Bryan Singer gives his thoughts on MOS

Since it was bound to happen sooner or later "Superman Returns" director Bryan Singer is giving his thoughts on MOS and some bits on the next "X-Men" film.

Originally quoted by Bryan Singer during an interview:

“If this was a few year ago, I might have [felt disappointed] - but so much time has passed. I’ve done two movies [since Superman Returns], I’ll be on my third movie now in the [X-Men] universe… so whilst it would have been nice then, now I’m actually genuinely looking forward to seeing Zack [Snyder]’s movie [Man Of Steel]. At my heart I’m a fan. I’ve always been a fan.)

“The original Superman movie was the one that educated me - the first act of Donner’s Superman was what inspired me to take X-Men so seriously. Now I get to go see a Superman movie and I don’t have to [frick]ing make it! [laughs] They’re not easy! He’s not an easy character!

“I got very nostalgic with my movie but even if you take it in another direction it’s very challenging… inherently he’s such a good guy… what’s easier about X-Men is that they’re all so conflicted. What’s going to be interesting in the next X-Men movie is that the characters are incredibly polarised.”

Now I don't expect him to say that he can do a better job nor he wish he can do the film the same way Synder & Co. are doing it, but saying he's disappointed for not doing a sequel to a film that didn't suit well with us fans? He should be more disappointed with how SR turned out and how he should have done it when given the director's chair to helm a "Superman" movie not to mention he should be more concern about what us fans think of his direction!

Let me start off by saying that I couldn't care less what the guy who cast BJ Routh thinks of MOS. Still, a few things jumped out at me.

Bryan Singer wrote:"If this was a few year ago, I might have [felt disappointed] - but so much time has passed.

The movie took, what, five months to hit $200 mill in the US? I wouldn't bring up time if I were you, Singer, it's a bad idea.

Bryan Singer wrote:I’ve done two movies [since Superman Returns],

One was Valkyrie. Damned if I can remember the other one he directed. But whatever, it's not like Valkyrie knocked 'em dead at the box office.

Bryan Singer wrote:At my heart I’m a fan. I’ve always been a fan.

Ah yes, of course, ONLY a fan would cast a skinny toothpick like BJ as the headliner, make Superman an absentee father, resentful ex and total stalker. Yep, oh yeah, Singer's fan cred is just leaking all over the place here...

Bryan Singer wrote:The original Superman movie was the one that educated me

Doesn't seem like he paid attention to any of the parts that really mattered...

Bryan Singer wrote:They’re not easy! He’s not an easy character!

Maybe I shouldn't say this in relation to Bryan Singer but, um, he's 6'4", has black hair, blue eyes, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke and tells the truth. I don't see what's so difficult about that.

Bryan Singer wrote:I got very nostalgic with my movie

No shit!

Bryan Singer wrote:but even if you take it in another direction it’s very challenging… inherently he’s such a good guy… what’s easier about X-Men is that they’re all so conflicted. What’s going to be interesting in the next X-Men movie is that the characters are incredibly polarised.

Remember people, this is the toolbag that was entrusted with Superman for a while there. And these are his thoughts. I can only speculate what we were spared with WB cancelling the sequel. Maybe MOS will suck, maybe it won't, but there's always a chance it could be great now that a fresh crew is running the show. Had Singer come back, there'd be no hope. None.

EDIT- Oh, and something else...

Bryan Singer wrote:I don’t have to [frick]ing make it! [laughs]

Now, we all know what he REALLY said there, right? So am I the only one who thinks this is incredibly immature? Great, go ahead and just drop some French in the middle of an interview like you're a frat boy. Nice job, Singer, VERY professional. I feel perfectly at liberty to say shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits because this is a message board and nobody's paying me to represent a movie studio with hundreds of millions of dollars invested in any given movie. But how brilliant do you have to be to take a more mature and professional line when you represent/shill products with that kind of investment behind them?

More and more, my rule of thumb is becoming "if you can't picture Henry Cavill doing it, you probably shouldn't do it either".

