seen the interview where he's asked about Pirates blowing Supes clear out of the water, you'll know what I'm talking about.

[PatrickG]

Originally Posted by Beefcliff

Oh please, he's blaming it on marketing? That's such an overused excuse. The movie didn't make more money because it could have been better. It would have made a great movie for 1980, but more people were expecting a comic book movie of the same vein of Spiderman and Xmen- namely the film's primary audience. The teens and early twenties who pack theaters every weekend weren't alive when the first two movies came out, so if he really wanted to cash in he shouldn't have played the nostalgia angle so high.

Of course, having someone for S to fight would have been nice too....

Since when has Superman's primary audience been comic book readers?

Comic book readers are ashamed of Superman, constantly trying to hide him in a closet. Comic readers are embarassed by Superman and don't want to be associated with him.

Virtually everything the average comic fan claims to like about Superman is something that isn't a part of the character. For instance -- massive slugfests. People say they want to see Superman duke it out. But Superman has NEVER done that.

Even in the early days before his power levels skyrocketed, Superman wasn't subject to physical conflict very often. His conflicts were always romantic or emotional ones and there's a small handful of "great" stories in the character's 70 year history that involve a fistfight.

Most Superman fans are not comic book readers and most comic book readers are not Superman fans.

Superman is a great character. Singer did a decent job -- although blaming things on marketing is a bit weak -- and honestly, the message it sends to Hollywood when this movie does mediocre numbers is that they need to give Superman a transparent suit that shows his internal organs and a suicidal prophetic father and David Hyde Pierce as a talking costume, give CIA martial artist Kryptonian Lex Luthor a gay robot and a talking dog and cast Tim Allen as a polar bear wrestling Brainiac. Because Singer is the ONLY director in 20 years allowed near this film who didn't want to revamp Superman as some sort of dark, nihilistic icon of a surreal, gothic martial arts world.

I'm not saying people should support this movie any more than their heart or wallet or imagination leads them to... But I am saying that it's probably the only recognizible Superman that will turn up in theaters if it doesn't get sequels.

And Singer, rightfully I think, understands that the Donner films are more important than any comic book in terms of who the character is.

[PatrickG]

Originally Posted by Beheader

I see the first 3 questions taking a minute to answer. The last two took 3 minutes 11 seconds, and probably whent more like this:

NRAMA: After he gave up his powers in Superman II, Lois and Superman slept together. I’m going to assume that that’s when he got her pregnant…

BS: Um... (that's a good question), I... Well... (I mean that sounds right), Um... (wow)... Don't quote me on any of that. Um... Yeah... My official answer... Possibly. Yeah, quote me on "Possibly".

Funny.

But Singer has more or less said several times that he backtracked along the way and decided that the second movie didn't literally happen. Which is what he MOSTLY said all along with his "vague history" comments but he's offered an intensified version of that at least once.

That DOES leave a bit of a question as to Luthor having visited the fortress but it's pretty clear from this film that Singer considers the conception of Jason to occur roughly around the "Can You Read My Mind?" sequence in the first movie. But he also doesn't care where viewers choose to place it.

However, my understanding is that Singer's take on Zod is that Superman has never met Zod and that Zod, Ursa and Non's imprisonment is a dangling element from the first film -- and that their escape has yet to happen.

[EyesBL7]

Originally Posted by PatrickG

However, my understanding is that Singer's take on Zod is that Superman has never met Zod and that Zod, Ursa and Non's imprisonment is a dangling element from the first film -- and that their escape has yet to happen.

Wait....WHAT? Go into some more detail on that for me. What makes you think this?

[Anders Wolleck]

i heard that Singer is going by the original Donner cut of Superman 2 and that Lois forgot Clark's secret identity a different way

[Catch22]

I think the fact that it was basically a rehash of the original Superman film really turned me off. I already have that one on DVD. I wanted something a little fresher and original and Singer didn't deliver the goods. Blaming the weak American gross on marketing is just...weak.

[Skyrider]

Marketing? pft. Noo...the movie could've been better. That's why it didn't do well. Past the plane catch it was a steep downhill drop. There was nothing new, the kid is a horrible addition that only serves to muddle up the series, and it just wasn't FUN. How do you make a Superman movie and leave out the fun? Where else do you think your fanbase is going to come from?


