Superman Returns: Bryan Singer Q&A (From the Archives)

Superman Returns: Bryan Singer Q&A (From the Archives)

While fans are divided in their feelings over Superman Returns (some love it, others hate it), there’s no denying that an incredible amount of passion was put into its production. No matter what the outcome, the filmmakers – particularly director Bryan Singer – had his heart in the right place. What follows is an interview conducted with Singer by VFK editor Ed Gross just prior to the film’s release, which details Singer’s feelings about the film at the time.

By EdGross - Jan 12, 2009 12:01 AM EST
Filed Under: Superman

Bryan Singer admits that he had every intention of directing X-Men: The Last Stand, which was hardly surprising considering the success (critically, commercially and artistically) of his first two entries in the series. But then the opportunity came for him to take the directorial reigns on the first new Superman film in nearly 20 years, and he leapt — perhaps over a tall building in a single bound — at the opportunity. But was it the right decision?

Singer seemed to get his answer last July when he flew 25 hours from Australia — where Superman Returns was shot — to be at San Diego Comic-Con, where he unveiled four minutes of edited footage that was greeted by 7,000 attendees with a standing ovation.

“It was very validating,” offers the 40-year-old New York native whose credits also include The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil. “It made the very long flight from Sydney worthwhile. When you’re in the thick of shooting, you feel very insulated, so when you even show something small in front of an audience, it’s actually weird because you don’t have much contact with people or fans or anything. Suddenly you arrive in San Diego and there are all these people there and they’re really interested in what you’re doing. It really gave me a boost to get through part two of the shoot.”

One of the most interesting things about Superman Returns is the fact that Singer has made a very conscious effort to have Richard Donner’s 1978 production of Superman: The Movie and, to a lesser extent, 1981’s Superman II serve as a “vague history” to the new film. Compared to others who have spent over a decade trying to get a Superman film made, this was certainly a different approach. Whereas they attempted to distance themselves from the past, Singer embraced it.

“I never understood that,” he admits. “How do you avoid the past? I didn’t create these characters. The only reason I changed the costumes so drastically in X-Men is because the ones from the comics would just look silly in a movie. But I never understood people who take other people’s characters, often created before they were born, and sort of change them that drastically.”

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: What is the power of this film’s storyline as far as you’re concerned?

BRYAN SINGER: I’ve just always been a huge fan of the character, from the George Reeves television series to the Richard Donner film. I’m adopted, he’s adopted. I’m an only child, he’s an only child. In my practical life, I’m fairly awkward and Christopher Reeve crafted a very awkward Clark in his portrayal of that masquerade. Also, we’ve had a lot of cynical and angst-ridden superheroes that have emerged in the last five or ten years, and I think it’s time for one that is imbued with a greater sense of virtue and goodness. I think it kind of affords audiences today – in a very cynical world – a light at the end of the tunnel. Yet for Superman in the movie, things aren’t as clear-cut as they might have been when he first arrived on earth.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: I love the fact that this movie is connected to the Donner film, but I wonder if there is a risk of doing that at the same time.

SINGER: No, because there’s enough going on in it that you don’t need to have seen the Donner film as a compendium, but Superman has to look and sound and feel as though he stepped out of your collective conscious of who the character is. In most people’s conscious and subconscious, the character shines most brightly from the Richard Donner film. When I see a film I deem a classic, I know I have to make something new, I know I have to depart, but it doesn’t make sense for me to depart all the way. It would be great to have Christopher Reeve, but we don’t have that option. At the same time, Brandon, for all of the moments that he channels Christopher Reeve, is a very different character; a very different Superman.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: What does he bring to this character?

SINGER: He brings a vulnerability to the character that this particular story requires. Lois Lane has moved on, she has a fiance, she has a child. Superman hasn’t been around for five years and he has to face this, and Brandon brings a kind of vulnerability. Whereas Christopher Reeve played the character with a greater sense of confidence and at times flirtatious, this Superman finds himself more lost and ultimately more vulnerable as he tries to redefine his place in the world.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: Is it a challenge to make that character resonate with people when we are dealing with a world that is so gritty and so real and so cynical?