Rule of thumb: Keep Bryan Singerman on the 'conflicted' characters like X-MEN. That's where his strengths seem to lie. Hey! Here's a thought. Let him take over the BATMAN film franchise. I mean, I know it sounds like a joke but..........he wants realism, he wants conflicted, he wants dark. And there you go! He'd do Nolan proud.

non_amos wrote:Rule of thumb: Keep Bryan Singerman on the 'conflicted' characters like X-MEN. That's where his strengths seem to lie. Hey! Here's a thought. Let him take over the BATMAN film franchise. I mean, I know it sounds like a joke but..........he wants realism, he wants conflicted, he wants dark. And there you go! He'd do Nolan proud.

Part of me would kind of like that to happen to that the Nolanites would have a meltdown. Maybe we'd luck out and he'd cast Blandon as Bruce. Wouldn't that just be perfect?

Of course, inevitably that'd be the version of Batman that makes it into the Justice League of America movie and we'd all have to suffer through more of his "as emotive as a 2x4" acting, stinking up the screen alongside likely superior actors. So maybe we shouldn't give WB any ideas...

Funnily enough, BS is in store for his THIRD consecutive flop on 'Jack The Giant Flopper' comes out.

Singerman Peeps. Valcrappy. Jack The Giant Flopper.

Bodes well for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past', don't it?

Here's more what he has to say about MOS in another interview...

"Oh, very excited to see it. I love the trailer, and I think Zack Snyder is incredibly talented, It would have been strange for me if this was a few years ago; it would have been a little weird. But now there's so much distance from that world that I'm actually pumped to see it, genuinely. So I'm just looking forward to it."

He would find it strange if this was a few years ago? How could it be strange then if it's not strange now, what sense does that make?

Apologist Puncher wrote:Funnily enough, BS is in store for his THIRD consecutive flop on 'Jack The Giant Flopper' comes out.

Singerman Peeps. Valcrappy. Jack The Giant Flopper.

Bodes well for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past', don't it?

I guess that's the whole reason why I don't get how people are all excited about him coming back to X-Men. Singerman sucked, Valkyrie sucked (yes, I saw it, a bunch of friends wanted to see it when it came out and I lost the vote) and that giant movie doesn't look like it's any radical improvement on his already lackluster series of output. If X-Men turns out well (and there's a chance it might), I could sooner credit the script and the cast for that much as I do the Usual Suspects, where Singer is the weakest link there as well.

thecolorsblend wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:Funnily enough, BS is in store for his THIRD consecutive flop on 'Jack The Giant Flopper' comes out.

Singerman Peeps. Valcrappy. Jack The Giant Flopper.

Bodes well for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past', don't it?

I guess that's the whole reason why I don't get how people are all excited about him coming back to X-Men. Singerman sucked, Valkyrie sucked (yes, I saw it, a bunch of friends wanted to see it when it came out and I lost the vote) and that giant movie doesn't look like it's any radical improvement on his already lackluster series of output. If X-Men turns out well (and there's a chance it might), I could sooner credit the script and the cast for that much as I do the Usual Suspects, where Singer is the weakest link there as well.

I may be a little behind times on this subject but why exactly ain't Matthew Vaughn or whatever his name is returning as director? Whether you like X-MEN: FIRST CLASS or not, a lot of people do. I have a friend who absolutely adores the film & really digs how they portrayed Professor X & Magneto in their younger days. So exactly why didn't he return?

As for Bryan Singerman, I think a lot of fanboys feel that he hit it out of the park with the 1st 2 X-Men films & that we would've been better off if he'd stayed for the 3rd film since they didn't like what Brett Ratner did with it & that would also have given us a different Superman film as well. Maybe they have a point? I liked those X-films he did, especially the 2nd one. He can apparently get away with his whole 'conflicted' inner turmoil crapola better with that franchise. They're like misfits to begin with but Superman ain't!

But let's be thankful too that he ain't doing a Singerman sequel. Case in point. We would've had BJ the 2x4 instead of Henry Cavill. The Five-Head instead of the awesome Amy Adams. Rigormortis Langella instead of Lawrence Fisburne. Jimmy would've been baking Clark a cake. Swell! We probably would've seen the return of Kevin Spacey once again aping Gene Hackman but failing. He & what's-her-name would've been rescued from that island. The Super-Twerp would've had to die at the hands of Brainiac or whoever or even worse, at the hands of Singerman! And if that ain't enough, I believe we would've seen General Zod played by Jude Law instead of the most awesome Michael Shannon. You know, because he somehow, sorta, 'looks' like Terrance Stamp. Whatever. I guess kinda like how BJ 'looks' like the living incarnation of Christopher Reeve.

