Please share this link with as many folks you know who were as dissatisfied with Returns as you were.
Singer's the wrong man for Superman.
He isn't a Superman fan, He's a Donner fan.
I enjoyed the Donner film for its day. I own both Superman 1&2, and the Donner cut of 2 (so called), but I damn sure hated seeing a retread of it for 2006, and I don't want to see more in 2009.
I want to see a Superman film that humanizes him, (not make him a deity)... Puts him on an emotional and human level we can relate to, someone you can identify with as well as admire.
I want a script and story content, on a level that doesn't insult your intelligence or is dated. (As Singer's Superman does, and IS)
I want believable character interactions and relationships. I want real drama and story substance as strong as all the eye candy/special effects.
Bryan Singer isn't capable of delivering Superman in an original and fresh fashion in the ways I've described.
In fact, he's locked him in the "Donner box" as far as the current franchise goes.
If the Superman film franchise didn't have the high quality competition that it does, he could get away with that kind of self serving preferential treatment to the character.
But the fact is, there's been a slew of high quality Super Hero films in both story and substance that leave Singer's Superman in the dust.
We don't need a "Donner" re-hash of Superman.
Has anyone read "IT'S SUPERMAN!" by Tom De Haven?
It was absorbing, original, and a wholly fresh and new take on the character, delivered within the realm and settings of his 1930's beginnings, when Seigel and Shuster conceived the character.
My allegory to the book isn't that I think "IT'S SUPERMAN!" should be the film, not by any means or stretch of the imagination...(Audiences go seeing Super Hero films with the prejudiced assumption they're going to see a lot of slam bang action and effects.
De Haven's book ain't your typical Super Hero fodder.
Its a journey of self discovery, with only a small dab of "slam bang" thrown in here and there.)
The key is ORIGINALITY..
My point is with the book as an analogy, the right Director with a fresh perspective, can take Superman to film, and not do what Singer did.
What Bryan Singer did in selling his "Donner-themed" Superman to Warner Bros., is equivalent to a used car salesman slapping fresh paint on an old vintage car, (with a Helluva lot of mileage on it), and refers to it as "Previously owned", with a lot of life left in it.
There's not a single hint of originality to be found or expressed in Superman Returns.
It's a dressed up re-tread, with needless optional equipment. ( The script had gaping holes, it borrowed heavily from the first Donner film, and the super-kid was a moronic plot device..)
Spectacular special effects alone can't save a film. (It's sad when you can only point at the airplane saving sequence as the film's only shining moment.)
It's a used car.
The right director can put Superman on the big screen, and give us cinematically something exciting and fresh. Something that when you leave the theater, you are as much blown away by the story as you were the action. You leave knowing you FELT for, and cared about the characters. They were real people to you.
(Singer's characters are cardboard cut-outs. Spacey was the most animated, and even his role was, in the end, ludicrous.)
The kinds of films I described are the movies you want to see a second or third time.
That you talk about with friends and family. They make a mark. They're ORIGINAL. They make you feel good when you exit the theater.
You replay scenes and go over plot elements and the story in your mind. You re-experience emotions you were moved to feel while watching.
Everyone enjoys a damned good story that has REAL substance.
Those kinds of films make you glad you put down the money to see them.
Superman Returns has none of those qualities, its too shallow, and on the emotional level, pretentious...
And look at the money that was invested, the special effects.
To what end? What was the purpose? It was a waste.
Warner Brothers in the end didn't fare all that well as a cost cutting measure, doing the film in Australia. Imagine the losses if the film had been done here in the States.
Its time for Singer to go."...
I hope, if you agree with the above sentiments, that you'll join the effort and help flood Warner Bros. with mail demanding Singer's ouster. Superman needs a re-start..Without Singer.
So, in the effort to get rid of him, here is some vital information..
1. What do I write?
You've got to voice your displeasure but you've got to say it in terms that relate to the Studio execs in terms of Box office returns.
By itself, The Studio heads most likely doesn't care what we think about giving Superman an illegitimate kid as a horrible creative decision.
What they DO care about is how Singer's combined creative decisions as a whole have alienated a broader, wider potential audience.
How it adversely affected the box office results, or how poor word of mouth led to the film being the slowest ever to reach the $200 million mark.
Similar recent big budget films are doing that kind of business in 1 week.
Let them know why you care about the character, but don't go overboard in that regard either. Focus more on how Singer is wrong for the franchise, and how a better-suited director could make the franchise more successful.
Just as important as what you write is the tone of how you say it.
If you bring up good points but come across like you're yelling at the execs, they'll tune you out and chalk you up to being some crazed fanboy.
Your letters should have a reasonable and even tone to them. You should sound sympathetic to the studio's financial goals, and be constructive in your criticisms about why Singer blew it.
Brevity is also a bonus. Say what you have to say on 1 or 2 pages and then be done with it. These people read enough scripts as it is, don't send them something of a similar size.
If you've already written a letter and think others could use it as a template for their own, click the link to this site,
contact the people heading up the effort. They're putting together a few generic ones of their own.
