Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

[X-Rated]

You know, I'm just wondering, but could Mark Millar be that D.C. Comics writer that that poster "Villain" was talking about who wrote a secret script that ties in to JLA? Is that what Mark Millar talking about or claims to be doing, that suppose to resurrect Superman?

 

[AragornKing1]

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.

Well, that's really just what some insider on BlueTights.net said. If it's true, WB had this planned for a while. The Dark Knight was officilly announced on July 31 2006, a month after the release of Superman Returns and a few days after Comic Con, so who knows. We'll see who's been right all along after The Dark Knight is released in theaters. Either way, we'll be getting a new Superman movie or movies.

 

[charl_huntress]

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.

Even if you choose to believe this, you are still denying the influence the Kents had on his make-up. No one is going to change your mind about the pre-crisis, but again even during that era Superman was still influenced by his time in Smallville and his time with the Kents. I don't even see how you can't see that.

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.

These again are your opinions. It does not make them right or facts. There are obviously a lot of folks out there who prefer the post-crisis, or find it to be a better interpretation of the character. DC must feel this since they have officially retconned the character, and that is the established version for Superman as of now.

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.

No obviously, you aren't right. Batman has a completely different psychological make-up than Superman. Bruce Wayne effectively died with his parents...hence he became Batman. Superman was blasted to Earth and raised amongst humans...as one. And...according to your pre-crisis version, he put on tights and just start flying around and saving people as a boy because...HELL...that's what boys do! Anyways, no one is advocating him being weak or stupid. Personally, I think post-crisis fans prefer a more relatable hero, and Clark represents a bridge to Superman that is accessible. I like Clark just as much as Superman and think his "human" experiences are very relevant to how he views Earth and its inhabitants.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Thankyou Charl H.

I find it extremely arrogant for somebody to dismiss others opinions the way Truer has.

 

[charl_huntress]

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

LOL...someone told me once on these boards "all Superman fans" are obnoxious...though he didn't quite put it like that t:

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Even if you choose to believe this, you are still denying the influence the Kents had on his make-up. No one is going to change your mind about the pre-crisis, but again even during that era Superman was still influenced by his time in Smallville and his time with the Kents. I don't even see how you can't see that.

Let's pretend I was raised by apes. As time goes by I get more intelligent and someday I might learn to walk and think. So at some point I would leave my "parents" behind and become a "real" human. (THe Apes are the KEnts, I am Superman ) The teaching of the apes would become pointless. I am better and I know it.

These again are your opinions. It does not make them right or facts. There are obviously a lot of folks out there who prefer the post-crisis, or find it to be a better interpretation of the character. DC must feel this since they have officially retconned the character, and that is the established version for Superman as of now.

Post-crisis Superman was a commercial failure. It was made to get the Marvel fans to DC. So they made the real Superman into a Marvel character. That didn't really work and that's the reason why DC has re-incorporated more and more old concepts into the new Superman. By now he is basically back being "Superman" and not "Clark Kent", but still his portrayal feels somehow... off.

No obviously, you aren't right. Batman has a completely different psychological make-up than Superman. Bruce Wayne effectively died with his parents...hence he became Batman. Superman was blasted to Earth and raised amongst humans...as one. And...according to your pre-crisis version, he put on tights and just start flying around and saving people as a boy because...HELL...that's what boys do! Anyways, no one is advocating him being weak or stupid. Personally, I think post-crisis fans prefer a more relatable hero, and Clark represents a bridge to Superman that is accessible. I like Clark just as much as Superman and think his "human" experiences are very relevant to how he views Earth and its inhabitants.

Batman is still Bruce Wayne with a mask. "Batman" is an act to scare criminals. The public Bruce Wayne is an act. The private Bruce Wayne is the real one. But the private Clark Kent IS the same as Superman. Or do you want everything that Superman embodies to be a lie, because he isn't really Superman, he just acts? "Relatable" is a stupid buzzword. Superman is made for the kids who are overlooked in real life (= Clark Kent) who wish that in secret they are better than them (= Superman). And their treehouse is their fortress of solitude. That's the premise. And that's beautiful. By making Clark Kent is the real person he becomes "just" a generic superhero. And don't mind my bad english, I was raised by apes.