Yeah, I think we have a lot to be thankful for that Singer is 'on' X-men.

non_amos wrote:I may be a little behind times on this subject but why exactly ain't Matthew Vaughn or whatever his name is returning as director? Whether you like X-MEN: FIRST CLASS or not, a lot of people do. I have a friend who absolutely adores the film & really digs how they portrayed Professor X & Magneto in their younger days. So exactly why didn't he return?

As for Bryan Singerman, I think a lot of fanboys feel that he hit it out of the park with the 1st 2 X-Men films & that we would've been better off if he'd stayed for the 3rd film since they didn't like what Brett Ratner did with it & that would also have given us a different Superman film as well. Maybe they have a point? I liked those X-films he did, especially the 2nd one. He can apparently get away with his whole 'conflicted' inner turmoil crapola better with that franchise. They're like misfits to begin with but Superman ain't!

But let's be thankful too that he ain't doing a Singerman sequel. Case in point. We would've had BJ the 2x4 instead of Henry Cavill. The Five-Head instead of the awesome Amy Adams. Rigormortis Langella instead of Lawrence Fisburne. Jimmy would've been baking Clark a cake. Swell! We probably would've seen the return of Kevin Spacey once again aping Gene Hackman but failing. He & what's-her-name would've been rescued from that island. The Super-Twerp would've had to die at the hands of Brainiac or whoever or even worse, at the hands of Singerman! And if that ain't enough, I believe we would've seen General Zod played by Jude Law instead of the most awesome Michael Shannon. You know, because he somehow, sorta, 'looks' like Terrance Stamp. Whatever. I guess kinda like how BJ 'looks' like the living incarnation of Christopher Reeve.

Yeah, I think we have a lot to be thankful for that Singer is 'on' X-men.

I never saw the story potential in Singerman 2. It just isn't something you can make a sequel to because the traditional mythos are in ruins by the time Routh flies off into the sunrise or sunset or whatever that was.

No idea why Vaughn isn't doing the new X-Men. My hunch, though, is that it's because Singer needs something to put him back on the map so he pulled rank and inserted himself as director. His track record with the franchise is good so probably nobody gave him too much resistance.

Kind of irritates me that Ratner gets burned in effigy for X3 (which isn't a bad film at all for his participation) while Singer gets a free pass on Singerman (which is a piece of crap from beginning to end because of his participation) but I've given up on expecting logic and common sense from "the online community". Ratner was a hired gun who had about one year to bring a faulty script to life. Singer was the prime creative driving force of Singerman with oodles of money and time at his disposal; you tell me who's more responsible for those movies turning out the way they did.

thecolorsblend wrote:I guess that's the whole reason why I don't get how people are all excited about him coming back to X-Men. Singerman sucked, Valkyrie sucked (yes, I saw it, a bunch of friends wanted to see it when it came out and I lost the vote) and that giant movie doesn't look like it's any radical improvement on his already lackluster series of output. If X-Men turns out well (and there's a chance it might), I could sooner credit the script and the cast for that much as I do the Usual Suspects, where Singer is the weakest link there as well.

I have a feeling Vaughn wasn't into Fox's new "shared universe" concepts, even though BS and Mark Millar haven't even SPOKEN yet, and decided to move on to other things. Singer's looking to stop his box-office tailspin, and thinks he has an easy job going back to the 'X-Men' franchise. But I don't think he TRULY understands how much Marvel Studios has changed things.

His mopey, leather suited, hit you over the head with a 2X4 gay allegories, FU to the comics attitude won't be countenanced any longer. Unless he has SERIOUSLY changed his attitude towards the source material, and nothing makes me think he has, then 'Days of Future Past' is in trouble.

I'm also going to post something that hit me recently about BS when it comes to BJ. I'll post it in the Donnerverse section, since neither of them deserve to sully up the 'MOS' section any more than they have.

*sigh* I really don't have much venom for the guy and cannot understand how anyone would be so emotionally invested towards an individual, especially when it comes to unrelenting hatred. I don't even have venom on the people I thought were utterly wrong for a James Bond film. Maybe it's just me, I always try to look at things from a distance. As for his resume, I enjoyed Valkyrie, nothing great but I didn't come away thinking it sucked. Hadn't seen it since it came out, so I dunno how it would hold up. I still enjoy The Usual Suspects and the two X-Men films immensely. I haven't watched Superman Returns in many years, I might pop that in right before MOS comes out. Actually, just thinking about that make me yawn.

