The spotlight does not last for long for everyone, especially Hollywood actors. Some get on the cusp of superstardom and never fully make it there, while others can disappear completely. However, some actors do not even get that chance as they simply never become that famous for one reason or another and don’t become household names. Let’s take a look at three actors who probably should be more famous than they are:
Cary Elwes has some impressive credits to his name. He was the lead in the Rob Reiner classic The Princess Bride, he’s Robin Hood in the always funny Robin Hood: Men in Tights (man, I miss Dave Chappelle) and he’s the guy who cuts his own foot off to escape in the original Saw movie. To go along with those Elwes has had supporting roles in Liar Liar, Twister, Days of Thunder, Glory and Francis Ford Coppola’s take on Dracula. So the question is:
Why isn’t he more famous?
Family Guy actually beat me to this, but it is something I’ve always wondered for years. Princess Bride and Men in Tights are both movies that the general public loves; they are both highly re-watchable and are still shown on TV all the time. The original Saw is also one of the best horror movies I have ever seen, and that is not an understatement. Honestly though, Jim Carrey’s character in Liar Liar might have said it best: “he’s kind of, Magoo”. There’s nothing that really excites a viewer about Cary Elwes, especially his name. Is it pronounced “elves” like Christmas or “El-Wis”? I still don’t know. The fact is that Elwes is (was) the perfect star for a movie with a strong ensemble cast, as in his three big hits, a solid supporting actor and not much else. Key example: he’s the lead in The Crush (also known as Alicia Silverstone’s first movie) without much in terms of a supporting cast and the film BOMBED. I’m talking 13 million total domestic gross bomb. Yuck.
He is commonly referred to as “the black guy from 40-Year-Old Virgin”. But Romany Malco (his actual name) has worked consistently for years. Malco was a supporting character in the hit shows Weeds, and had starring roles in the absolutely terrible Love Guru, and the surprise hit Think Like A Man.
Why isn’t he more famous?
He falls into a category I made up called “Everyone else from this hit movie is famous now but me”. Just think about every other main actor in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. When the movie came out in 2005 even Steve Carrel was not necessarily a big name. But besides that, you have an almost unrecognizable Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Jane Lynch, Elizabeth Banks, and even a pretty funny cameo from a young and at his fattest Jonah Hill. All those actors have much bigger careers and are more generally known than Romany. Hell, even Mindy Kaling and Kevin Hart with their one scene each are both more famous. Out of all those characters in the film he’s just as funny in my opinion, but he simply just never got the roles or the exposure that the others did, and thus he is not as famous.
I always forget his name, but when I mention him to anyone all I have to say is Champ Kind or Todd Packer and they know exactly who I am talking about. Koechner’s career is surprisingly impressive other than Anchorman and The Office. He has had at least solid roles in Talladega Nights, the underrated (maybe I just think that?) Let’s Go to Prison, Waiting and Paul, all of which are at least reasonably successful films.
Why isn’t he more famous?
Similar to Malco, he too has found himself filed in the category of “Everyone else from this hit movie is famous now but me” after Anchorman. Will Ferrell was already a known commodity with Elf and Old School under his belt already. Steve Carrell was still just that guy from Bruce Almighty. And hey wait, isn’t that the guy who hooks up with his stepsister at the end of Clueless? Yes, that’s Paul Rudd under that long hair and mustache combo, an actor who had two separate breakouts: First in the aforementioned Clueless (he’s actually the most successful of all the young actors in that movie) and then again with Anchorman, 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up in a four year span. Even in small supporting roles you have Chris Parnell before he was Dr. Spaceman on 30 Rock, a young Seth Rogen with two or three lines, Fred Armisen pre-Portlandia, and even Danny Trejo before everyone knew him as Machete. All of those names are more recognizable than David Koechner even though he had a much bigger role in the film. Tough luck, maybe Anchorman 2 will finally get Koechner to household name status, but for now he’ll have to stick with dying in Snakes on a Plane and Final Destination 17 or whatever.
Talk about a first world problem. Netfilx has been a powerhouse in the Video On Demand world for some time, as they have forever changed the way we watch movies and television. I mean think about it, in the near future (if it hasn’t happened already) kids will not even know what “Blockbuster Video” is. Instead, thanks to Netflix there is an endless amount of entertainment at our fingertips for just $7.99 a month. However, Netflix growth has also come with a major issue: there are simply too many options on it.
