Will Singer mess up DoFP?

I actually beleive he is the worst choice to direct the sequel after the marvelous job Matthew Vaughn did. Honestly I dont think he has the stomach for dark and gritty material. I mean sure people give him credit for Xmen 1 and 2 but is it deserved? I wont lie part 2 was pretty good but maybe that was because it followed a popular storyline around the most popular character of Wolverine.The movies were all over the place so many characters without showing how their stories were linked. He failed to build up the characters in both movies all he did was try somehow deconstruct the Wolverine mystery. Rogue's story while focal in Xmen was not at all developed in X2

To sweep in like a vulture after Xmen First class had such phenomenal success is really stupid especially after the Superman Returns debacle ,just look at a movie like Jack the Giant slayer...I am wondering if this is the same guy who made Usual Suspects. In my eyes he is not the man for the job really. People are of two minds about Zach Snyder , but i think he would actually make a much better DoFP if the studio waited a while.He has delivered via MoS , most critics are predicatbly those who still think it's 1950's where Superman cannot stomach a death and superheroes fight but somehow no one gets hurt.Honestly a true comic fan knows that to bring realism to characters, one does not have to shy away from the dark side of comics.So to me Matthew Vaughn would be the first choice , and Zach Snyder 2nd .Singer should be nowhere near DoFP

What do you all think?

Bryan Singer can make good movies, just not good X-Men movies. He should go back to stuff like the Usual Suspects, he isn't that good with Superhero movies.

Bryan Singer is overrated. I just want a straight up reboot.

I hope the OP realizes that Bryan Singer had a very heavy hand in the production of X-Men First Class, it was very much a Singer influenced project, and it also had a lot of elements from his original X3 script.

I would also like to say that when X-Men 1 and X-Men 2 came out, comic movies weren't as lucrative...so not having the X-Mens most popular character, Wolverine, as the focal point...probably wouldn't have sat well with the studio.

I wish people would stop bashing the guy, he is a good director and introduced a lot of idea that were later incorporated into every media release of the X-Men, video games, cartoons etc....

I don't hate Singer... I just wish he worked with Marvel under the Disney umbrella and understood the characters better.

I don't think his movies are bad.

He just really does what he wants/ his own random versions with certain characters: Rouge, Storm, Wolverine, Mystique, and Pyro.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it ruins the character-- Storm and Rouge especially.

I think it's going to be terrible. I usually wait before I judge, but he's given me a reason to judge.

@madame_mist: @farkam: Agreed. This is necessary...

@cattlebattle: George Lucas also had a heavy hand on the original trilogy too. We all kinda know which two were the best of the six, right? The ones he didn't direct...

@chasereis said:

Ok, that comparison makes no sense. He had a heavy hand in all of them and the last three sucked because he had total dominion over them.

X-Men 1 and 2 were good, going by general opinion. Also, all the hate for the X-Men movies mostly stems from nitpicky bullsh*t from contradictive fans.

The only problem I had with his X-Men is using Cyclops as mutant punching bag.

If he brings back Cyclops as the leader I don't care how the movie turns out I just don't want Wolverine to constantly be the main character and leader

@cattlebattle: nitpicky bs plus calling me a name? Very nice...

People always talk about how Cyclops was a wimpy kid in the first two films but actually in the first he led the team 2 times, he had his father-sonish relationship with Xavier and at that moment in time he was just a boyscout in the comics. you may not agree but I seem to remember at that time wolverine was by far the most popular character and it made sense to go with him, Its like some people are talking about singers movies as if they came out yesterday, x-men 1 is over ten years old. these films dont follow the comics and people moan, the avengers didn't follow the comics and people are all woohoo, It really gets on my nerves how people can be so fickle. singers ensemble casts work just as well as whedons avengers, and that is even with it being focused around wolverine imo :)

I don't think Singer's made a good movie since the 90's, so I don't really have any faith in him with Days of Future Past.

Yes, he will mess this movie up.
That is all.

Im excited to see the movie as Im an X-fan, however I'm worried about it. Singer did good with X2 and I thought he should have been allowed to finish/continue his story in X3. Honestly the director I want for the Xmen franchise is in high demand with DC stuff right now and thats Christopher Nolan. I could also definitely do with JJ Abrams in the director's seat, and Joss Whedon wouldnt be a bad choice either.

@chasereis said:

I didn't call you anything. Just saying a major gripe fans have with the X-Men films is inaccuracy to the source material, which is silly considering no comic movie is accurate.

Bryan Singer admitted that he never read a comic book before making X1. It really shows.

I don't dislike him, but I definitely think his X-Men movies were over-rated. I found them to be amazingly boring.

That explains a lot. I thought he was a Superman fan, though.

@cattlebattle: Hmm, a'ight.

Its also inability people seem to have for understanding how simple concepts like business work...in the X-Men films, Hugh Jackman became a break out star....so naturally he will have top billing in future X-Men films....fans complain. Then Iron man is the most featured character in Avengers, for similar reasons, and no one cares

1) Such as?

2) When you a team based movie, with one guy holding the spot-light, it makes the other members look redundant

3) Thank you Singer for making comic rogue as boring as the movie version. Thank you Singer for making wolverine the most overused hero in Marvel History, Lord know Age of Ultron couldn't be better without him.

Honestly I could live without Singer's superhero movies. They either going to be focused on few charaters with a big cast(x-men) or just plain boring (superman returns)

1. The Hellfire Club, the whole 60' era theme. The beginning of the movie was a reshoot of the beginning of the first X-Men

2. How is everyone else redundant? in X2 nearly every character had something to do and their own sub plot.

3.Well...thats your opinion. There is lots of other things that were adapted as well.