 

[charl_huntress]

Let's pretend I was raised by apes. As time goes by I get more intelligent and someday I might learn to walk and think. So at some point I would leave my "parents" behind and become a "real" human. (THe Apes are the KEnts, I am Superman ) The teaching of the apes would become pointless. I am better and I know it.

So why didnt Superman fly away from Earth and find a more intelligent planet? He could have easily done this since during pre-crisis he could breath in space. Why stay with the apes? What's the big draw about earth and the earth apes? Why actually dress up as one and parade around town doing ape work?

Post-crisis Superman was a commercial failure. It was made to get the Marvel fans to DC. So they made the real Superman into a Marvel character. That didn't really work and that's the reason why DC has re-incorporated more and more old concepts into the new Superman. By now he is basically back being "Superman" and not "Clark Kent", but still his portrayal feels somehow... off.

I fell to see this commercial failure when there are several successful commercial ventures touting this version. LnC, STAS, SV, JL and JLU. If you are speaking of a commercial failure in the comics, it could probably be argued that all comics of that time including Superman seen significant declines. However, I don't have statistics or anything like that and I'm not going to go looking for them.

Batman is still Bruce Wayne with a mask. "Batman" is an act to scare criminals. The public Bruce Wayne is an act. The private Bruce Wayne is the real one. But the private Clark Kent IS the same as Superman. Or do you want everything that Superman embodies to be a lie, because he isn't really Superman, he just acts? "Relatable" is a stupid buzzword. Superman is made for the kids who are overlooked in real life (= Clark Kent) who wish that in secret they are better than them (= Superman). And their treehouse is their fortress of solitude. That's the premise. And that's beautiful. By making Clark Kent is the real person he becomes "just" a generic superhero. And don't mind my bad english, I was raised by apes.

I'm not going to try and figure out all this double speak. Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about.

As I said, no one is going to convince you that pre-crisis isn't the penulitmate version for Superman. I don't think anyone will try to, including me. However, as a post-crisis fan I relate and define Superman differently. Call me an ape if you wish. I'm not that worried about it.

Thankyou Charl H.

I find it extremely arrogant for somebody to dismiss others opinions the way Truer has.

No worries. I hate that too

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Those guys who cannot appreciate the greatness of the pre-crisis Superman.

 

[charl_huntress]

Those guys who cannot appreciate the greatness of the pre-crisis Superman.

I'm not saying I can't appreciate the comics of that era, but I prefer and relate to the Superman of MY era, which is the post-crisis version.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I'm not saying I can't appreciate the comics of that era, but I prefer and relate to the Superman of MY era, which is the post-crisis version.

Then go and watch the Spider-Man movies, they are probably closer to your vision of Superman than Millar's.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Ugh, will you give it a rest, nobody is dissmissing your opinion.

 

[I Am The Knight]

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.

We know for a fact that Singer and Routh have been attached since 2006. If that has changed...I don't know. Considering Singer and Routh comments made this year I'm inclined to believe they are on the project. I do believe Singer more than I do Millar...Or that Steve guy, anyways. But of course, anything goes when it comes to Superman movies. Getting one done is a miracle.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Woops. Damn the internetz.

 

[charl_huntress]

Then go and watch the Spider-Man movies, they are probably closer to your vision of Superman than Millar's.

I don't have to watch that. I'm watching Lois and Clark right now t:

As for Millar, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because I think he has a better understanding of Superman. I hope he isn't foolish enough to not include the last twenty years of comics like you are advocating.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I don't have to watch that. I'm watching Lois and Clark right now t:

"Lois & Clark"

 

[charl_huntress]

"Lois & Clark"

LOL...it must gall you, huh? I love the show, and think it's a great take on the romance between Lois and Clark.

Anyways, back on topic, you think Millar has the right approach for Superman.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

LOL...it must gall you, huh? I love the show, and think it's a great take on the romance between Lois and Clark.

I think I watch the Ruby Spears Superman or the Fleischer cartoons

Anyways, back on topic, you think Millar has the right approach for Superman.

well, I think "righter" than Singers. It sounds good.