Still, Jack the Giant Killer looks like ass, might be the worst thing he ever did.

You're a 007 fan, right? Too lazy to check but my understanding is that Bond films have come out pretty regularly since the 60's. The biggest gap between movies is, what, five years? Six? Plus, for all intents and purposes, Bond may as well be a film character. Yeah yeah yeah, started off in the novels, Ian Fleming, whatever, he's a film character. He's that iconic. Put yourself in our shoes. Imagine you had to wait damned near 20 years for a new Bond movie... and the end result features the most untalented hack you've ever seen badly repeating old Connery lines while the director has a serious boner for Dr. No and mostly succeeds only in reminding us how much better Dr. No is.

Motherfucker never fires his gun, has a car chase or a narrow escape, never orders a martini or does much else you associate with James Bond at his most iconic. Instead, he has a tranquilizer dart gun, a regular bicycle, no gadgets and he orders beers before and after stalking a rather boyish-looking Moneypenny.

Twenty years of your life and all you've got to show for it is something that's damned close to epitomizing everything that Bond never represented to most people. How happy would you be? Might you have just a bit of a grudge against whoever masterminded that abortion of a movie?

A lot of the 007 examples you put actually happened especially not firing a gun for a whole movie and using darts (which of course shoot out of his watch). I guess the closest to a SR for Bond is Licence to Kill, which was underwhelming at the box office, featured a lead nobody liked (especially in the US), was criticized for not being suitable for children and no new film was made for six years.

However, you make a fine point about the number of productions throughout the years. That I would blame on WB. Bond does make a good example of how you can keep a series viable by always keep production going even after something major like a change in lead actors and the tone of the films always evolved with the times. I think the closest you have in the comic book world is the MARVEL universe and the producers have made it no secret that once RDJ is finished they will not be scared to recast, and that is because they believe the material is stronger than one man. As long as they keep making films that stay true to the spirit of the comics and engage audiences, they have a great future. If a film doesn't do so well, brush it off and try better next time.

Contras that with WB, which seems to have little confidence in any of the DC material unless it features a man dressed as a bat. They hired Singer to make the film he wanted to make and he did, and for whatever dumb reason they thought his vision would be loved by audiences. If anything Id blame WB for that more than Singer. They could have hired someone who was more well versed in the comics and make a film that would begin a new era for DC. Another thing is that SR had too many threads by the end of the film that no sequel could be made without dealing with them. Contrast that to the Marvel films that remain relatively standalone but still have threads that aren't too overwhelming (unless you include the post credits).

Singer is definitely responsible for how the film turned out, no doubt about it. But ultimately it's WB that lacked the foresight to see if a film like that was viable as the beginning of a new era.

The Bond comparison seems to come up a lot in regard to superhero franchises, particularly Superman, Batman & Spiderman. The problem is though is that I've yet to see a superhero franchise act on it! The original Burton Batman franchise should've been a prime example of this. It got off to an excellent start but I think even the fans would've understood that Michael Keaton couldn't do it forever. He could've done one or two more films though but it wasn't to be. But if that franchise had followed the Bond lead then they could've avoided Joel Shumacher like the plague & just kept cranking out good Bat-films. Recasting would've been inevitable but after a 3-4 year break it wouldn't have mattered as much. So if they had done that there would've been no Nolan reboot & by now there would've been no telling how many villains we would've seen done successfully. And ditto for the Reeve Superman franchise. I know this has been discussed before but I think we all know how Gerard Christopher was being primed to make the jump to the big screen but that fell apart too due to circumstances.

So due to the abundance of the source material, superhero franchises should follow this lead instead of rebooting all the time. But they don't! And this is no doubt due to mismanagement somewhere. However, Marvel does seem to now have a better grip on this but it seems like wishful thinking for WB/DC to do the same.

I totally understand. And I even agree. But for me, the "do it like the Bond franchise" argument kinda falls apart in that most superheroes have a fairly limited rogue's gallery. As good as Batman's is, you've got a lot of "twisted reflections" in there. Batman's villains tend to be similar to him in some way or another. I think it would get repetitive after a while.