And going by a different cut? Please...who does he think he is? Lucas?

They should have just reset the whole bloody series instead of playing up the nostalgia so much. If they had removed the kid and the whole "Superman returns" angle the plot of the movie could have possibly worked. Then again, Lex's plan really should've been something a bit more diabolical than radioactive real estate (which no one would've been able to live on ANYWAY).

[BradyKiller]

Originally Posted by dingo

Not if the rumours about his pay structure for Superman Returns are true. Apparently he got a very sweet deal with a cut of just about everything.

Exactly and remember he didnt just dump X-Men - if they waited to make it he would have come back to do X3...its just Greedy Arad and more likely the Fox people wanting a Summer tentpole that rushed it past him - I dont think anybody is pissed besides Fox at WB for stealing Bryan away with more money - but in the end Fox got the last laugh (and stand ;-)

And also he might blame marketing but Singer WAS involved in marketing it so obviously he is blaming himself as well. He did everything or had his hands in everything from the toys to the Milk ads.

Singer made the X-Men movies HIS X-Men, I just wish he did the same with Superman...I liked it but was seriously disappointed in it compared to his X-Men movies. And dont get me started on Spacey again.

I do hope there is another Superman because I NEED to seee a throw down between Supes and Brainiac or Parasite that will soil my pants like I know they will be soiled when I see Venom fight Tobey Maguire.

Sam Raimi - now there's a class act!

[Hazard]

"BS: I ignored that part. I just assumed..."

That's pretty dangerous and rather disrespectful dont you think?

Imagine if it was okay for everyone to live like this, that stop sign, the red light, the money in the bank, i just assumed...

[Brent Sienna]

I liked it and hope Singer comes back to do a sequel. The movie was perfect for what I wanted and expected it to be. It entertained me and left me feeling happy about it, so it was money well spent.

[John Mosby]

Singer's logic:
Superman removes Lois' memories of her knowing his secret ID so that she won't be emotionally hurt every time she sees him at the office as Clark but can't be 'with' him again...but doesn't remove the memories of sleeping with Superman, who she'll see every day over Metropolis but can't be 'with' him again.

And he makes this a tent-pole of the film's logic - annoying long term fans and even befuddling the newcomers..

Much as I respect Singer and his film-making, that answer is an illogical mess of a decision and a cop-out of Kryptonian proportions

[J O R Z A C]

Originally Posted by mightymodok

Yeah I have to disagree with what you said. I like the fact that you used the words 'cash in' though. This basically means that you expected Bryan Singer to just make a template Superman movie. I find this a sort of catch 22 for the director as had he made this movie the 'fans' would have accused him of selling out. Instead he makes the film he wanted to make as he himself is a fan and the 'fans' dont like it.

If you want to watch a comic book film purely created to make money might I suggest the disappointing X3. This is an example of a director who cares very little for the source material and hoped to 'cash in' on the popularity of the franchise already thanks to the direction of...... need I go on?

I wasnt alive when the first movies came out but the film worked for me, I know Superman's origin, infact I don't believe I know anyone who doesnt. However, I am prepared to give the benefit of doubt about your opinions as after we all have different tastes but I know that had Singer created 'a comic book movie of the same vein of Spiderman and Xmen', a great many people would be complaining that it wasnt original and people hated it.

So Kudos to Bryan Singer for creating an interesting superhero movie that I enjoyed and everyone I know enjoyed. I sincerely hope that the next one lives up to this new standard.

Yeah well, I have to disagree with what you just said. Brett ratner came in on a movie that had a fan base not just with the actors portraying the characters, but with the director also. He was/is a comic fan and tried to give as much eye candy as possible with the film, along with whatever characterization you can muster out with a cast of that size.
Singer's approach, tho very fanworthy an respectful, just was not the way to go. Growing up when the Donner films came out, to me they are untouchable. Having someone ape them, when I know they have the creativity and the drive in their veins to do something a lot more creative jus is dissapointing. The krytptonite angle, the water, hell even the last question up there, where he chooses to say" I ignored that part" about the intercourse issue , raises more questions thean it should. I believe wholeheartedly, that even with Lex Luthor, the movie would have generated alot more with a more original story, in a whole different direction than was given. That is why you DO have people that are saying that it is in no way in the same vein as Spidey and Xmen, an people yes, did hate it.
Visually, with today's FX, it was stunning, but stunning doesn't tell a great story.