Let me give you a scenario I constantly fall into with Netflix nowadays:
You’re hanging out with some of your friends; you decide to watch something on Netflix, and the dialogue goes something like this.
Okay, awesome we have so much to pick from. Why don’t we watch something from the Instant Queue? Nah, we can watch those anytime, lets check the New Releases! I don’t know if I want to commit to a full movie, lets watch a TV show. How about a documentary? This one looks good, how about this? I don’t know doesn’t really interest me, let’s watch something funny.
Suddenly you realize it’s been twenty minutes and you’re no closer to finding something to watch then you were when you sat down. It is maddening. This can happen when you’re alone too, particularly when going to bed. You are probably going to pass out as soon as you put something on anyway, but still there is the urge to pick something that you really want to watch. There are all of these options, but there’s very few that really jump out and say “watch me!” It’s a problem of excess; too many choices are being thrown in our faces at once and quality options are sometimes overlooked in the abyss of Netflix titles.
The Netflix collection grows bigger everyday, as this issue is not going anywhere. Competitor HBOGo might not have the depth in movies that Netflix has, but their concise selection is generally higher quality with titles being added and subtracted a few times a month. Netflix changed the way society watches movies, but might need some changes of its own, if it wants to continue to be top dog in the expansive Video On Demand environment.
Last night marked the eight-fifth year of the Academy Awards, with Ben Affleck’s Argo taking home the Oscar for Best Picture. The ceremony had its first tie (Best Sound Editing for Skyfall and Zero Dark Thirty) since 1994, and just the sixth tie in Oscar history. The tie was just one of the many Oscar history rarities included in last night’s ceremony.
Argo was the presumed favorite for Best Picture after overtaking Lincoln in the last few weeks before the show, and it won. However, besides Best Picture, Argo only captured two other awards, for Original Screenplay and Editing. While that’s nothing to slouch at, it is interesting how much the Academy spread the Oscars around this year. Check out this year’s breakdown:
Life of Pi: 4 (director, cinematography, visual effects, original score)
Argo: 3 (picture, editing, original screenplay)
Les Miserables: 3 (supporting actress, make-up and hairstyling, sound mixing)
Lincoln: 2 (actor, production design)
Django Unchained: 2 (original screenplay, supporting actor)
Amour: 1 (foreign language)
Silver Linings Playbook: 1 (actress)
Zero Dark Thirty: 1 (sound editing)
Beasts of the Southern Wild- 0
Since the Academy changed its Best Picture format from five nominees to ten in 2009, there have been one or two films that take the majority of the awards and four films (all three years) who have gotten shut out with zero awards. Here’s a breakdown of those years:
*Best Picture Winner
*Hurt Locker: 9
Inglourious Basterds: 1
The Blind Side: 1
Up in the Air: 0
District 9: 0
An Education: 0
A Serious Man: 0
*King’s Speech: 4
Social Network: 3
The Fighter: 2
Toy Story 3: 2
Black Swan: 1
True Grit: 0
127 Hours: 0
The Kids Are All Right: 0
Winter’s Bone: 0
*The Artist: 5
The Descendants: 1
The Help: 1
Midnight in Paris: 1
War Horse: 0
The Tree of Life: 0
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close: 0
Although Argo won Best Picture, it failed to win the most Oscars of the night as Life of Pi won four awards. This has not happened since 2004, when The Aviator won five awards and Best Picture winner Million Dollar Baby only won four. Argo also became just the second Best Picture winner since 1977 to win only three total Oscars, joining 2005’s Crash. Both Crash and Argo failed to win any acting Academy Awards. The similarities do not end there. The last time that the Best Director and Best Picture awards were not given to the same film was also in 2005. You might be asking, well who won Best Director in 2005 then? The same guy who won last night, Brokeback Mountain and Life of Pi director, Ang Lee. Hmmm, interesting.