SINGER: I think people in their inner thinking like to believe they have a moral compass; a sense of what’s right and wrong, so they view things from that perspective. Now they’re returning to earth with Superman, seeing the world change with Superman and seeing a rather cynical dilemma unfold through the eyes of Superman and through the eyes, ultimately, of their own moral compass. I think it’s okay, because although Superman has remained the same, the world has changed. Where X-Men are cynical superheroes, here we have a virtuous superhero in a cynical world.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: This is a reach here, but did his departure in that universe trigger the cynicism of the world he returns to?

SINGER: I think the world moves on either way, and the saddest part is that people tend to forget. In the case of any celebrity when they return, they’re easy to accept, but it’s not as easy for Lois Lane to accept him. Really, it’s a story about what happens when old boyfriends come back into your life. That’s at the very center of the story.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: You do have a situation where Lois has a five year old kid and Superman’s been gone for five years – any connection?

SINGER: No, it’s a kid she’s had with Richard White. There is very little with the exception of Kryptonite that Superman can’t defeat. This dilemma is undefeatable. You can’t turn back the clock for five years and erase a child. You may be able to woo her away from her fiance, but it’s a little more complicated than that.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: So this kid is a permanent reminder that he left.

SINGER: Exactly. And it was the greatest obstacle I could come up with for Superman. Honestly, I was trying to come up with all kinds of obstacles and I thought, “What would be something that he cannot overcome?” Even in the original Superman, Lois Lane died and he overcame that by turning back time. Here, this child has been around for nearly five years and there’s nothing he can do about it.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: I’ve been following the development of this project from, like, ’93 or ’94, and what I find fascinating in what you just said is that so much time was spent saying, “What is Superman going to fight? Brainiac. Doomsday. Giant spiders. Polar bears – all of these ridiculous things, because nobody could wrap their heads around what kind of challenge they could give Superman.

SINGER: That’s what occurred to me. There is a villain, the villain has a plan, he’s taking precautions against Superman, there are those physical obstacles that Lex Luthor unleashes. There is that mind over muscle that Lex Luthor is so clever at employing, but you know that Superman is going to find a way. But this is something that you don’t really know how he’s going to deal with. This becomes the genuine obstacle of the movie. There is heroism and things to overcome, but this is at the core of Superman’s ultimate dilemma.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: I think that just roots this thing in reality in a way that the big stunts can’t possibly do.

SINGER: The moments that you love, the ones that pump you up the most from any of your favorite action/adventure films, are generally character-motivated. The reason we love Star Wars so much is because there are five emotional epiphanies that occur in the span of five seconds at the end of that movie. The villain is thwarted off for a sequel, the Empire’s weapon is destroyed, the rebellion is saved, Luke uses the Force and Han Solo conquers his greed. And even though it happens with a torpedo blast and an explosion, those are the things that make you go, “Yeah!” and jump out of your seat, and it’s not necessarily because something big has exploded.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: I read an interview with Kevin Spacey in which he said that he was looking for a chance to work with you again following The Usual Suspects, not necessarily that he was pining away for the opportunity to play Lex Luthor. How was it to collaborate with him again and what does he bring to the role of Lex Luthor?

SINGER: When we were crafting the script, he was very much in the forefront of our minds because I have a relationship with him and there are very few actors who can play that fine line between comedy and sinister, and he can do that better than anyone. Those are the primary aspects he brings to the character. You like watching him talk. In these movies where villains tend to be verbose, especially Lex Luthor who’s always patting himself on the back for his own ingenuity, you want an actor that you just savor everything that comes out of his mouth, and Kevin is that kind of actor. For me, we hadn’t worked together in 10 years, but it felt like it was yesterday. This Lex is much his own interpretation. There are moments where he’s a bit funny and moments when he’s very mean, very sadistic.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: What did Kate Bosworth bring to Lois Lane?

SINGER: She made a concerted effort not to watch the original film so she wouldn’t be affected by Margot Kidder’s performance. She is very young and had to play a mother, but I like the fact that she’s young because I think she’s a very young spirit and Kate is really an actor mature far beyond her years. So I got the best of both worlds. I got her youthful impetuousness, which is classic Lois Lane, and at the same time a motherly sense, a protective sense regarding her child, who plays a significant role in the picture.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: Superman was introduced in 1938 and here we are in 2006. Why does he endure the way he does?

