Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

[DavidTyler]

Some elements of the suit were obviously changed to fit Routh better.

If you watch the documentary on th SR Special Edition, the costume designer addresses the changes on suit and made a point of saying they had to work with the body that was given to them and what looked best on Routh.

For me personally the suit looked really good other than the red being far far too dark, and i could have done without the 's' on the belt.

Don't own any SR DVD's and not about to buy it.

Can you or someone transcribe the costumer's comments here?

 

[DavidTyler]

that's great and that's deep and not superficial like Byrne's take.

I think Millar is the best we can get on Superman right now.

SUPERFICIAL?!!!!

Byrne was creating a foundation that allowed other writers to build on.

And I absolutely hate any storyline that makes Superman into Christ or God or A god. I also strongly dislike anyone who thinks Jimmy's sole purpose is to be comic relief. He can be a great character. While his explanation for Lois has a logic to it, there is absolutely no reason for her to be that much older than Clark. She can be just as career oriented at a younger age and for a lot of the same reaons. However... it's been established that she's the daughter of a career military leader. It only makes sense that she would be extremely focused on her career and underwhelmed by most of the men she meets. This would explain why she was never impressed by Luthor.

Also... there is no point in having the Kents die. They serve much better as Clark's touch stone to his inner self if they're around to keep him emotionally grounded. To be his one place where he can be himself - Clark. Not Superman.

And I've stated repeatedly that I believe that Clark Kent is at the core of the character not Superman. The Clark that deals with the crew at the Daily Planet is quiet, unassuming, and a bit of a pose. The Clark that puts on the costume and deals with people is just as much of a pose. At his core is the Kent's son Clark. A man with the full range of emotions and doubts.

As to the Kryptonian/Human Apes thing... wow... I'll just leave that one alone. Suffice to say - uh, no.

Clark is the adopted son of the Kents. He's never known any other parents. To have him suddenly embrace a heritage he's never known over that upbringing is ludacris (I know I spelled it like the singer). He's not Christ. He's the ultimate fireman/policeman/protector. I loved Adam Warlock and his short stint as Christ on Marvel's counter earth but hate it in reference to Superman. He's a tuned up human not an earthbound god.

Give me Byrne and Wolfman's take any day over Millar's or Waid's.

 

[Gotham]

I don't want Millar on a reboot. I don't want a reboot.

I want a sequel to a film that I loved, and I'm sure a film that many others loved. A sequel can work, and Bryan Singer has proven himself to be a fantastic director who can handle story and action expertly.

I'm all for Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman being brought in to add a little zest for the sequel.

 

[Dark Donnie]

I wonder who the mystery guy is....my guesses Peter Berg, or Doug Liman...? Oh and Gore Verbinski is American.

 

[dark_b]

I wonder who the mystery guy is....my guesses Peter Berg, or Doug Liman...? Oh and Gore Verbinski is American.

he said american action director.
i think he just said something without thinking.

 

[shaf_haq]

I dont care wat they do with the film anymore as long as they keep Brandon Routh!!!!

 

[Dark Donnie]

he said american action director.
i think he just said something without thinking.

ahhh

 

[Batteen87]

Let me start off by saying, I'm not the biggest fan of Superman Returns, although I do consider it to be the second-best film in the franchise (behind Superman: The Movie). It seemed like Singer was more interested in adapting Richard Donner's Superman than bringing something new to the character.

That being said, I would rather have another rehash than, what this guy has came up with. He just doesn't seem to understand the mythology at all.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

That being said, I would rather have another rehash than, what this guy has led this guy has came up with. He just doesn't seem to understand the mythology at all.

neither does singer. If singers idea of understaning the mythology is STM then were all f*****.




Steve

 

[The son becomes]

Here's some lazy journalism (or sensationalist) from CBM. They're reporting the same story we've all heard but as fact, with a slight disclaimer at the end to cover themselves.

http://www.**************.com/news/articles/4775.asp

 

[Batteen87]

neither does singer. If singers idea of understaning the mythology is STM then were all f*****.




Steve

I agree, but it's the lesser of two evils, you know?

 

[TruerToTheCore]

SUPERFICIAL?!!!!

