Bryan Singer is done
He will never direct again.share
Nah, he will.
He'll just keep a very low profile.
Remember that film productions are insured for big bucks by insurance companies. Without an insurance company backing your big production then you are screwed. No insurance company will ever agree to insure a production that Singer is directing. Someone brings a claim against him, he gets fired, the production shuts down, and the insurance company is left holding the bill.share
Claims like these against Singer would affect a film, bring the whole film down, since the Weinstein Effect I don't think anyone would wanna work with him now because he's creepy.share
he's 1 of the most successful directors of the past 30 years,
he'd too big to fail....they tried before
One of the most successful directors of the past 30 years? The guy's only had 4 big hits throughout his career, both in the critical and commercial sense of the word, that is. What planet are you on?share
name 3 more successful directors of the past 30 yearsshare
Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and JJ Abrams.
Bam, there you go.
NOW YOU ONLY HAVE TO COME UP WITH SEVEN MORE TO PUSH SINGER OUT OF THE TOP TEN.share
QT is not more successfulshare
Why? Just 'cause his movies don't earn as big of gross revenues than Singer's? Man, you need to learn some basic economics.
With the exception of Grindhouse, nearly all of Quentin's films have received both mass critical praise and major profits for studios in relation to their respective budgets. Tarantino's films may not earn as big of gross revenues as say, the X-Men films or Bohemian Rhapsody, but that's to be expected as he's making original, auteur-driven movies not generally made for the mainstream. His movies are also produced on much smaller budgets than Singer's, which means there's less for them to have to earn back and as a result, they probably made more on the profit margin than most of Bryan's hit films as the amount required for them to break even is significantly smaller (especially with the marketing budget in mind). And like I said, his films have both consistently churned out profits AND received mass critical praise, whereas Singer's only had about four (six, if I'm being generous with Valkyrie and Bohemian Rhapsody) films that fit this criteria of being a hit out of the eleven films he's made so far.
There's no competition here, Tarantino is by far the more successful filmmaker.
BR made almost as much as QT's last 3 combined broseph
That doesn't change anything I just discussed. Where was his success with Public Access, Apt Pupil, Superman Returns, or Jack the Giant Slayer?share
i'm getting a bit of a "i hate BS with every fiber of my being" type of vibe from you broheem,
let's just say BS is one of the top 3 most successful film directors of the past 30 years & be done with it,
QT is better, but not more successful from a purely objective viewpoint
You couldn't refute any of my points intelligently, and now you expect me to just accept what you say because it's the "objective viewpoint"? Man, you crazy.share
why would i bother refuting your points when they have no bearing on the discussion?
the mere fact that BR made almost a billion dollars shatters your entire argument to smithereens,
next you'll be saying Robert Rodriguez is more successful than BS
You don't understand nuance at all, do you? According to you then, a student with a C to B grade average is more academically successful than a student with an A+ average, just 'cause the C to B student got into honors roll that one year when the A+ student couldn't, is that correct?share
the comparison to a student's grades doesn't hold water,
a movie's commercial success combined with awards/praise couldn't be reduced down to an A or B grade,
or at least not in the terms you've presented,
QT churns out consistent B+/A level movies, but his commercial success has only really risen dramatically with OUATIH,
if anything, both directors just hit the height of their careers with a combination of high box office receipts & critical praise... it's just that Singer's last movie made a shit-ton more than QT's
"QT churns out consistent B+/A level movies, but his commercial success has only really risen dramatically with OUATIH"
What the hell are you talking about? OUATIH wasn't even Tarantino's most successful film. Django Unchained holds that title, having earned a total of $425 million on a budget of $100 million. But even before that, Inglourious Basterds wasn't far off with its total gross of $321 million on a $70 million budget compared to OUATIH's $374 million against its $90 million budget. Are you afraid of Google or something?
"if anything, both directors just hit the height of their careers with a combination of high box office receipts & critical praise... it's just that Singer's last movie made a shit-ton more than QT's"
Uh, no. Singer hasn't made a hit film with critics since X-Men: Days of Future Past. X-Men: Apocalypse was actually a bit of a dud with critics, earning a 47% on RottenTomatoes and a 52 on Metacritic. Bohemian Rhapsody did a bit better, but still only earned a mere 60% on RottenTomatoes and a 49 on Metacritic. Again, why so scared of Google, man?
Singer is at the high point of his career financially, but his hit-to-miss ratio is still much less consistent than Tarantino's. Studios always trust directors who can consistently churn in profits much more than directors who sometimes makes mega hits, while other times making disappointments or straight up flops in some cases. I bet if you were to ask any sane producer who they'd trust more to earn profits on their films, they'd all unanimously vote Tarantino. Do you get it now?
i'm not too sure what producers & studios have to do when weighing the success of directors, we're talking box office receipts sprinkled with a dash of critic response,
the opinion of a sane producer is of no consequence to me or this discussion,
& the last time i checked $900 million ducats was more than $425, hmmmm,
not to mention that the original X-men film kickstarted the whole comic book movie fadeof late - it's time to lay the bones down on the table & pay BS his due
"i'm not too sure what producers & studios have to do when weighing the success of director"
You're joking, right? Do you seriously not grasp how the more successful a director is, the more likely studios and producers are to trust them?
Let me ask you, who would you personally trust more to earn you back a profit? The guy with a hit rate of 6/11, or the guy with the 9/10?
P.S. Singer isn't even the guy mainly responsible for the modern superhero craze, that honor goes to Sam Raimi with his big screen adaptation of Spider-Man
you're biased bro,
you blindly catapult QT up amongst the film gods & deride BS like he's done something personal against you, he may be a gay perv but you have to remember that QT not only has an incredibly deep foot fetish but also foists his fetishism onto the big screen for any & all to witness, effectively mainstreaming an obsession with feet as sexual objects
I'm biased? You're the one who keeps pulling further and further away from the main discussion here. We started off talking about the two directors' critical and financial successes only, and now you just randomly bring up Tarantino's much discussed foot fetish. And you say I'm trying to deride Singer? Once again, man, you're fucking crazy. I also like how you seem more disgusted with Tarantino's foot fetish than you are with Singer's alleged sexual abuse of minors. Nice to see where your priorities lie.
All I did was state facts. You clearly couldn't handle accepting the truth that your boy, Bryan Singer, wasn't anywhere near as successful as you make him out to be. At the end of the day, he's just another work-for-hire journeyman studio director who sometimes makes mega hits, but whom always has to rely on the name of an established IP like X-Men or Queen to garner any kind of major audience. Without an established brand name under his belt, his movies tend to always either underperform or straight up bomb both with critics and audiences alike. The only film of his that's ever been truly successful in both regards that isn't a part of X-Men, is The Usual Suspects. Deal with it.
It's a difficult sad situation that's ruins his credibility.share
Hes a highly respected Jewish producer and director. Remember the boys he raped was fresh off the bus gentiles. All lives matter but dime a dozen Idaho kids don’t carry much weight ( In LA ).share
He'll direct again, but not under his own name. Not for a while, anyway.
Look, he was (allegedly) plugged into a circle of Hollywood power players who liked 'em on the young side, he probably knows some very interesting stuff about some very important people. Enough to edge back into directing after the furor has died down, or to make an Alan Smithee film if he really wants to.
They are changing the laws in California to make things easier for Singer and his ilk. Lots of powerful people in Hollywood share that particular preference. Powerful enough to influence state lawmakers. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2020-09-12/california-governor-signs-bill-changing-sex-offender-lawshare