Whether or not the Academy got their choices right is debatable every year, however this year’s results have validated their choice to have more than five nominees for Best Picture. If four nominees are getting zero awards each year then there are too many nominees. However, this year was first time since the switch that only one Best Picture nominee got shut out from awards. While no film is all together perfect, nearly all of the Best Picture nominees had aspects about them that were deemed Oscar worthy, something not seen since the change. This does not speak to Argo’s weaknesses necessarily, but rather the depth and diversity of this year’s Best Picture nominees. The Academy was not shy about spreading the Oscar love this year, except to Steven Spielberg, who is now 2/7 in Best Director nominations, and 1/8 in Best Picture nominations, making him (statistically) one of the biggest losers in Oscar history. Something tells me that Spielberg’s four going on five (five?!) decades of dominating Hollywood is a nice consolation.
Can you believe that it’s been nearly six years since the premiere of Superbad? I don’t know about you, but that sure makes me feel old. But I am not here to talk about how fast these years have gone, instead let’s focus on two of the main actors in Superbad. No, I am not referring to Jonah Hill and Michael Cera, whose careers will forever be compared because of their co-starring breakout roles in the film (Jonah has the edge because of his versatility, despite Cera’s early lead). And no I am not referring to Seth Rogan and Bill Hader, although Rogan’s career has continued to flourish and Hader has become much more of a household name since the film. For all the McLovin fans out there I’m not even talking about Christopher Mintz-Plasse either (who in my opinion will never completely break free from the iconic role). Instead I want to take a closer look at the vastly different careers of the two leading actresses in the film, who play the characters of Becca and Jules.
If I asked you: “Who played Jules in Superbad?” You would probably respond with something along the lines of “oh that’s easy, Emma Stone.” And it is easy, because Emma Stone was a small part in the aforementioned film and is now a bona fide Hollywood superstar.
Now if I asked you: “Who played Becca in Superbad?” Now that’s a much harder question. The answer: Martha MacIsaac. Wait, who?! You know the girl who in the TV show Emily of New Moon (just kidding, I have no idea what that is and neither should you).
So whatever happened to Becca’s career? I honestly do not even feel comfortable writing her real name when I refer to her, because Becca is the only role she will ever be known for. But enough bashing her, lets take a look. Her first movie post Superbad? The remake of Wes Craven’s directorial debut, The Last House on the Left. Sure, the movie is over the top with its gore but definitely scores points for having Aaron Paul in it (bitch), and is not the worst horror movie I’ve ever seen. The problem for Becca is that she has the unfortunate role of the character that gets killed first; meaning her overall screen time in the film is very limited. Even though that worked out pretty well for an unknown Johnny Depp in A Nightmare on Elm Street (another Craven film that got re-made), Becca has had a lot less luck. Since Last House, which premiered in 2009, Becca has not been in a movie worth noting, which is just plain sad.
Meanwhile, her female counterpart Emma Stone has exploded. Think about the movies Emma Stone has been in since 2009: Zombieland, Easy A, Friends with Benefits, Crazy, Stupid, Love, The Help and The Amazing Spider-Man. That’s an incredible run of hit movies in a row. Honestly, it’s not even fair to compare these two actresses, but it still interesting to think how opposite their careers have gone, considering how similar their roles in the film were. Maybe, Emma Stone is just the perfect combination of sexy and cute. (See what I did there?) Either way, let’s give it up for Becca/Martha, the actress who made the phrase “blow-jay” popular for a short time. Speaking of which, whatever happened to the “Kyle’s Killer Lemonade” girl?
Breaking Dawn Part II premiered this weekend and while I did not and will not see it, I know that plenty of young girls did as it made over 140 million at the box office. None of the Twilight movies have received good critical response, but all have made an absorbent amount of money. But I’m not here to simply bash Twilight; it’s the “Part II” that I have a problem with.
The Harry Potter franchise was the first to split its final installment into two parts. The reasoning was that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was simply too big of a book to ever fit into a single two-plus hour film. Whether or not that is true is questionable, (not much really happens in Deathly Hallows Part I if you ask me) but the trend it has started in Hollywood is a disappointing one. With the incredible success of the two Hallows films more studios are starting to follow the same path. Now if you can sit there and honestly tell me that Breaking Dawn really deserves to be two movies I’d love to hear the argument. But the real reason (as shocking as it is) is simply monetary. It’s actually genius from a marketing standpoint. “Wait. Instead of making hundreds of millions off of one terrible movie, let’s just double our profits and make two even worse films.” However, Twilight is not the only culprit here; even Academy Award winning director Peter Jackson has bought into this new trend.
