Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

[SatEL]

If Superman thought he was on par with humanity there would be no need for Clark Kent now would there? Clark is Supermans interpretation of humans imo.

GTFO In your opinion, more like you got that from Kill Bill.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

that's what Superman is. A Man with powers far beyond those of mortal men.

But he doesnt think of himself as 'above' humanity, he thinks of himself as one of us, Millar just doesnt get that, and its NOT Superman.

 

[Spider-Fan]

If Millar puts this vision of Supes on the screen, I agree it will suck. DOES ANYONE OTHER THAN DONNER GET SUPERMAN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

Ugh!

 

[TruerToTheCore]

But he doesnt think of himself as 'above' humanity, he thinks of himself as one of us, Millar just doesnt get that, and its NOT Superman.

THat's just who he is and he probably has realized this, too. He is just partly human.

 

[I Am The Knight]

If he makes the movie with Welling it will make 300 million to 400 million domestically!

He is the face to the role right now like it or not...

Directed by
Michael Bay

Script by
Mark Millar

Starring
Tom Welling
Erica Durance
Michael Rosenbaum

I can live with that, and be very happy...

No way their movie will be worse then Singers Donner love fest!

About time a Smallville fanboy showed up.

Well, I don't really think this Millar stuff, and now these Archangel claims, are any more bullcrap or silly rumours than everything else we've heard. We've had Singer claiming a movie with high threat levels and body counts, we had Tull claiming an angry god, we've had an Indian actress claiming she is a scientist.

What Millar and Archangel are saying is really no different. I can't see how those who love Singer and SR can dismiss the Millar and Archangel stuff while hanging on to every syllable when it comes to rumours from Singer, Routh or anyone else on that side of the fence.

I felt compelled to blog about the Millar stuff and i see it's also on the front page news of the Hype. My report can be found by clicking on the link in my sig or by clicking here http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/t...-superman.html - I haven't gone off into a massive editorial comment on it all, it's just a straightforward round-up of all the latest stuff.

Of course it's different. Because Singer and Routh are actually attached to MOS. That much we know. Millar and "Archangel" are not, as far as we can tell. Millar even said in his forum that the internet blew things out of proportion, as usual, in regards to his involvement with any reboot. So whatever Singer says is far more reliable than a man who is obsessed with directing Superman and a faction of people hellbent on "saving" Superman. Superman doesn't needs to be saved. He needs a Supervillain.

 

[The Guard]

How can Clark Kent be an interpretation of humans when he existed long before Superman did?

 

[stargazer]

Of course it's different. Because Singer and Routh are actually attached to MOS. That much we know. Millar and "Archangel" are not, as far as we can tell. Millar even said in his forum that the internet blew things out of proportion, as usual, in regards to his involvement with any reboot. So whatever Singer says is far more reliable than a man who is obsessed with directing Superman and a faction of people hellbent on "saving" Superman. Superman doesn't needs to be saved. He needs a Supervillain.

Exaaaactly.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

How can Clark Kent be an interpretation of humans when he existed long before Superman did?

"Clark Kent" is a disguise. It's just the name is foster parents gave him but the whole persona around this was just made up to hide the real guy, that is Superman/Kal-El. Please accept it. His powers don't allow him to be "ordinary". I guess that's too deep --okay I play nice . I think you prefer the superficial "he was raised as human being, so he is one. He is a normal guy who happens to have powers".

 

[charl_huntress]

About time a Smallville fanboy showed up.

LOL...SV has some serious fans, and though the show has always been pretty subpar for me...I can't hate on them

Of course it's different. Because Singer and Routh are actually attached to MOS. That much we know. Millar and "Archangel" are not, as far as we can tell. Millar even said in his forum that the internet blew things out of proportion, as usual, in regards to his involvement with any reboot. So whatever Singer says is far more reliable than a man who is obsessed with directing Superman and a faction of people hellbent on "saving" Superman. Superman doesn't needs to be saved. He needs a Supervillain.

Millar has some interesting ideas for Superman. I don't agree with all of them, and I'm still unconvinced he played some super huge role for Wanted...though I could be wrong. Point is he'd probably have a better understanding of the character than Singer. I also doubt a supervillian or even two supervillians would save a sequel if it kept the elements that dragged down the first movie, i.e. twisted love triangle, super-kid, depressed and lonely Superman, etc...

All this talk is just speculation and it's fun t:

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

TruerToTheCore, why don't you just except different strokes for different folks? You like that interpitation and others like other ones. You seem to be insulted that people think differently than you.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

TruerToTheCore, why don't you just except different strokes for different folks? You like that interpitation and others like other ones. You seem to be insulted that people think differently than you.

No. Interpretation is okay for things like "Thinks Superman of himself as an earthman or kryptonian". But the fact that he is disguised as Clark Kent is a fundamental part of the character.

I think I was a little bit too harsh so I fixed one thing

 

[charl_huntress]

"Clark Kent" is a disguise. It's just the name is foster parents gave him but the whole persona around this was just made up to hide the real guy, that is Superman/Kal-El. Please accept it. His powers don't allow him to be "ordinary". I guess that's too deep for you. I think you prefer the superficial "he was raised as human being, so he is one. He is a normal guy who happens to have powers".

Hide the real guy! Superman wasn't born Superman. He was raised as a human no matter which version you go by. The make-up behind his Superman persona has a lot to do with how he was raised by the Kents. Let's not diminish their influence on Superman/Kal-El.

Also, this is an interpretation...so no one is going to have the "right" answer. I like the post-crisis version of Superman, which goes that he didn't develop powers until later in his youth. That would essentially make Clark very real and relevant. You obivously prefer the pre-crisis deal. However, just because you do doesn't make you right, friend.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

No. Interpretation is okay for things like "Thinks Superman of himself as an earthman or kryptonian". But the fact that he is disguised as Clark Kent is a fundamental part of the character.