Yes. Everything was simplified and rationalised. Typical 80s. In the 90s it got WORSE!

Byrne was creating a foundation that allowed other writers to build on.

Neither Byrne nor the writers who followed him were Superman fans. They just saw the character as a "job". The "Exile" arc was quite good.

And I absolutely hate any storyline that makes Superman into Christ or God or A god. I also strongly dislike anyone who thinks Jimmy's sole purpose is to be comic relief. He can be a great character.

Superman is the ultimate male wishfulfillment, something all men want to be. Strong, tough, intelligent - far beyond those mortal man. Not a "farmboy" with superpowers. He was based on Hercules and Samson.

While his explanation for Lois has a logic to it, there is absolutely no reason for her to be that much older than Clark. She can be just as career oriented at a younger age and for a lot of the same reaons. However... it's been established that she's the daughter of a career military leader. It only makes sense that she would be extremely focused on her career and underwhelmed by most of the men she meets. This would explain why she was never impressed by Luthor.

Yeah. Her father. The career military leader... that is a superficial cliche character at best. And Byrne could never write women. His Lois is much worse than the even-*****y Lois from the Bronze Age.

Also... there is no point in having the Kents die. They serve much better as Clark's touch stone to his inner self if they're around to keep him emotionally grounded.

The death of the Kents is the day the boy becomes a man, Superman. I don't need a grown up man running to mum and dad every time he has to made decision.

To be his one place where he can be himself - Clark. Not Superman.
And I've stated repeatedly that I believe that Clark Kent is at the core of the character not Superman. The Clark that deals with the crew at the Daily Planet is quiet, unassuming, and a bit of a pose. The Clark that puts on the costume and deals with people is just as much of a pose. At his core is the Kent's son Clark. A man with the full range of emotions and doubts.

It's not Clark who he is. Superman is the hero who just IS. He is the hero. When he awakes in the morning he is Superman. Not like Batman who needs his costume. He IS a hero, he doesn't pretend to be one. If you make Superman an act he plays the whole thing Superman stands for becomes a BIG FAT LIE! Please don't come with "But he has grown up on a farm" bleh. He has GROWN OUT of that role. He was always different, he had always powers, since he entered Earth he had to hide. He is not one of us he is better and to blend into our society he has to ACT. But not when he's Superman. "Clark Kent" is a construction. People evolve. Only lovers of the superficial take want a Farmboy Forever Superman.

As to the Kryptonian/Human Apes thing... wow... I'll just leave that one alone. Suffice to say - uh, no.

No it's actually great. But Byrne HAD to make Krypton a dystopia - and you know why? Because he used Superman to mirror his own "origin story" (immigrant), so he made him a true American. But Superman deep in his heart is different. He is supposed to be a stranger in a strange land, here to protect his adopted home. Superman became a WASP under Byrne, a yuppie. That's completely against the concept of the character. Clark kent is the overlooked guy that no one notices but IN FACT that guy is a Superman. That's what Siegel and Shuster wanted to create, they mirrored themselves in this character.

Clark is the adopted son of the Kents. He's never known any other parents. To have him suddenly embrace a heritage he's never known over that upbringing is ludacris (I know I spelled it like the singer).

Well, depends on which origin. In the Silver/Bronze Age he was already a toddler who remembered a lot of things. You know, what's another problem is with Byrne's take: To some parts he IS Kryptonian. But what did Byrne's "Marvelman" (that "Marvel" because his Superman is more like Peter Parker or a Marvel mutant) do? He called his Kryptonian origin "worthless".

He's not Christ. He's the ultimate fireman/policeman/protector. I loved Adam Warlock and his short stint as Christ on Marvel's counter earth but hate it in reference to Superman. He's a tuned up human not an earthbound god.

He is a representation of everything that's good. More than a fireman/policeman or farmboy.

Give me Byrne and Wolfman's take any day over Millar's or Waid's.