Jackson, having already directed all three of the Lord of the Rings films was the obvious choice to direct the prequel to the saga, The Hobbit. While there is no denying that The Hobbit is a classic piece of fictional literature, it is understandably much shorter than the entire Lord of the Rings saga, as it is just one book as opposed to three. The Lord of the Rings was three books, which equaled three movies, makes sense right? The Hobbit is one book, so it should be one movie right? Wrong. The Hobbit has already been split into three movies. You’re kidding right? Three movies. The Hobbit’s original edition is only three-hundred and ten pages, that’s less than any of the individual books of the Lord of the Rings series. How can three movies really be justified from such little source text? The answer once again is money. While this can be expected from Twilight it is disappointing to see a great filmmaker such as Jackson sell out to such a trend.
This trend is also not going away any time soon. The third Hunger Games book, Mocking-Jay is already scheduled to be two films. And with the success of the Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn films coupled with the almost assured success of all three (makes me angry having to type it again) Hobbit movies, expect more and more books to be split into multiple movies, meaning more and more expensive movie tickets to purchase.
Oscar Sunday has always been like a second Super Bowl Sunday for me. While no event can out do the Super Bowl as a spectacle, the Academy Awards are close. I agree the Oscars are a little over the top, perhaps outdated and may not always get it right in the public’s opinion, but there is no higher honor in filmmaking than winning an Academy Award. Here are just a few of the awards that I would give out based on my interest and opinions of Oscar history.
Best Oscar Acceptance Speeches:
Joe Pesci: “Its my privilege, thank you” Simple and to the point, perfect.
Woody Allen: Has not been in person for any of the three Oscars he has won, the only time he showed up was in 2002 for a 9/11 tribute. I respect that.
Ben Affleck and Matt Damon: Whether or not they each contributed an equal amount to the script is something people constantly question, however you cannot deny their pure excitement as they accept their Oscar.
Best Reaction to Presenting an Award:
2005 Jack Nicholson: “Crash…Wow”
Terribly Egregious Upsets:
Ordinary People over Raging Bull
Ordinary People is a fine movie, but best picture over Raging Bull? C’mon man. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert both picked Raging Bull to be their choice of the best movie of the 1980s, the entire decade and it did not even win best picture in its individual year, ridiculous. Raging Bull is arguably Scorsese’s best film, (Id say Goodfellas) yet this was just one of the many times Marty was overlooked by the Academy until they finally gave him his due in 2006:
Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan
This upset for some reason, I take personally. It a travesty to think a movie like Shakespeare in Love would win over Saving Private Ryan. I’ve seen Shakespeare in Love once and was fine with it, Saving Private Ryan I am willing to watch almost every time it is on. The Academy gave Spielberg the Best Director for Saving Private Ryan, however that does not make up for the fact that his film was head and shoulders better than Shakespeare in Love. You may argue that as two very different styled and themed films that they are like apples and oranges. However, in my opinion its as simple as this, the history of modern cinema cannot be written/discussed completely without mentioning Saving Private Ryan, and Shakespeare in Love is easily forgettable in the same discussion.
1975 Best Director
I know many of you are probably tired of hearing me talk about Jaws, but how is Spielberg not even a nominee for Best Director in 1975? The filming went so overscheduled that he was nearly fired, and he still came up with a masterpiece. That’s its for Jaws and Spielberg, I swear.
Best Years of Best Picture Nominees:
1994:Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, The Shawkshank Redemption, Quiz Show, Four Weddings and a Funeral
Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, and Shawshank Redemption are three movies that are already classics in American cinema. While I believe Forrest Gump to be the weakest cinematically of the three (even though it won), they are all consistently re-watchable, especially Gump. Quiz Show and Four Weddings and a Funeral round out this year as very solid fourth and fifth nominees.
1976:Rocky, Taxi Driver, Network, All the President’s Men, Bound for Glory
Rocky, Taxi Driver, Network, and All the President’s Men are movies that will be remembered for a long time, and thats really all that has to be said. I have never seen or heard of Bound for Glory, however the strength of the other four films make up for that.