As for Superman, his rogue's gallery is even more anemic. You have to wonder how many of them are really capable of headlining a Superman movie too. I like Metallo and everything but can he really shoulder a movie? Maybe... but maybe not.

Meanwhile, Bond can get by with new villains each time out.

I'm not excusing mishandling film properties. Far from it. I'm just saying that what works for James Bond may not necessarily work for other characters.

James Stocks wrote:*sigh* I really don't have much venom for the guy and cannot understand how anyone would be so emotionally invested towards an individual, especially when it comes to unrelenting hatred. I don't even have venom on the people I thought were utterly wrong for a James Bond film. Maybe it's just me, I always try to look at things from a distance. As for his resume, I enjoyed Valkyrie, nothing great but I didn't come away thinking it sucked. Hadn't seen it since it came out, so I dunno how it would hold up. I still enjoy The Usual Suspects and the two X-Men films immensely. I haven't watched Superman Returns in many years, I might pop that in right before MOS comes out. Actually, just thinking about that make me yawn.

Seriously, what's the point of this? To tell us all you aren't as passionate about Superman as the rest of us? Since this is at least the second time you've said this, I'm guessing that's it.

I've seen you post about how much you dislike Abrams 'Trek', correct? Now aside from turning it into a "space action film", and you don't like that, the characters still acted like the characters you remember, right? Now, just imagine if Abrams made Kirk a deadbeat dad who stalks his ex. Spock wasn't very bright, but he could lift really heavy things. Sulu was Indian. The "Red Shirts" actually wore ORANGE. And so on, and so on. Would you say the same to people who despised Abrams for these "choices"?

Methinks not.

But since it's Superman, and those of us who did what we had to do to make sure Singer NEVER got to touch Superman again rightly dislike him now, somehow we're "wrong"?

Really?

Still, Jack the Giant Killer looks like ass, might be the worst thing he ever did.

thecolorsblend wrote:I totally understand. And I even agree. But for me, the "do it like the Bond franchise" argument kinda falls apart in that most superheroes have a fairly limited rogue's gallery. As good as Batman's is, you've got a lot of "twisted reflections" in there. Batman's villains tend to be similar to him in some way or another. I think it would get repetitive after a while.

As for Superman, his rogue's gallery is even more anemic. You have to wonder how many of them are really capable of headlining a Superman movie too. I like Metallo and everything but can he really shoulder a movie? Maybe... but maybe not.

Meanwhile, Bond can get by with new villains each time out.

I'm not excusing mishandling film properties. Far from it. I'm just saying that what works for James Bond may not necessarily work for other characters.

Which is why I brought up the MARVEL franchise as something comparable. Besides the Iron Man films, all of the villains don't die so that they could be reused in future installments. Ultimately my point was that the MARVEL films have been going at a consistent rate production wise. There's hardly ever a year without a film by that team and they've stated their intentions to keep the machine going even after actors like RDJ part ways, when usually other studios just put the series on an indefinite hold of some form (or when they have no choice, such as when Nolan gave his films a definite ending instead of allowing other filmmakers to expand on what he established).

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:*sigh* I really don't have much venom for the guy and cannot understand how anyone would be so emotionally invested towards an individual, especially when it comes to unrelenting hatred. I don't even have venom on the people I thought were utterly wrong for a James Bond film. Maybe it's just me, I always try to look at things from a distance. As for his resume, I enjoyed Valkyrie, nothing great but I didn't come away thinking it sucked. Hadn't seen it since it came out, so I dunno how it would hold up. I still enjoy The Usual Suspects and the two X-Men films immensely. I haven't watched Superman Returns in many years, I might pop that in right before MOS comes out. Actually, just thinking about that make me yawn.

Seriously, what's the point of this? To tell us all you aren't as passionate about Superman as the rest of us? Since this is at least the second time you've said this, I'm guessing that's it.

I just find the hatred to be overwhelming to read, and I'm trying to see what the whole purpose to it is. He's out of the job now, great, let him make his own failures. I guess I'm just a live and let live kind of guy, and admittedly I always try to view things as dispassionately as possible.

I've seen you post about how much you dislike Abrams 'Trek', correct? Now aside from turning it into a "space action film", and you don't like that, the characters still acted like the characters you remember, right? Now, just imagine if Abrams made Kirk a deadbeat dad who stalks his ex. Spock wasn't very bright, but he could lift really heavy things. Sulu was Indian. The "Red Shirts" actually wore ORANGE. And so on, and so on. Would you say the same to people who despised Abrams for these "choices"?

