I'm sorry for the deluge of "feminism in films" posts, but the hits keep coming and frankly I don't feel like talking about the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman or the Woody Allen situation. While technically plugging 20th Century
First and foremost, Warner Bros.' (a division of
Bryan Singer's "excuse" is doubly-problematic because it implies that aiming a superhero film at a female audience, regardless of what you think that means, is a bad thing and shouldn't be attempted. It goes into the cultural perception that female-skewing films are "less than" in compared to male-skewing films. The worst male escapist fantasy films like Transformers 2 are merely written off as harmless dumb popcorn fun, while female escapism like the Twilight Saga has a million think-pieces about how it's dangerous to its female fan base and/or a blot on cinema. Female-centric melodramas or escapist fantasies that are merely mediocre (Diana, Labor Day, pretty much any Nicolas Sparks adaptation, ) are pilloried as among the worst of modern cinema and/or an affront to feminism while (random example) The Town (bank robber f***s his former hostage but it's okay because he's not a bad guy at heart) gets a pass.
I can name a dozen major blockbuster franchises, arguably male-centric ones no less, that appeal to men and women equally. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (Mary Jane Watson is a flesh-and-blood human who is allowed to be imperfect), Gore Verbinski's Pirates of the Caribbean (the first three films are basically Elizabeth Swann's journey), and the Thor series (an action-filled comic franchise filtered through the female gaze) fit the bill offhand. The Harry Potter films are arguably more popular among women than men. Of course, plenty of women like blockbusters with little stereotypical "female appeal" (think The Dark Knight), just fine too. Some girls like explosions, some guys like romantic melodrama, but neither gender likes lousy cinema.
And, even if you disagree with the consensus or would like to give Bryan Singer credit for making a rather unconventional superhero film, Superman Returns was received by most as being a lousy movie. The idea that it's flaws were made up things that inherently appeal to the female demographic is insulting to women, an out-and-out delusion, and an implicit assertion that female-skewing films are "less than". Bryan Singer didn't make Superman Returns for "the female audience" or for "the Devil Wears Prada audience". He made the Superman film that he and his film making collaborators wanted to make, a romantic melodrama with shifting ties to the Richard Donner series and unable to stand on its own two feet.
Bryan Singer made Superman Returns for himself, which is a completely valid artistic choice no matter what the outcome. But don't consistently blame the relative failure of what amounts to yet another male-centric fantasy on the female audience who had little interest in it. And to take his excuse at face value and nod in agreement is to presume that stereo typically female-centric genre films are less "worthy" and less box office-friendly than manly melodramas. Women go to comic book superhero films in numbers about equal with men. Bad films stereo-typically aimed at women (Sex and the City) are no more or less toxic to society or a blight on cinema than films stereo typically aimed at men (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).
Women like and see all kinds of films in all kinds of genres. In the summer of 2006, they didn't want to see Superman Returns either.