2009: Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker, District 9, An Education, A Serious Man, The Blind Side, Up, Precious
This is perhaps one of the most diverse groups of movies ever nominated for Best Picture. 2009 was the first year that the Academy switched back to their old way of having ten nominees (instead of five) for Best Picture, leading to some unique nominations. In previous years, movies like Up, District 9, or The Blind Side would not have been nominated, but I do not think it makes this year weaker. In fact, it makes 2009 strong because of its diversity.
Best Decade of Best Picture Winners:
Without a doubt it is the 1970s: Patton, The French Connection, The Godfather, The Sting, The Godfather Part II, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Rocky, Annie Hall. The Deer Hunter, Kramer vs Kramer in that order by year. I cannot pick one movie out of this group to be the weak link, thats how good of a field it is.
I see the 1990s as a distant second with: Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, Forrest Gump, Braveheart, The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love (should have been Saving Private Ryan), and American Beauty in that order by year.
Random Last Thought for the Conspiracy Theorists Out There:
The first Oscar ceremony was held in 1928 and honored Wings as its Best Picture, which was the only silent movie to win. However, this year The Artist became the second Best Picture winner to be a silent film. If the Mayans are correct and the world does end on December 21st, 2012 the first and last Best Picture winners will have been silent films. Random I know, its just how I think.
Thanks for reading.
A “what-if” is a way of thinking that has always interested me. “What ifs” can be used in any situation. What if I went to a different college? What if I took that job? What if I studied a more practical major in college than Cinema Studies? Eh, forget that last one. However, I have consistently applied “what ifs” to sports. What if Tom Brady’s “Tuck Rule” play wasn’t overturned? What if the Colts drafted Ryan Leaf instead of Peyton Manning in 1998? What if the Portland Trailblazers drafted Michael Jordan instead of Sam Bowie, or Kevin Durant instead of Greg Oden? The possibilities are endless. It was not until recently, while reading Bill Simmon’s “Book of Basketball” (in which he gives his three favorite movie what ifs) that I thought to apply “what ifs” to movies. Here in no particular order, are my favorite movie “what ifs”:
What if Johnny Depp didn’t turn down the role of Jack Dawson in Titanic?
If you type “Leo” into Google, two names pop up as suggestions. The second one listed is Leonardo De Vinci, one of the most famous humans of all time, period. The first person listed is Leonardo Dicaprio. Leo is the first suggestion, and he has Johnny Depp to thank for it. Let’s go back to 1996, James Cameron needs a Jack Dawson for his big budgeted film, Titanic. Johnny Depp was already an established movie star having been title characters, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, and Gilbert Grape. Leonardo Dicaprio on the other hand was not established, but rather right on the cusp of being a huge Hollywood name. He had solid roles as Gilbert Grape’s (Depp) mentally handicapped brother, the lead in The Basketball Diaries (1995) as well Romeo in a contemporary movie version of Romeo and Juliet but was still not a sure thing. Depp was reportedly offered the role first, but turned it down giving Leo the chance to become a superstar. We know now that Leo took the role, made Jack Dawson an iconic character, and helped Titanic become one of the most successful box-office movies of all time (it also won the 1997 Best Picture academy Award). Would it have been as successful with Depp? Almost. Depp would have given a solid performance as always, but Jack Dawson works so well as a bright-eyed, innocent boyish-man, which Depp could not have done as well as Dicaprio. Also, Dicaprio and co-star Kate Winslet’s chemistry really drives the film, even if Rose wouldn’t move over a little to let Jack sit on the floating door. Would Depp and Winslet’s chemistry have matched hers and Leo’s? No, there are few actors whom have had better chemistry in a film than those two. The key question however is, would it have been as successful at the box office? Once again I think the answer is almost. Titanic was the highest grossing domestic film of all-time until 2009 when another James Cameron film named Avatar (2009) overtook it. Cameron already had three huge box-office movies before Titanic in Aliens (1986), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), and True Lies (1994). (Maybe he should have picked Arnold to be Jack Dawson). A Titanic with Depp would have been a huge movie, because of Cameron, its high production value and budget, as well as its topic. However, it would have never been the highest grossing film of all time with Johnny Depp. Dicaprio was the right young actor at the right time for this movie to be that successful. A girl once told me she saw Titanic fourteen times in theaters (fourteen times!). When I asked her why she replied simply: “Leo.”