2. Who do I send them to?
These letters should be targeted at the guys who write the checks and have final say on any films. Warner Bros. Entertainment President and C.O.O., Alan Horn and Warner Bros. Pictures President of Production Jeff Robinov.
3. Where do I send them?
Send all letters and emails to either:
Mr. Alan Horn
President and C.O.O. Warner Brothers Entertainment
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, Ca. 91522
Now another thing, sending emails are fine, but hand written letters in envelopes, piled on a desk carry greater weight. Emails can be filtered or deleted.
Do BOTH..Email AND post office delivered letters! This is very IMPORTANT!
The other prong of the attack involves getting the word out and getting as many people as possible to send letters.
its going to be up to you to spread the word.
Print out letters for your friends and family to sign.
Do whatever you can regardless of what the small minority of vocal apologist think.
Granted the studios pay people to scour the internet to gauge the publics opinions on things, but a proactive campaign like this does get noticed.
DON'T SIT BACK AND DO NOTHING. GET ACTIVE! SUCCESS OR FAILURE ISN'T THE GUIDE POST IN THIS EFFORT.
IT'S YOU LETTING YOUR VOICE BE HEARD INSTEAD OF JUST BEING SPOON FED WHATEVER SINGER WANTS TO SERVE UP!
Posted: 02 Aug 2007 18:53
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4701
Join Date: Sep 2005
Geez, it's been over a year an people still have a grudge against Singer? Get. Over. It.
Ok, he didn't do his best with Superman Returns, so what? It doesn't mean he should just get slapped with a pink slip everytime he makes a movie that isn't up to par. Look at some of the really good stuff he's done; X-men is one of my and many other's favorite movies.
If you think Singer did such a terrible job, then go ahead and make a better Superman Returns. There's a 100% chance that someone, somewhere, isn't going to like what you did. Movies are like a president's decsion, whatever it comes out to be, there's always someone who doesn't like it.
You can please some people some of the time, but you can't please everyone all of the time. Grow up. __________________
“Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional.” ~ Garfield
I'm somewhere in the middle of this argument I guess. I had a lot of issues with the movie, but there was some stuff I liked too. Depends on what kind of mood I'm in I guess as to what I'm liable to think about Superman Returns that day. __________________
As far as your amazement at the controversy continuing, you have to be open to the opposing perspective, and appreciate the fact that there is a large segment of Superman fans that who started out with trust in Singer, but no longer do.
If you follow the posts at the Superman Homepage, or the DC message boards, its practically an even split.
There is STILL opposition to Singer's handling of Superman.
DC comic writers don't look upon Returns favorably.
I have personal contacts with a few, but am not at liberty to say who. (I don't expect any credence to be given that statement.)
But consideration has to be made that sites like the SHP, and even the SupermanTV.net Forum, is composed of a mixture of die hard Donner fans, and Superman fanboys, as well as Superman fans who can be objective about the character.
The problem as I stated in my first post, starting this thread, is that Singer has already locked the character into the Donner continuity and tratment.
Future sequels will carry on that traditional handling of the character.
Superman in film, starting with Donner, has traditionally been "Super Hero Lite" when it comes to be given a serious treatment, and God forbid, an intelligent script with a real story.
I'd say that among the best of Super Hero films of late, by comparison, Superman comes across more as having a fairy tale feel to it, with big buck special effects thrown in.
As an action/adventure Super Hero film, it's impossible to take it seriously. The Singer/Donner treatment is caught betwixt and between..At times, it appears to be a serious treatment of the character, then it begins to teeter, tilt, then falls into the side of silliness and the ridiculous.
Super Hero films today have to appeal to a much broader audience than just the fan boys, and Donner fans. They want more than that. Expect more.
It wasn't just comic book fans, or fan boys, that filled the theaters domestically for the Spiderman films OR Batman Begins, or any of the other highly successful Super Hero movies.
As I stated earlier, "I enjoyed the Donner film for its day. I own both Superman 1&2, and the Donner cut of 2 (so called), but I damn sure hated seeing a retread of it for 2006, and I don't want to see more in 2009."
Singer is quoted as saying he plans to "Wrath of Khan" the sequel.
An interesting reference when you consider that Khan was the re-start for the Star Trek franchise.
The first film, "Star Trek the Motion Picture", was a disaster that Paramount and Trek fans alike choose to ignore and pretend never happened.
Yet even if Singer loads the sequel with eye boggling massive battles and effects, the continuity and theme of the franchise is still locked in that fairy tale like aura of the Donner era, and too outdated for today.
It's best if Singer goes, and Warner looks for a new Director with a fresh view.
Posted: 03 Aug 2007 02:24
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 4109
Join Date: Jan 2006
Agreed, Superman Returns was the worst portrayl of the Man of Steel to date. Thank goodness for Smallville!! __________________
The Bible is so powerful. It's not to be left on your shelf. It's to outline even the simplest scriptures that can mean so much in building yourself up.
"I am God's workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10)
"I have been redeemed and forgiven." (Colossians 1:14)
"I am the salt and the light of the earth." (Matthew 5:13-14)
Geez, it's been over a year an people still have a grudge against Singer? Get. Over. It.
