What Happened To You, Bryan Singer?
Filed under: Remakes and Sequels, Fan Rant
Bryan Singer, I'm worried about you. I mean no disrespect in saying that, nor do I mean to be just another snarky critic who wants to complain about Superman Returns. To the contrary, I think you're a talented filmmaker, you're ambitious, and it's resulted in a lot of solid work. Even if I didn't care for Returns, I admire the work that went into it, and I applauded your defense of it at my first ComicCon.
But all of a sudden, you're the remake guy! Of course, that's a really glib assessment of your pre-production slate, but in one week you've become attached to two remakes: a big-screen retelling of Battlestar Galatica, and a remake of John Boorman's Excalibur. Both are absolutely inexplicable and even ill-advised, especially in regards to the Battlestar remake / reimagining. I mean, it does take major cajones to attempt something like that on the heels of an insanely popular and critically acclaimed television show, and I can really admire that in a filmmaker. A guy who says "Whatever, SyFy! I'm making my own BSG!" is a guy I'd like to have as a friend, but it's also a friend I would take aside and say "Dude, are you sure about that?"
Like any director, you've had hits and misses. But most importantly, you've shown a flair for original work. Here, people will jump in to remind me that your biggest films were comic book adaptations, but let's be honest -- your X-Men films tossed comic continuity out the window, and ran with a retelling. So did Superman Returns. They were your films all the way, and that's cool. Now, do it again.
But all of a sudden, you're the remake guy! Of course, that's a really glib assessment of your pre-production slate, but in one week you've become attached to two remakes: a big-screen retelling of Battlestar Galatica, and a remake of John Boorman's Excalibur. Both are absolutely inexplicable and even ill-advised, especially in regards to the Battlestar remake / reimagining. I mean, it does take major cajones to attempt something like that on the heels of an insanely popular and critically acclaimed television show, and I can really admire that in a filmmaker. A guy who says "Whatever, SyFy! I'm making my own BSG!" is a guy I'd like to have as a friend, but it's also a friend I would take aside and say "Dude, are you sure about that?"
Like any director, you've had hits and misses. But most importantly, you've shown a flair for original work. Here, people will jump in to remind me that your biggest films were comic book adaptations, but let's be honest -- your X-Men films tossed comic continuity out the window, and ran with a retelling. So did Superman Returns. They were your films all the way, and that's cool. Now, do it again.
Come on, Bryan! Run with Freedom Formula or Capeshooters. If you want to make a King Arthur movie, go for it, but take the original legends and give them your own spin. I can see that being a perfect fit for you. At the heart of all the Arthurian legends are flawed, repressed individuals just trying to meet impossible standards. It's like X2, but with more sex, secrets, and religious shame. Good stuff. Your kind of story. But retreading Boorman's version? Why? You can offer it so much more.
I freely confess that this is a knee-jerk reaction to two news items. Maybe you're looking at Battlestar Galatica and Excalibur purely as a basis, like you did with the X-Men, and you'll create something that's original, movies that are game changers. Because whatever we want to nitpick and criticize about your comic book films, you did set a standard that everyone else is following. Comic book films would still be a kiddie joke if it hadn't been for X2. I really believe that.
So, don't be gunshy. Don't fall into this bizarre remake trap. Shock the hell out of us with something. Make something historical, make another comic book movie (Wolverine's Japan adventures do beckon), make a romantic comedy, whatever. But don't backpedal over someone else's movie ... unless it's X3. You could redo that one, and we wouldn't complain.
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-21-2009 @ 8:15PM
stevenh said...
im really surprised people still care about brian singer. usual suspects was awesome, but that was 14 years ago. x men, imo, was very overrated, and as time goes by i think its flaws have become more apparent. and i actually kind of liked superman returns. but since usual suspects, all his work seems to consistently disappoint.
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 8:18PM
Flowers said...
I can state from first hand fact and first hand insider info that the reason why Bryan Singer has made less than amazing films is because of his ego.
The man is a 1st rate pre-madonna and boy can he be moody. I mean queeny OMG moody. It's laughable and quite silly really.
He hasn't made a great film for years and I'm surprised people keep hiring this prick. It really comes down to money and box office numbers etc...
He's one of the most prominent gay directors out there but he doesn't do a damn thing cinematic for gay filmmaking (i.e. Gus Van Sant who is fucking amazing and humble but a bit aloof).
So Bryan I could care less if you fade away into obscurity. You haven't offered much to cinema and your contribution to society is embarrassing.
that's just my two cents.