What if John Travolta decided to be Forrest Gump?
This one is interesting simply because of the ripple effect it would have caused in Hollywood. Travolta reportedly turned down the role of Gump so he could be Vincent Vega in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994), which, earned him an Oscar nomination (ironically he lost to Hanks as Gump) and re-established him as a legitimate actor after years without a solid role. If Travolta took the role of Gump, Tarantino favorite Michael Madsen would have likely played Vincent Vega, which would be interesting as his character in Reservoir Dogs (1992) name is Vic Vega (widely considered to be Vincent’s cousin). Madsen pulls off the psychotic Mr. Blonde (Vic Vega) perfectly, would he have been as good as Travolta was as Vincent? It’s almost impossible to know. Lets just say he pulls off Vincent Vega decently well, he probably would have gotten the Oscar nomination that Travolta got as Pulp Fiction’s critical acclaim was astounding. This would have been a break through role for Madsen, who then goes on to not only continue to be Tarantino’s boy, but has a much more substantial career with more leading roles and maybe even more Oscar nominations. Travolta does a fine job as Forrest Gump, but without perhaps the most likeable actor in the history of film in Tom Hanks, the film is not nearly as successful and thus Travolta never has the full comeback that he got thanks to Pulp Fiction. Forrest Gump (1994) does not win Best Picture, Robert Zemekis does not win Best Director, and Hanks does not win Best Actor in a Leading Role for the second year in a row (he won in 1993 for Philadelphia). This makes room for The Shawkshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction and Quiz Show to win Best Picture in perhaps the deepest year of nominees ever. Tarantino or Frank Darabont (Shawkshank) win Best Director and maybe just maybe Michael Madsen grabs the best actor in a leading role Oscar without Hanks as a nominee at all. Hanks meanwhile no longer has his most famous role under his belt and does not become one of the most likeable actors of all time as he loses out on iconic lead roles in Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile and Cast Away. Basically, the careers of John Travolta, Tom Hanks, Michael Madsen, Quentin Tarantino, Frank Darabont, and Robert Zemekis could have been drastically altered if Travolta decided to be the “box of chocolates” character instead of the “royal with cheese” one.
What if Bryan Singer did another X-Men instead of Superman Returns?
Bryan Singer’s X-Men (2000) and X2 (2003) brought the superhero genre back to success after years of campy, over the top films like Joel Schumaker’s Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997). The films made Singer a legitimate Hollywood director having already made the extremely successful Usual Suspects (1995). However, when the studio attempted to keep Singer for a third X-Men film, he instead left to direct Superman Returns (2006). Singer had already brought the superhero genre back, so why not bring Superman back too? Unfortunately Superman Returns turned out to be terrible, as its hefty $270 million (what?!) budget failed to capture audiences and critics alike. Meanwhile, Brett Ratner (Rush Hour) was picked to direct X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) a continuation of Singer’s series. The film disappointed, prompting the X-Men series to go in a new direction, telling origin stories of the characters rather than continuing with what they had. What if Singer stayed on to do another X-Men? X2: X-Men United in my opinion is easily a top five superhero movie of all time right up there with The Dark Knight (2008), as Singer was hitting his stride, improving on his original X-Men. Continuing off his superior sequel, Singer makes a much better third X-Men movie than Ratner’s and the studio decides to continue with the series as is instead of radically changing their approach. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) and X-Men: First Class (2011) never get made, and Singer makes two or even three more X-Men movies as the series does not require a reboot. This leaves Superman Returns without a director, however it was Singer who demanded that the film follow the same storyline as Richard Donner’s original Superman (1978) series, instead of making one that was completely new. This resulted in Superman Returns being simply more of the same, as the entire plot and even specific scenes are almost exactly the same as the original Superman. Without Singer its very possible that a different director would have had a fresh take on Superman and thus the film would have been less of a disappointment. Instead they are already rebooting Superman with Man of Steel coming out next summer. If Bryan Singer stays on for another X-Men film, he very well may have saved two separate franchises from eventual reboots, and Brett Ratner’s fate is unchanged as he continues to be a mediocre director, at best.