[Brent Sienna]

Originally Posted by Anders Wolleck

i heard that Singer is going by the original Donner cut of Superman 2 and that Lois forgot Clark's secret identity a different way

If he did, the original ending to Superman 2 was Superman turning back time to make Lois forget not using the lame-o Super Kiss.

Some other spoilers from Superman Cinema for Donner's version of Superman 2 coming out on dvd:





SPOILERS!!








• The film opens with a lengthy recap of the events of Superman: The Movie, and the release of the villains, preceding the opening credits.
• A fair amount of Richard Lester-directed footage from Niagara, East Houston, Fortress of Solitude, and Metropolis battle remains in the film. There is no sequence of the villains (CGI or otherwise) taking over the world.
• Superman regaining his powers is a *lengthy* sequence that includes Marlon Brando.
• There is no "amnesia kiss" at the end. Superman reverses time so that Lois forgets his identity.
• The diner sequence with Clark hitting the bully is the last scene of the movie.

[mrorangesoda]

Originally Posted by Skyrider

Marketing? pft. Noo...the movie could've been better. That's why it didn't do well. Past the plane catch it was a steep downhill drop. There was nothing new, the kid is a horrible addition that only serves to muddle up the series, and it just wasn't FUN. How do you make a Superman movie and leave out the fun? Where else do you think your fanbase is going to come from?

A movie being good has nothing to do with how well it does at the box office (i.e. Pirates 2). It sounds like you're disappointed, which is fine it could have been more fun, but fan bases is not where movies make their money. I do think that if Marketing had done a better job convincing Joe Sixpack that some guy flying around with his underwear outside his pants was cool, the movie would have made more. I think they relied too much on the fact that it was Superman to consider that Superman's not as marketable like Spider-man or Batman and is more Americana.

[Skyrider]

You know what would've been a nice plot for the movie had they done a reset?

You have the whole Clark comes to Metropolis angle.
Lex is the corperate mastermind. He's more a reoccuring supporting nemesis like in TAS than an straight villian.
The villian of the movie can be Metallo, funded by Luthor.

Then for the sequel you could have Bizzaro or Brainiac and actually have a midair fightscene to blow Matrix Rev out of the water and make it look like the kidgame it was.

Originally Posted by mrorangesoda

A movie being good has nothing to do with how well it does at the box office (i.e. Pirates 2). It sounds like you're disappointed, which is fine it could have been more fun, but fan bases is not where movies make their money. I do think that if Marketing had done a better job convincing Joe Sixpack that some guy flying around with his underwear outside his pants was cool, the movie would have made more. I think they relied too much on the fact that it was Superman to consider that Superman's not as marketable like Spider-man or Batman and is more Americana.

Marketing cannot make up for a poor script. People didn't see anything in the trailer to make them want to see the movie because there wasn't anything in the movie for them to work with. Superman was plastered everywhere before the movie came out, it's not like it can be said that the movie didn't get enough exposure.

You know why Pirates has done so much better than SR? a) Word of Mouth and b) sequel.

It's the sequel to a fantastic movie with great characters, and people were hyped for it. Superman may have claimed to be a sequel as well, but it's a sequel to a movie that came out in 1981, not the 2000's. It needed to be treated like a complete film in of itself and it wasn't. The whole Return angle and the introduction of the kid ruined that.

When it came out, the word of mouth was mostly positive, despite poor review by critics.

When Superman came out it, it was said that the movie was going to be a sequel to the old Superman movies. For older viewers, this sounded great. Most had never read a Superman comic in their lives and only knew Superman from the movies. For anyone under the age of 30, it just wasn't appealing. That Superman is outdated, it has been since 1985 and COIE/MOS restart. There's a reason that the movie series tapered off in interest as the films went on and the comics decided to reset the Superman story.

Ultimately, the result was that word of mouth for the movie when it came out wasn't steller, and no ammount of marketing is going to make up for that.