Heh, well Kirk is revealed to be a deadbeat dad in what is considered by many the best Star Trek film. I'd argue a lot of the characters didn't act like the characters (especially Scotty), but I'll leave that for the Trek thread. Sulu being an Indian? Nah I'd agree with fans on that being stupid. Red Shirts wearing orange? Well for the majority of the franchise they switched to wearing gold, so changing colored uniforms isn't gonna rock the boat for fans, especially when they went from this:




To this:

But since it's Superman, and those of us who did what we had to do to make sure Singer NEVER got to touch Superman again rightly dislike him now, somehow we're "wrong"?

Really?

Not necessarily.

Still, Jack the Giant Killer looks like ass, might be the worst thing he ever did.

Not kidding, it looks like ass.

James Stocks wrote:I just find the hatred to be overwhelming to read, and I'm trying to see what the whole purpose to it is. He's out of the job now, great, let him make his own failures. I guess I'm just a live and let live kind of guy, and admittedly I always try to view things as dispassionately as possible.

Venting present participle of vent (Verb)
Verb
Give free expression to (a strong emotion).

And you basically admitted what I intimated, without actually admitting it.

It's a start.

Heh, well Kirk is revealed to be a deadbeat dad in what is considered by many the best Star Trek film. I'd argue a lot of the characters didn't act like the characters (especially Scotty), but I'll leave that for the Trek thread. Sulu being an Indian? Nah I'd agree with fans on that being stupid.

Did Kirk stalk and creep around his ex's house? On more than one occasion?

Nope.

Red Shirts wearing orange? Well for the majority of the franchise they switched to wearing gold, so changing colored uniforms isn't gonna rock the boat for fans, especially when they went from this:




To this:

Wait a sec, do you not know what a Redshirt is?? I'm seriously thinking you don't.

Here's some help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_(character)#Star_Trek

"In many episodes of Star Trek, red-uniformed security officers and engineers accompanying the main characters on landing parties quickly die.[2] Analysis of the original Star Trek episodes shows that of the 59 crew members killed in the series, 43 (73%) were wearing red shirts.[3] In the Pocket Books Star Trek novel Killing Time, a crew member says, "You don't want to wear a red shirt on landing-party duty".[4] The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine book Legends of the Ferengi says Starfleet security personnel "rarely survive beyond the second act break".[5] The eleventh Star Trek film (2009) features a red-uniformed character who dies early on during a mission in homage to the original series.[6]"

Now don't try to save face dude. What you posted were NOT Redshirts. These are:



If Abrams changed the Redshirts to orange, the Trekkie world would EXPLODE.

Not necessarily.

Then why complain? Repeatedly?

Not kidding, it looks like ass.

Says "HI!".

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:I just find the hatred to be overwhelming to read, and I'm trying to see what the whole purpose to it is. He's out of the job now, great, let him make his own failures. I guess I'm just a live and let live kind of guy, and admittedly I always try to view things as dispassionately as possible.

Venting present participle of vent (Verb)
Verb
Give free expression to (a strong emotion).

And you basically admitted what I intimated, without actually admitting it.

It's a start.

Venting for seven years about a film that will be considered inconsequential in the long run. I can understand doing that when it came out, perhaps all the way up to the news when Singer got canned, but after so long I would think it got exhausting at some point. That's all. Vent all you like, I'm just expressing how I feel about all this said venting.

Heh, well Kirk is revealed to be a deadbeat dad in what is considered by many the best Star Trek film. I'd argue a lot of the characters didn't act like the characters (especially Scotty), but I'll leave that for the Trek thread. Sulu being an Indian? Nah I'd agree with fans on that being stupid.

Did Kirk stalk and creep around his ex's house? On more than one occasion?

Nope.

He was a deadbeat dad, so he fit into one of those descriptions you put up. That's all I meant. I should acknowledge the difference of course, as that's unacceptable for Superman because he's supposed to be considered an ideal, where Kirk is heroic but ultimately portrayed as a flawed human being.

Red Shirts wearing orange? Well for the majority of the franchise they switched to wearing gold, so changing colored uniforms isn't gonna rock the boat for fans, especially when they went from this:




To this:

Wait a sec, do you not know what a Redshirt is?? I'm seriously thinking you don't.

