Originally posted by: greencapt
Really I feel the sexual orientation of a director, writer, musician, actor, etc, etc, etc doesn't mean anything at all about the quality of their work. All you can really ask yourself is- do you like what they created? Is it good, bad?
Now what I *don't* like is when a creator foists their opinion or some particular viewpoint on an audience in an unappropriate setting or in an un-announced way. By this I mean if filmmaker 'X' wants to make a statement about capital punishment they should feel free to make a film about it- and let it be known that 'this is my statement about capital punishment'. Whereas when you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a Batman film... not a film which essentially stands as a homo-erotic fetishist's showcase of rubber nipples and oiled musclemen. At this point the audience disconnects and even if they can't put their finger on it they know something is wrong.
Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect. Its a technically well crafted film and is not 'Batman & Robin' horrible but I'd imagine people walking out of theaters going... 'hmm... uh, ok. That wasn't any fun. What opens next week?' Bryan Singer infused his own sense of alienation (from his own adoption, orientation, etc) into the film. And that's fine- but not Superman. I do understand how he could come up this train of thought though- 'Superman was given up by his parents, so was I. Superman was adopted, so was I. I don't feel I fit in at times, so Superman must not. Lois Lane loved Superman and so do.... (er, nevermind)' So he made his idea of Superman using only 'Superman the Movie' as outside context. Like I said before- he should have made up his own super hero and made a film about it... and I bet it could have been huge and original. I sort of look at 'Alien 3' the same way- very good sci-fi film... just not a very good 'Alien' franchise film.
But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.
Really I feel the sexual orientation of a director, writer, musician, actor, etc, etc, etc doesn't mean anything at all about the quality of their work. All you can really ask yourself is- do you like what they created? Is it good, bad?
Now what I *don't* like is when a creator foists their opinion or some particular viewpoint on an audience in an unappropriate setting or in an un-announced way. By this I mean if filmmaker 'X' wants to make a statement about capital punishment they should feel free to make a film about it- and let it be known that 'this is my statement about capital punishment'. Whereas when you go to see a Batman film you expect to see a Batman film... not a film which essentially stands as a homo-erotic fetishist's showcase of rubber nipples and oiled musclemen. At this point the audience disconnects and even if they can't put their finger on it they know something is wrong.
Thus the problem I see with 'Superman Returns'- audiences expected to see Superman but instead of a heroic, honorable and (gasp) patriotic character they saw a neurotic, brooding, stalking, whining, emo character who was painted as being the second coming of Jesus. And looking at the box office results the general public had that same disconnect. Its a technically well crafted film and is not 'Batman & Robin' horrible but I'd imagine people walking out of theaters going... 'hmm... uh, ok. That wasn't any fun. What opens next week?' Bryan Singer infused his own sense of alienation (from his own adoption, orientation, etc) into the film. And that's fine- but not Superman. I do understand how he could come up this train of thought though- 'Superman was given up by his parents, so was I. Superman was adopted, so was I. I don't feel I fit in at times, so Superman must not. Lois Lane loved Superman and so do.... (er, nevermind)' So he made his idea of Superman using only 'Superman the Movie' as outside context. Like I said before- he should have made up his own super hero and made a film about it... and I bet it could have been huge and original. I sort of look at 'Alien 3' the same way- very good sci-fi film... just not a very good 'Alien' franchise film.
But very little of any of this has to do with Singer's (or anyone's) sexual orientation.
Excellent post. I didn't know that Schumacher was gay, but I suppose that that explains a lot. I wholeheartedly agree that Singer should not be judged, but rather the film, although films are almost always an extension of the director in some way. Singer's seual orientation should not bear on how people feel about his work. Interesting thought on SR, but then again, Batman Begins was darker and it took a while to catch on too. SR was an unbalanced but highly interesting film. I don't think that it was driven solely by Singer's ego by any means. His focus on the theme of alienation worked better for the X-Men films than for SR. I suppose that one could always think of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films. They are very distinctly his own (the shaky cam), but their themes and ideas are draw from the comics. Singer, in SR, was trying to make a big adventure film with Superman (i.e. the big, larger than life fun in Donner's film) in it and interweave it with what you mentioned. As he works on the story but seldom on the sceenplays, so I do think that to an extent, he knows him limitations. The box office returns have beens decent, and are still going up. There's a sequel being planned, so maybe Singer will get it right the next time. He used the Donner pictures as his sort of springboard to build upon, rather than the comics (which is not a good or bad thing in and of itself), but I think that that also had the effect of anchoring him to them a bit too much. Superman Returns was not a great film. It wasn't up to par with Superman: The Movie, Superman II, Spider-Man 2, X2, or Batman Begins, but it wasn't from lack of trying. However, I cannot, in good conscience, call it a bad film either. Everyone whom I've spoken too has had similar thought to the ones that many have expressed here. I liked what Singer was trying to do with SR. I just don't think that it entirely worked. But he also didn't make it into a Michael Bay "wham-bam-Superman-is-America-and-he'll-help-us-fight-the-evil-racial-stereotype-terrorists-look-at-how-big-my-special-effects-budget-is" festival either. There was a genuine attemt at something. They wanted to go the same direction as Batman Begins, but Superman is diametrically different from Batman. Singer, to his credit, didn't try to make Superman Begins and ride on back of Nolan's excellent picture either. Superman is a difficult character to work with. His invincibilty means that he'll always run the risk of becoming boring, unless you're careful. You can, of course, do what Donner did and run with that, but those film are also the product of a different style and time (which is part of the problem with SR). Superman Returns is a fascinating look at "There's a great movie in here somewhere" syndrome, although not nearly as severely as, say, Robocop 2. The problems and successes of the film are sort of hard to put into words, and in any case, this post is too long already, but I do hope that I've made some interesting points.