SINGER: Several reasons. One, he’s the first superhero ever. People don’t realize that, but before that the heroes were The Shadow and things like that. He’s very American in the sense that he’s the ultimate immigrant and he kind of represents who we all are as American settlers. We’re all basically immigrants, the descendents of immigrants and we all bring with us a certain kind of heritage and a certain kind of value system that dates back to our forefathers and other cultures. And I think Superman embodies that. I think that by virtue of his idealism and noble point of view, he makes us feel safe. He does it with an eloquence we like to see. He also represents the adolescent dreams of strength, flight – the ultimate fantasy to be able to defy gravity and move mountains. I think these things are quintessentially the fantasy of every child. And there’s something about the symbol that’s just endured.

VOICES FROM KRYPTON: You’re right, the “S” is pretty universally known.

SINGER: I mean, you can take the “S” and a cross into the jungle, and you’re going to have pretty much 50/50 recognition. It’s pretty amazing. Such an iconic figure. Even little kids who don’t know anything about Superman, never grew up with Superman, they see the S and they know. I had an experience where the woman who works in my house brought her nephew over – actually he was the first person I told I wasn’t doing X-Men 3. I came into my room and he was watching X-Men 2 on TV and he said, “This is my favorite movie.” “Oh, thanks.” “Are you going to make X-Men 3?” I said, “No.” He looked at me very dismayed and I said, “I’m going to make Superman.” He just smiled and I said, “Will you see Superman?” “YES!” Whew. That was my test of my career trajectory.
SUPERMAN: First Trailer For James Gunn's Reboot Could Release Online Sooner Than Expected
Related:

SUPERMAN: First Trailer For James Gunn's Reboot Could Release Online Sooner Than Expected

SUPERMAN Actor Frank Grillo Teases First Trailer: My Skin Was Hot And I Had Goosebumps
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN Actor Frank Grillo Teases First Trailer: "My Skin Was Hot And I Had Goosebumps"

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Tenaciousbt
Tenaciousbt - 1/12/2009, 9:00 PM
Well, what I got from this is that Bryan Singer thinks he made a totally awesome movie. Shocking! But he didn't. It wasn't that good, and he wasn't that good, and BR wasn't good. But it was great reading an old interview where BS talks about how awesome his shi*y movie is. NOT!
SupermanReturns2
SupermanReturns2 - 1/12/2009, 9:20 PM
you...
HR
HR - 1/13/2009, 9:56 AM
yeah I already sold that piece of work. not worth having.
Crusader
Crusader - 1/13/2009, 11:05 AM
Bryan Singer was a great superman, he just did not have a great script.
SingerRouthCRAP
SingerRouthCRAP - 1/13/2009, 11:54 AM
First of all, before you post here please know what you are talking about. Singer was NOT Superman Routh regretablly was... Singer was the one who directed the film. Anyways the fault lies with Singer for the crap he put out.
EdGross
EdGross - 1/13/2009, 2:11 PM
Whatever the opionion of the film, the point I was trying to make by posting the piece was that Singer obviously believed in his vision; felt that he was creating a worthy part of the Superman legacy. Maybe he was TOO inspired by the Donner film, but I have to believe his intentions were lofty (though the script wasn't), but something got lost in the translation.
SupermanReturns2
SupermanReturns2 - 1/13/2009, 5:21 PM
Crusader wrote: "Bryan Singer was a great superman, he just did not have a great script."

LOL. I think he meant BR.
ClarkEl
ClarkEl - 1/14/2009, 6:40 AM
Brandon Routh does a great job of portraying Superman and Superman Returns is a very good movie. I am tired of hearing from a small minority of fan boys, who's names continually show up on multiple Superman forums, who want everything their way. There will be a sequel to Superman Returns! Bryan Singer will be directing it! And Brandon Routh will portray Superman once again! Get over your small selves!
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/14/2009, 11:39 AM
i agree with clarkel..im sick of defending that movie. Fanboys are never happy..you could all band together and direct the reboot yourselves and you would still be bitching and moaning at each other about how terrible it was!

