Who did it better: Bryan Singer or Brett Ratner?

I thought that X-MEN 3 knocked the crap out of SUPERMAN RETURNS. I'm sure Singer still could have done a good X-MEN 3, but his Superman movie is one of the most boring Superman movies I've seen. Eventhough, Superman Returns is better made than Superman 3 and 4, I'll take Richard Pryor or Solar Man over emotionless Brandon Routh.

Without having seen Superman, Singer is better. His overall track record is better. Ratner is a hack.

I'll take Singer over Ratner each and every time to direct a film.

Is this thread for real?

Not to offend anyone but it seems like someone has a grudge against Singer, taking into account the previous threads regarding X-Men 3.

I haven't seen Superman yet so I can't judge Singer on that, but regardless I think it wouldn't be entirly fair, the Superman and X-Men franchises being so different. Now if only the two directors had worked on the same franchise... wait...

Since X-Men 3 (IMHO) was far, far weaker than the previous two I gotta give win to Singer by several laps.

It's ridiculous to think that X3 even holds a candle to Superman Returns... I really wish we could've gotten X3 from Singer, but it's not to be. Cyclops definitely made the right choice by the way. Something tells me he wouldn't have gotten much screentime in X3 anyway...

Singer, definitely. But it's not a COMPLETE blowout. Hey! Who wants some fried turtle and gooseberry pie?

Bryan Singer did a Great job, Brett Ratner did a very very good job.

X-Men 3 was truly, truly AWFUL. Superman Returns was very, very good. This thread makes me laugh. A lot.

Superman Returns, as I recall, did not have a Concentration Camp survivor driving a Mercedes.

No shit. This question is just silly as the answer is beyond clear. Singer.

Singer over Ratner.... Even though X-men 3 was good, i still like X-men 2 and 1 so...

I don't think it's such a bad thread. Superman Returns is not much better than X-Men 3 IMO. It's a much bigger disappointment since I wasn't expecting much from X-Men 3 and the reviews had been good-to-great for Superman.

The truth is, both movies failed for me due mainly to their scripts. And Singer had complete creative control storywise when it came to Superman Returns. Ratner was basically a director-for-hire who did as he was told. In a way, you could make a case that Ratner did the better job given the obstacles in his path.

I didn't love X3, but don't have much hate for Brett Ratner, he does what he does well. I didn't LOVE Superman Returns (not yet anyhow) and Singer does what he does very well. Who did it better? It's tough to say. Singer made a better film, but he had more time/control but I'll admit I was expecting a bit more. Ratner delivered an average movie, but under the circumstances, not sure if we could have expected more.

Each have their own strengths/weaknesses, but if this thread was simply meant as an X3 Vs. Superman Returns thread, than Singer and Superman win.

MATT

How exactly can you comment on which is better if you have only seen one of them?

My opinion, Ratner did a better job. X3 was very good and Superman is very dull. Same old tired story of Lex Luther and Kryptonite.

Just to switch things up a little, try making it through a few posts without swearing.

Thank you DOUGHBOY and KCBRETT:

The best thing about Superman Returns was the title sequence, which matches the old supermans...I think that this movie is so well reviewed because it's compared against Superman 3 and 4...But compared to recent superhero movies, this movie was as stiff, unoriginal and boring as Elektra and The Punisher...If anything, this movie is similar to HULK. The action in this movie was entertaining, but the drama was just so bad....

IMO, Superman Returns was a lot more lively and fun than X3.

So Singer gets my vote. Was the most playful superhero adapation in ages, and constantly quite humorous.

X3 had a little more depth, more stuff going on in the background. SR was shallow as can be, but more focused and entertaining. If they trimmed maybe 15 minutes (there was one rescue scene too many, and a couple contemplative flying shots too many), it would be damn near perfect for what it was.

To each their own I suppose.

Ratner, is that you???

So you just created this thread to justify your own opinion? Fucking lame, man.

X-Men: The Last Stand is a complete pile of shit. Superman Returns is terrific. Singer is an incredibly easy choice here.

Superman has a real story and some heart, whereas X3 was thrown together with a half-assed story and horrific dialogue.

If you take a look at my post, I was referring to Ratner and Singer's track records, not the movies specifically. When I see Superman, maybe I'll come back and comment again.

If you're gonna change the mythos to infuse your own style. I'll take what Singer did with Superman. Better written, better acted, better story.

X-Men 3 had a bunch of lame action sequences, a non-sensical plot, and dull acting from everyone except Sir Ian.

Superman Returns will also be better remembered while X3 will be referred to as just another sequel to cash in.

I think Superman Returns looks awful, but a lot of the problem is with the character, not with the movie. I wish Ratner had handled Superman.

Superman Returns certainly has its flaws (30 mins too long, poor casting of Lois Lane, lack of chemistry, CG overload, thin plot) but it's still a fun time at the movies. I'm dead even on both films. I enjoyed them equally and each deserve a solid B rating.

I really hope Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan return to their roots one day.