@cattlebattle: To be honest Wolverine was Jackman's breakout role. He had no real star power prior to that, don't get me wrong, blowfish was good but that was not a career building movie. Then one has to question why then was X1 so bland? Why then was X2 only a tepid increase from X1?

@frogdog: Clearly you and I are in the same boat. Personally the new reader introduction mentality of the business stakeholders are the real culprit for comment number 3, not Singer. To quote a wise man, "Who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?" This was an editorial change up time where bad ideas flourished and seem to just litter the ground at Marvel. Notable ones were Rogue and Iceman, Giving Rogue a name, and the damned Leather Costumes. They did all of that and more to bridge kids who liked the movies into reading the comics. Im all for new readership but Marvel, sadly, goes out of it's way to alienate tenured readers or people who are just REALLY into a marvel concept that is pretty solid. The moral of the story is change is good, emotional amputation is bad. Hell remember when they gave 616 Peter PArker organic webshooters like in the Sam Raimi films? Same thing. Then they retconned the hell out of it. Typical Marvel, short term sales based on flash in the pan media buzz and shock value.

1) Source? Not that I don't trust you or anything

2) Yet who had the biggest connection to the main villain? Wolverine. Who had the best motivation to Stop the villain? Wolverine. Who practically became second in command, after cyclops went missing in action? Wolverine. Sure you could mention Jean saving everyone at the end, but jean hardly does anything useful till towards the end of both movies.

3) Even if its my opinion, I'm sure as hell not part of a minorty. Such as..?

1.They say it in behind the scene vignettes and commentaries ...also, if you read up on X-Men first class, Singer was supposed to direct and had everything prepared, he couldn't because of other projects..Vaughn just came along and actually finished writing the script and directed it...It was very much a Singer movie.

2.I would say everyone had the best motivation to stop the villain seeing as he was going to kill every mutant...then every human on earth. Wolverine was never second in command...don't be ridiculous. He led the children out of the mansion after their lives were threatened and had no plan of action...then he ditched his team at the end for personal gain only to decide to go back and accept them as his family. Storm was very much the leader with second guessing from Magneto at the end...who had his own agenda.

3.Yeah, sure, because you obviously asked every fan on the planet. Are you asking me what changes were adapted from the X-Men films to the comics??.....there is tons of stuff. How about the Ultimate Universe and some of the comics adopting the darker costumes, X-Men Evolution and the Ultimate Universe adopting a more practical approach to everything, The Xavier mansion functioning as a an actual school complete with a student body instead of just serving as the X-Mens headquarters.....the list goes on.

I'm actually more concerned with the large cast in Days of Future Past. I understand that the X-Men comics always had a large cast, but I would like it if Days of Future Past really gives each character time to shine (even if it's going to be difficult to pull off).

I too think the cast is too large to effectively balance the plot, but then the plot itself may be the reason why. Like I have a feeling if Apocalypse is in the film then maybe just like in X-men Evolution final episode Magneto, Prof X and Storm are turned into his horsemen and so they will be the villains of the future timeline...Blink and Quicksilver may be the time travelling linkmen characters .Wolverine may be the leader of the future X-men although he declined joining them in First class...and perhaps Rogue will have her full powers of strength and flight in the future timeline .All in all I think if this movie is to exhaust all the charaters on screen and tell a comprehensive story it has to be no less than 2 hours 30 minutes.Anything less will consign it to the trash heap of overhyped , overambitious but content lacking flops

I agree. I think the movie needs to be at least over two hours long if they are planning on giving each character their own time to shine and there are definitely a lot of characters in this film.

...Iceman wasn't funny.... at all! I don't recall one joke he cracked.. he was emo. WTH! I don't know how you can get iceman wrong... Rogue should have been jubilee... whom was in the background didn't believe the rogue/wolverine relationship at all. Nor did i like the fact that Wolverine was the main characters in the first X-men movies which were the setup for that horrible Origins movie (poor deadpool </3 ). They portrayed Sabertooth as stupid...savage i can believe, but stupid... naw. Mystique.... wow they really did a horrible job with her, and you can tell a man had a hand in her costume design confirmation. Then how she was this love sick puppy for magneto that was very unlike mystique i was expecting a Ku de ta of magneto's operation, nope she was really in love with him.

There was so much wrong with those first three movies and for a trilogy i guess you expected things to really come to a head at the end of the third, but all the third did was leave a lot of unanswered questions. But x-men 1 & 2, should have been more about the x-men and less about Wolverine. I think Singer will do a horrible job with the x-men DoFP.

I agree that one of the main problems with the X-Men movies was that there wasn't enough focus on all the characters. I hope DOFP fixes that.

It can't there are already too many characters showing up for the movie to be anything more then meh.

That's true, and I'm not really sure how each character will get their focus in this film, unless this film was over 2 hours long.

This is because the Avengers mostly matched their comic counterparts characteristics, and if they didn't the change to the character was for the better/turned out better. While in the Singer X-films most of the characters were rather bland; furthermore many of them were just character in name and power only.

Also, asides from the XFC, all of the other films have failed in their direction in terms of a movie with a team of superheroes. The Avengers got the right, Singer and others failed.

Sucks for you that people having legitimate complaints about poor direction/writing makes you bitter.

I agree with the OP. While Usual Suspects was brilliantly put to screen, Singer doesn't belong anywhere near a superhero movie. I find the X-Men blah and one note but Vaughn made them fun to watch.

ironic then that bryan singer had quite a helping hand in how first class was written, x-men 1 and 2 were written again and again so they were bound to suffer.