in saying that i certainly dont think Superman Returns was nearly as good as it could have been and would like to see more action and a better villain..which im sure Singer would deliver givin the chance. But he prob wont be coming back at this stage so i just hope they find someone who still gets the heart of the characters and doesnt just put some more fights and explosions in there to appease the fanboys
loganoneil
loganoneil - 1/15/2009, 5:24 PM
Guys I hate to burst your bubble, but if it was such a good film, why did it blow chunks at the box office? I hate to say it, but I believe that you (ClarkEl and rorshcach01) are in the minority. I will conceed that there are a FEW elements that were enjoyable (the 'airplane' scene was nearly perfect!), but overall, the film was lacking... severely. As a director, it helps to have a passion for the SOURCE MATERIAL - and that source material is the character of Kal-El, not two movies that are 30 years old! Bryan Singer (by his own admission) never even read a comic book when he was growing up! He's a total geek for the Donner / Lester films. Don't get me wrong, they were brilliant (FOR THEIR TIME), but I believe (as do a lot of other people - the MAJORITY, as demonstrated by the attendance records) that a fresh approach, from a person who knows and loves the HISTORY of the character, might have been better instead of tying it to old film material and dragging the storyline.
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/15/2009, 9:39 PM
Ok so by your rationale, if a movie does well at the box office then its automatically good and vice versa?

i think you prob realise how silly that theory is without me giving examples..BUT I WILL ANYWAY!

Independance day was a huge box office smash, it cost an obscene amount of cash to make...The assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford cost [frick] all and made [frick] all..which is the better movie?

yes Brian Singer may have been too focused on the original movies..but you just proved my point by saying the only good scene was an action scene. If you honestly believe that superman is only about explosions and special effects then you have no business being a fan.

i also think there should be more action in the next movie bit if it takes the place of character and heart, something that Singer did brilliantly, then its a movie i dont want to see
loganoneil
loganoneil - 1/16/2009, 12:18 PM
NO, the box office take is only ONE indicator of how a film will do - I was using it as an EXAMPLE. NO, Supes is not just about 'explosions and special effects', it is about character and plot delevopment (which there was little - oooo, he finds out he has a bastard son - big f-ing deal!). MY POINT was that Singer focused solely on the movies and had no real understanding of the original source material. He had no real ideal of the potential gold mine he has sitting on for character development and plot drive with all those decades of history just waiting to be mined. As stated before, he's never even picked up a comic book (He, by his own admission, is NOT a comic book fan!). He just based all of his work on speculation and conjecture from the first two films (which I have stated before, were brilliant FOR THEIR TIME), but that was THIRTY YEARS AGO! "Riddle me this..." rorschach - if this techincally is a contiuation of the 70's films, does that mean Superman can do all that stupid BS like "throwing the 'S'"?

Brandon Routh was perfect as the 'dweeb' Clark (by the way, I totally disagree with the interpretation - if they wanted a wiennie, they should have hired Tobey McGuire!), but seems overwhelmed at times as 'Big Blue' (as if that aspect of the role were 'too big' for him to handle).

Spacey finally gave Lex (a few) teeth and raised the character to a (semi) respectible level, but it was still the two-dimensional, land-grubbing movie farce and not the full-blown menace that we've come to know, love and fear in the comic books.

I'll say it, (movie) Lois was ANNOYING! Margot Kidder's interpretation had 'balls of steel' compared to Bosworth's 'modern' spin. And c'mon - 'Super-Hypochondriac-Boy?' Gimmie a BREAK!!!!!

I could go on (and on, and on, and on...), but I think the point would be moot. You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's agree to disagree on this one...
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 1/19/2009, 12:16 PM
No i actually agree with most of your points, but they didnt stop my enjoyment of the movie. I honestly think that if Singer was allowed to make another movie then it would tick alot of the boxes that the fans want. He couldnt launch straight into all the action stuff and the big sci fi villains because even though his movie was supposed to be a continuation of the previous movies, he was still rebooting the franchise for a new generation.

So maybe he was a bit TOO influenced by Donner when making SR..but as for the original movies just being great for ther time , well i think Superman the movie stands up, still, as one of the best comic adaptations EVER..And Singer new alot of fans felt the same.

This all comes back to the age old question..How far should the fimmakers go to please the fanboys. You have to remember that not all Superman movie fans read the comics..its the same with every adaptation, there has to be give and take. Personally i do read the comics and of course id like a bit more attention paid to the source material, but i also know that im not the only demographic these movies have to cater for
Borgie
Borgie - 1/20/2009, 11:33 AM
Bloody well said ClarkEl, exactly!

Brandon Routh was great and so SR. Singer provided a very faithful movie which took the character to a different place.

I for one don't wan to see 2 and a half hours of Supes beating up robots, just to please the fanboys.

Returns was a great piece of film. One of my favourite movies.
View Recorder