[nightwingoracle]

The simple truth is SUPERMAN RETURNS was not a well-written movie.

Superman as a character didn't come off as "a mature adult." He came off as a young kid. A mature adult would know that after 5 years, chances are Lois has moved on.

Clark came off as even more of a caricature in this movie than he did under Christopher Reeve. Clark was NEVER as inept as Reeve or Routh made him....let's see a bit more George Reeves/Dean Cain characterization and let Clark be a bit more real in the next movie.

Why was Lois so bitchy to Clark? "Our relationship?" she says at one point. They are supposed to be close friends. Why is she acting this way?

Why write Luthor in the Gene Hackman-vein, and bring back a new version of Miss Teschmacher?

The kid just weighs everything down. You can't use the same actor because he'll age too much. Superman and Lois can't win in this. Unless Richard dies, in order for Superman and Lois to be together (which they should be), Superman basically breaks up a family. Lois is currently in the "I'm in love with Superman but I'll settle for Richard" mode - which is not fair to any of the characters. And the kid looks at Richard as his dad, but obviously Superman is his father.

And why, why does Superman not get to capture the villain in the end? I kept waiting for the confrontation that never happened. The non-confrontation was a letdown. And for whoever wrote above about what Superman comic stories "actually" were - if you actually read the stories you'll learn that Superman not only confonted the villains at the end of his comic stories; he captured them. Sometimes punches were thrown; sometimes not; but the villains were always confronted and captured. Don't lecture comic fans about Superman stories unless you know what you're talking about.

The weakness of the story is why the movie didn't do as well in the U.S. as everyone had hoped. Routh did a good job and looked great. Eva Marie Saint was good and should have been used a bit more. Sam Huntington did good as Olsen. Langella was good as Perry. Kate Bosworth was okay, but not great, as Lois - a better actress should have been chosen. Marsden was great as Richard. Spacey was okay as Luthor - had he gone darker rather than Hackman-lite, he would have been wonderful...as it was, he was almost a parody.

Let's see some growth in the sequel: Clark becomes human; Clark and Lois return to being friends; a resolution on who Lois is going to be with - Superman (or Clark?) or Richard; a new villain - perhaps Brainiac or Mongul (or both - a battle between the two of them with Earth and Superman in the middle could be interesting).

[BlackDog]

Patrick G., your views are the most sensible around here, so allow me to debate some of your points...





Since when has Superman's primary audience been comic book readers?

This is true. Smallville is proof that not all Superman fans are comicbook readers. The same is true with Superman in films.

Comic book readers are ashamed of Superman, constantly trying to hide him in a closet. Comic readers are embarassed by Superman and don't want to be associated with him.

You are generalizing too much here. Be careful, many here do that and it's not fair. I'm a Superman fan, have been since I was 7 years old, in comics and in films, I love Superman and I'm not ashamed to say it.

Virtually everything the average comic fan claims to like about Superman is something that isn't a part of the character. For instance -- massive slugfests. People say they want to see Superman duke it out. But Superman has NEVER done that.

I like seeing Superman kick ass as much as the next guy, but admittedly I think Singer had the right mindset by leaving supervillains off the first Superman movie he made. It was imperative to have Superman reintroduced to a new generation and Singer's film did that successfully.


Most Superman fans are not comic book readers and most comic book readers are not Superman fans.

Again, you are generalizing.


Because Singer is the ONLY director in 20 years allowed near this film who didn't want to revamp Superman as some sort of dark, nihilistic icon of a surreal, gothic martial arts world.

True.



And Singer, rightfully I think, understands that the Donner films are more important than any comic book in terms of who the character is.

Singer used Donner's films as loose history, it's that simple. SR works well if you haven't seen the Donner films, and that's very important. Much like the first Star War movie, with SR it's obvious there is a history but you don't have to necessarily have seen that history to enjoy SR. Ultimately little kids or teenagers or regular moviegoers don't need to go see the Donner films to enjoy SR. They already know the basics, Superman and Lois got it on at some point and had a kid, and Luthor has hated Superman before, end of story.

[Evan Waters]

Originally Posted by Skyrider

Marketing? pft. Noo...the movie could've been better. That's why it didn't do well.

Since when has quality ever had anything to do with box office take?