Millar, Maggin, Waid, Morrison,Alan Moore, Shuster, Siegel, Johns - these guys and more are on my side and we are right.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

Here's some lazy journalism (or sensationalist) from CBM. They're reporting the same story we've all heard but as fact, with a slight disclaimer at the end to cover themselves.

http://www.**************.com/news/articles/4775.asp

You know this will make CBM look bad if Singer does make a sequel and make Millar look even worse.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

L

That being said, I would rather have another rehash than, what this guy has came up with. He just doesn't seem to understand the mythology at all.

No Superman fan can say these things. You've probably just watched Lois & Clark and STAS.

 

[gimmen64]

You know this will make CBM look bad if Singer does make a sequel and make Millar look even worse.

I hope Singer does the sequel. Millar has it completely wrong and I'm tired of all this religion stuff being the backbone for a Superman movie. Let's get all drama out and get plenty of action for the sequel to SR. If there isn't a sequel to SR I'd be pretty upset, if they can make two FF and Hulk movies, Superman should get that chance to prove he isn't a second rate hero.

 

[Superark]

Don't own any SR DVD's and not about to buy it.

Can you or someone transcribe the costumer's comments here?

here's the quote from the SR DVD by costume designer Louis Mingenbach

"You can't please everyone and I think there will be people who are real superhero fans who will not like the size of the s and they wont like the size of the trunks and they wont like cape, how long it is. There'll be, I'm sure, a million criticisms of this costume. At some point you have to deal with the body that you were given. We must have tried 20 different styles and this was what looked best on him. So you have to just think about making your Superman the best Superman he can be."

 

[The son becomes]

I think regardless of whether Millar's approach is wrong, the way he's gone about it certainly is. For that reason alone he doesn't deserve the right to work on Superman.

I'll be gutted if there isn't a sequel to SR, there's so much that can be done with the foundations laid in the first film. I'm not a screenwriter so don't shoot me down, I'm using these ideas to illustrate the possibilities. For example will Jason turn evil, is he even Superman's son? Is Jason White all he seems, could he be Jason's father, could he be Brainiac? Could the they be the villains in the next film. Will Zod be used as a Hannibal Lector character who Superman has to visit in prison in order to extract information on how to defeat Brainiac.

Imagine what Singer could do with some decent writers and Routh, a person everyone now accepts is Superman.

 

[X Knight]

personally, I don't want either Singer or this Millar guy. Based on what Singer did in SR and what Millar said in the interview.....neither one of them "gets" the character, imo. Or, to put it differently, neither one has/would produce a Superman movie that I would be happy with.......lol.

 

[Batteen87]

No Superman fan can say these things. You've probably just watched Lois & Clark and STAS.

No, I've actually read comics that came out before 1986.

 

[Lighthouse]

here's the quote from the SR DVD by costume designer Louis Mingenbach

"You can't please everyone and I think there will be people who are real superhero fans who will not like the size of the s and they wont like the size of the trunks and they wont like cape, how long it is. There'll be, I'm sure, a million criticisms of this costume. At some point you have to deal with the body that you were given. We must have tried 20 different styles and this was what looked best on him. So you have to just think about making your Superman the best Superman he can be."

"You can't please everyone" seems to be a recurring quote when referring to this movie.

 

[Blader5489]

Alright, now I'm confused. Are Singer and Routh still going ahead with their sequel, or is it being replaced by this Millar reboot?

 

[Showtime]

I think this Millar Reboot is in Millar's mind for the most part. No, I am not being sarcastic, what I mean is that Millar probably is talking to a producer and director. Problem is, WB found out about it when they read his comments.

 

[Batteen87]

Alright, now I'm confused. Are Singer and Routh still going ahead with their sequel, or is it being replaced by this Millar reboot?

The former seems more likely.

 

[bapi]

Interesting. So it looks like that Zach Snyder will direct that... His wife is his producer, after 300 he's a famous american and action director and 300 with Watchmen are WB movies.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think this Millar Reboot is in Millar's mind for the most part. No, I am not being sarcastic, what I mean is that Millar probably is talking to a producer and director. Problem is, WB found out about it when they read his comments.

But if he's talking to a director or producer, whom he claims is really big at WB, I'm figuring someone would have known about it. Why would they even bother trying to come up with something if they weren't even sure if they were going to be heard?