--
Reply
8-22-2009 @ 5:35PM
Jay said...
It's prima donna(first lady) not before Madonna
8-21-2009 @ 10:49PM
JImeneX said...
ahem...it's 'cojones', not 'cajones.' Sorry, it's one of my pet peeves (along with 'banditos' instead of the real 'bandidos')
Anyway, I just read about the BSG remake. What the hell are they thinking? Seriosly, do people think it's going to work when they cast a Not-Olmos as Adama and a (ugh) guy as Starbuck?
Reply
8-21-2009 @ 11:15PM
John said...
Darn Jimenex! You beat me to the cajones (big boxes) vs. cojones (testicles) correction. And, you are right, I see people making that mistake quite often.
8-22-2009 @ 1:07AM
DanJack said...
I have to disagree on the X-Men films. X2 was decent, but they were in no way "not kiddie". There were far more serious and moodier comic book films that preceded it (Burton's Batman films to name just two). The X-Men films were popular yes, but I put them more in the Fantastic Four category versus the Spider-Man, Batman, and The Dark Knight.one.
I seriously hope that he does something great with BSG. The new series had no life to it at all. I know there is a miniscule rabid fan base for it, but if they can Retcon the hell out of Star Trek and it be popular, then by all means give us a new take on BSG. Just please make it fun.
Reply
8-22-2009 @ 5:50AM
Mike D said...
"Valkyrie" was an exceptional motion picture, a taut, meat and potatoes thriller of the first order. Of course, people did not go see it. Bitching about Tom Cruise or something. Why does the guy who rocked hard in "Born on the Fourth of July" take nore shit than, say, that woman-bashing piece of crap named Chris Brown? Either, way, many of you missed out on Terence Stamp, Tom Wilkinson, Eddie Izzard, Kenneth Branagh, and Jamie Bamber, who is quite good. And Cruise carried the center. Great film, great writing, and a million times better than anything nominated for Best Picture this past year. It will last. Whereas, "Slumdog", will always be dull, maudlin fantasy for chumps.
Reply
8-22-2009 @ 6:54PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Valkryie was, in my eyes, amusing for being so trite. It was like HBO's intolerably syrupy angels in america. Gag.
8-23-2009 @ 12:08AM
Phillip said...
Ron Moore's BSG, as awesome as it was, was never "insanely popular." It was more like insanely culty. BSG never attracted more than 4 million viewers tops, and while that may count as a hit in today's fractured cable universe, the original series regularly attracted 20 million viewers or more, as was still in the top twenty when it was canceled by ABC, which cited the extremely high expense of the program as the reason for its cancellation.
Universal figures that there is life left to be exploited in the title, and with Glen Larson holding the feature film rights, there is no option business-wise than to go back to basics. Hiring Singer is a good move - he's a fan of the property and knows how to handle big-budget fantasy. Give him a chance - he may surprise everyone.
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 2:40AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Not sure you can count viewers during first showings any longer. The internet, DVD, hulu, tivos/dvrs have changed viewing habits. Greatly.
And you comparison to thr 1980s show neglects one simple fact - we only had 3 networks to choose from. In 2009 it's closer to 200. It's a fractured audience; your comparison is not apples to apples.
8-23-2009 @ 1:31PM
Phillip said...
I wasn't neglecting the fact - granted, it's damn near impossible for a modern TV show to match BSG's 1978-1979 numbers. I was just pointing out the fact that calling Ron Moore's version "insanely popular" is disingenuous.
Back in the day, every one I knew had seen the show at least once. I saw every ep of the Ron Moore show, but it was tough to find more than a handful of friends whom had seen it once, even on hulu or DVD.
TV no longer offers the possibility for 20 million veiwers to see a show at once; theatrical feature films still do. For better of worse, theatrical films based on 1980s properties drew in more viewers on the big screen this year than Ron Moore's BSG ever did. Doing a theatrical film makes economic, if not artistic, sense.
8-22-2009 @ 8:17PM
Scott K. said...
I second the suggestion for Bryan Singer to remake X3...
Not sure what he's thinking with these, but I'll still give him the benefit of the doubt. Tho, after Returns, there are no more free passes. (Just like Raimi and Spiderman 3.)
Reply
8-23-2009 @ 2:03PM
CharlieW said...
"Major cajones"????
What's drawers got to do with anything?
Tip: Grab a Spanish-English dictionary before attempting to use Spanish words.
Reply