 

[The Guard]

"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".

Kent is "just a disguise", "just a name", based on WHAT? Some of the most shallow comic books ever created?

Clark Kent is someone who already existed. How can he himself suddenly be a disguise for something he created? He is secretly Superman to the world, and he acts the way he does to throw people off that he might be The Man of Steel. Clark can't be the disguise. Even when Superman starts to take over more and more of Clark's life and time, it's still who Clark Kent "is" that is driving Superman. And that's about ten times more interesting than Kent just being a shell that Superman uses to get through the day until he can save people.

I said nothing about him being ordinary. But there is nothing superficial about "he was raised as a human being". That is one of the most powerful and thematically relevant arcs in all of comics, a child who was raised by a kindly couple to be a hero, who taught him to use his powers not because of any tragedy or bestowment of a magic talisman, but simply becaue he wanted to do good, and who continue to advise him after he becomes that hero. There is so much story potential with the Kents being alive and mentoring Clark that it's not funny. If anything, Superman coming up with or relegating "Clark Kent" as a "disguise" is far more superficial, and limiting to the character's potential.

You say "foster parents" like they're just a footnote in Superman's history. That is a massive disservice to the concept of the Kents. For all intents and purposes, the Kents are his real parents. They are what is behind his altruistic nature.

Looking at the Superman mythology, we find that Clark grew up being Clark before he ever, ever became Superman. He grew up with Clark's outlook on the world, Clark's ideals, Clark's hopes and dreams, etc. Now, when he starts being Superman does Clark evolve, does his outlook change somewhat? Absolutely. Does he realize more about his Kryptonian heritage? Sure. Does he occassionally struggle with his heritage, and his powers, and his place in the world? Yes.

But he struggles with these things not because he is Kryptonian, but because he is Clark Kent. If He WASN'T Clark Kent, odds are he wouldn't HAVE to struggle, because the humanity that Kent holds so dear wouldn't matter to him, now, would it?

The proof is in the pudding. He still enjoys being Clark Kent. He still wants to be Clark Kent. He doesn't just go "Ho hum, I will disguise myself and pretend to pine for Lois while in secret, I am Superman and I have no insecurities and am all powerful". God, that's just...that's such a boring take on the character.

For some stupid reason, some of you want this only-drawn from Pre-Crisis Superman, where Clark Kent is the disguise, and the Kents are dead, and Superman can't relate to anyone because he's an alien. When you could have Post-Crisis Superman, who not only is Superman, but is also Clark Kent. Post-Crisis Superman not only has the Post-Crisis elements, he also has the Pre-Crisis elements to draw from as well. Why the heck would you want to choose one when you can have both?

And damn it, people, Bruce Wayne didn't die with his parents, not even metaphorically. He was forever altered, but he did not die.

 

[Clark Kent]

I think I watch the Ruby Spears Superman or the Fleischer cartoons

That BELONGS on DVD. Come on, Warner Bros., get a move on.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Kent is "just a disguise", "just a name", based on WHAT? Some of the most shallow comic books ever created?

Clark Kent is someone who already existed. How can he himself suddenly be a disguise for something he created? He is secretly Superman to the world, and he acts the way he does to throw people off that he might be The Man of Steel. Clark can't be the disguise. Even when Superman starts to take over more and more of Clark's life and time, it's still who Clark Kent "is" that is driving Superman. And that's about ten times more interesting than Kent just being a shell that Superman uses to get through the day until he can save people.

I said nothing about him being ordinary. But there is nothing superficial about "he was raised as a human being". That is one of the most powerful and thematically relevant arcs in all of comics, a child who was raised by a kindly couple to be a hero, who taught him to use his powers not because of any tragedy or bestowment of a magic talisman, but simply becaue he wanted to do good, and who continue to advise him after he becomes that hero. There is so much story potential with the Kents being alive and mentoring Clark that it's not funny. If anything, Superman coming up with or relegating "Clark Kent" as a "disguise" is far more superficial, and limiting to the character's potential.