I think I was a little bit too harsh so I fixed one thing

Eh, I don't agree that it is a fact as I like the interpretation where Clark isn't fully a disguise. Sure he doesn't tell people he has Superpowers and saves people but I don't tell people alot of personal s**t about myself but don't feel like I'm (If I can use some slang here) fronting to much. My point is everyone hides things about themselves. In lamest terms, to a certain degree I see him pretending but who doesn't? I see Clark being closer to his personality than Superman because he was raised by Humans and know crap first hand about his home planet.

To each his/her own I guess.

 

[charl_huntress]

le sigh...I think I'm going to watch Lois and Clark. I love their version of Clark.

 

[I Am The Knight]

LOL...SV has some serious fans, and though the show has always been pretty subpar for me...I can't hate on them

Some of them are very...Obnoxious. t:

Millar has some interesting ideas for Superman. I don't agree with all of them, and I'm still unconvinced he played some super huge role for Wanted...though I could be wrong. Point is he'd probably have a better understanding of the character than Singer. I also doubt a supervillian or even two supervillians would save a sequel if it kept the elements that dragged down the first movie, i.e. twisted love triangle, super-kid, depressed and lonely Superman, etc...

All this talk is just speculation and it's fun t:

I don't think Millar is the Superman Antichrist, but I'm not sure that he will do right by him. I'd rather stick with Singer. Too early to reboot the franchise, IMO. And yes, speculation is fun.

 

[04nbod]

^LOL correct me if I'm wrong but he did write Ultimate X-Men didn't he?

He kicked the title off back in the day yes. However it was with Kirkman that it all nosedived.

I see Millar doing something so different that the fan base will be pissed off and the public with think WTF? That could make a smash hit because its different or turn people away because its not the superman they know.

I could see him going down LOSH's Superman X in the look department.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

A movie about the trails of making a Superman movie would be more entertaining than a Superman movie IMHO.

 

[X-Maniac]

Of course it's different. Because Singer and Routh are actually attached to MOS.

But ARE they attached? Are they officially on board an officially greenlit MOS movie? Or are they just speaking in the vacuum that everyone else is speaking in? If they were attached, we'd have heard more by now.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'd say they are more attached than Millar because they made a Superman movie in 06.

 

[charl_huntress]

But ARE they attached? Are they officially on board an officially greenlit MOS movie? Or are they just speaking in the vacuum that everyone else is speaking in? If they were attached, we'd have heard more by now.

I agree that we should have heard more by now, but didn't Singer give an interview in March where he stated that he was still attached?

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Hide the real guy! Superman wasn't born Superman. He was raised as a human no matter which version you go by. The make-up behind his Superman persona has a lot to do with how he was raised by the Kents. Let's not diminish their influence on Superman/Kal-El.

Don't confuse the name with the persona. His legal name is "Clark Kent", but his persona is quite different from the public Clark Kent. Ever heard of "growing out"? He leaves "Clark Kent" and builds up a new persona called "Superman". "Clark Kent" remains nothing more than a disguise.

Also, this is an interpretation...so no one is going to have the "right" answer. I like the post-crisis version of Superman, which goes that he didn't develop powers until later in his youth. That would essentially make Clark very real and relevant. You obivously prefer the pre-crisis deal. However, just because you do doesn't make you right, friend.

The post-crisis version made never sense. When he develops his powers his whole world view would change. He is more intelligent than ordinary humans so a lot of things the Kents learned him are no longer relevant.

The pre-crisis version is the version that matters. From the Golden Age to the Bronze Age, there was an "essence" that was still kept.

Superman is the only character that his own fans want to be weak and "stupid", am I right?! Arguing about that "Batman" is still "BRuce Wayne" causes an uprising in the Batman corner. That was a guy who was raised as "Bruce Wayne" and a guy who needs a costume. But Superman doesn't. He just is. He was born different, he was never a real member of "our" society, he simply can't. Social things aren't something for him, because he knows EVERYTHING better, so he PLAYS a normal guy. That's truly three-dimensional. The farmboy / "Just a normal guy" take is the one-dimensional one that goes without much thinking

 

[AragornKing1]

But ARE they attached? Are they officially on board an officially greenlit MOS movie? Or are they just speaking in the vacuum that everyone else is speaking in? If they were attached, we'd have heard more by now.

Well, Mark Millar did say that Bryan Singer still has dibs on Superman and that his director won't try to pitch a reboot to WB until Singer is done with Superman. Mark Millar said that everyone blew what he said completely out of proportion. Archangel is very inconsistent with his info. First he says that Justice League is more of a priority with WB right now, then he says that WB is considering four reboot pitches, including his and Millar's. Millar said that everything he said has nothing to do with WB. So all of this crap about WB wanting to do a reboot is not true.

 

[AragornKing1]

But ARE they attached? Are they officially on board an officially greenlit MOS movie? Or are they just speaking in the vacuum that everyone else is speaking in? If they were attached, we'd have heard more by now.

Plus, when most more reliable insiders hear the same thing pretty much, and Archangel isn't, I think that I have to go with statistics here and trust the majority. But that's just me.

 

[AragornKing1]

I agree that we should have heard more by now, but didn't Singer give an interview in March where he stated that he was still attached?

Well, if WB really is going with a sequel to Superman Returns, they'll make a big press release/announcement a little after The Dark Knight has been released.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You could be right but I don't understand why people assume it's going to be after TDK is released? What does TDK have to do with SR, they are two different franchises.