Here's some help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_(character)#Star_Trek

"In many episodes of Star Trek, red-uniformed security officers and engineers accompanying the main characters on landing parties quickly die.[2] Analysis of the original Star Trek episodes shows that of the 59 crew members killed in the series, 43 (73%) were wearing red shirts.[3] In the Pocket Books Star Trek novel Killing Time, a crew member says, "You don't want to wear a red shirt on landing-party duty".[4] The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine book Legends of the Ferengi says Starfleet security personnel "rarely survive beyond the second act break".[5] The eleventh Star Trek film (2009) features a red-uniformed character who dies early on during a mission in homage to the original series.[6]"

Now don't try to save face dude. What you posted were NOT Redshirts. These are:



If Abrams changed the Redshirts to orange, the Trekkie world would EXPLODE.

I should clarify, I was talking about the uniforms, not the redshirt specifically. My error in not elaborating. What I was explaining was that the Trek uniforms have changed so drastically over the years that it doesn't matter if they change colors, especially when they keep switching them around (red shirts become gold, gold becomes blue, ect). That's just how it has been for the franchise. The photos I showed were illustrating the drastic changes in style, not specifically about redshirts. So I doubt fans are suddenly going to complain about redshirts being changed to orange if that ever happens. They might have in 1987 when they changed them to gold, but that was probably a very small group. Trek uniforms are not like the Superman suit, so I doubt Trekkies would ever get so upset over Trek uniforms like Superman fans get upset over the lack of red trunks. On a sidenote, the Abrams uniforms do adopt the SR method of having tiny little symbols all over the uniforms. I'm not too crazy about that.

Then why complain? Repeatedly?

Is this a trick question?

Not kidding, it looks like ass.

Says "HI!".[/quote]

Not sure what's worse about that picture, the uniform or the horrible photoshop that's evident in all the SR promotion.

I've wondered about that stuff. Somebody had to approve those bad Photoshop jobs and I hope that person is unemployed now.

I'd just like to point out that the pic of Kirk, Spock & McKoy from ST2, although at first glance you think they're wearing red uniforms, when you look again it's actually more of a burgundy color. Ya know, kinda like Singerman's suit. But Trek got it better of course.

As for the new Trek characters being out of character, I kinda agree and disagree. I think for the most part they 'got' the characters but some things happened I didn't necessarily agree with, like Spock having a relationship with Uhura. I mean, you might look at Zoe Saldana & think 'why not?' but remember, we're talking the nature of the characters in the original Trek. It's one thing for Kirk to be 'bedding' a green woman but Spock? Go back & watch the original series. Remember the episode AMOK TIME I believe it was called? Spock 'went into heat' for lack of a better term & had 'to mate' per Vulcan tradition. It's also the ep where he thought he'd killed Kirk. But when that whole thing was resolved, Spock no longer had the urge to mate. And there were very few eps other than that that even dealt with Spock's 'needs'. There was one where he got 'influenced' by spores on a planet they visited but that didn't last. There was also the attraction that Nurse Chapel had for Spock & he seemed at times to 'feel' it too but he obviously suppressed it & didn't act on it unless I'm forgetting something like another 'high' ep. So in the new Trek Spock being a 'horn-dog' with Uhura just seems out of character when you know your Trek. Now whether that's a major gripe or a minor quibble, you tell me.

Yep. My understanding was that nothing was ever suggested for Spock and Uhura in TOS. It's one of those things that wouldn't likely have changed in an alternate timeline. It kind of makes me critical of the alternate timeline concept, actually. If they'd called it a reboot (which is basically what it is in practical terms), you could get by with that as new continuity isn't beholden to the old one. But it being an alternate timeline preserves the original, sure, but it doesn't necessarily offer this kind of latitude for the characters.

I'm not so invested in Trek that I really give a shit, mind you, I'm just saying...

Just gonna continue it here...: https://supermanfilmwatchdog.forumcanadien.org/t896-the-star-trek-franchise#16094

Look who is missing from Entertainment Weekly cover


http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/06/12/this-weeks-cover-superman-man-of-steel/

Dude, they only wanted real Supermen on the cover. Under that rubric, the Bartender of Pleather has to be left out. Good find!