You say "foster parents" like they're just a footnote in Superman's history. That is a massive disservice to the concept of the Kents. For all intents and purposes, the Kents are his real parents. They are what is behind his altruistic nature.

Looking at the Superman mythology, we find that Clark grew up being Clark before he ever, ever became Superman. He grew up with Clark's outlook on the world, Clark's ideals, Clark's hopes and dreams, etc. Now, when he starts being Superman does Clark evolve, does his outlook change somewhat? Absolutely. Does he realize more about his Kryptonian heritage? Sure. Does he occassionally struggle with his heritage, and his powers, and his place in the world? Yes.

But he struggles with these things not because he is Kryptonian, but because he is Clark Kent. If He WASN'T Clark Kent, odds are he wouldn't HAVE to struggle, because the humanity that Kent holds so dear wouldn't matter to him, now, would it?

The proof is in the pudding. He still enjoys being Clark Kent. He still wants to be Clark Kent. He doesn't just go "Ho hum, I will disguise myself and pretend to pine for Lois while in secret, I am Superman and I have no insecurities and am all powerful". God, that's just...that's such a boring take on the character.

For some stupid reason, some of you want this only-drawn from Pre-Crisis Superman, where Clark Kent is the disguise, and the Kents are dead, and Superman can't relate to anyone because he's an alien. When you could have Post-Crisis Superman, who not only is Superman, but is also Clark Kent. Post-Crisis Superman not only has the Post-Crisis elements, he also has the Pre-Crisis elements to draw from as well. Why the heck would you want to choose one when you can have both?

And damn it, people, Bruce Wayne didn't die with his parents, not even metaphorically. He was forever altered, but he did not die.

Very well said.

I also believe that too...To me Superman is who he is because he is a mix of the Kents and because of his alien origin.

To deny the humanity in Superman is to deny the core of the character in my opinion.

HOWWWWWWEVEEER....

Superman isn`t the normal human being so he DOES NOT HAVE all the faults of an ordinary human being. He is the best human possible and that is UNDENIABLE.

He has HUMAN emotions but NEVER the human bad traits. He is the sum of all that is good in human race.

I think Lois & Clark is very misunderstood. People love to select and catalogue definitions of Superman.

The thing with post-crisis and Lois & Clark too is that he is BOTH CLARK KENT and SUPERMAN at the same time so that is a MUCH more interesting character. They are all part of the character. He has all these dimensions and layers and that`s what makes him appealing to me.

If we get Clark`s quote from Lois & Clark, isn`t what WE CAN DO and eventually DO(or be Superman) part of us too? Isn`t our actions who we are too?

I believe so.

Superman for all seasons shows this perfectly.

 

[dark_b]

Kent is "just a disguise", "just a name", based on WHAT? Some of the most shallow comic books ever created?

Clark Kent is someone who already existed. How can he himself suddenly be a disguise for something he created? He is secretly Superman to the world, and he acts the way he does to throw people off that he might be The Man of Steel. Clark can't be the disguise. Even when Superman starts to take over more and more of Clark's life and time, it's still who Clark Kent "is" that is driving Superman. And that's about ten times more interesting than Kent just being a shell that Superman uses to get through the day until he can save people.

I said nothing about him being ordinary. But there is nothing superficial about "he was raised as a human being". That is one of the most powerful and thematically relevant arcs in all of comics, a child who was raised by a kindly couple to be a hero, who taught him to use his powers not because of any tragedy or bestowment of a magic talisman, but simply becaue he wanted to do good, and who continue to advise him after he becomes that hero. There is so much story potential with the Kents being alive and mentoring Clark that it's not funny. If anything, Superman coming up with or relegating "Clark Kent" as a "disguise" is far more superficial, and limiting to the character's potential.

You say "foster parents" like they're just a footnote in Superman's history. That is a massive disservice to the concept of the Kents. For all intents and purposes, the Kents are his real parents. They are what is behind his altruistic nature.

Looking at the Superman mythology, we find that Clark grew up being Clark before he ever, ever became Superman. He grew up with Clark's outlook on the world, Clark's ideals, Clark's hopes and dreams, etc. Now, when he starts being Superman does Clark evolve, does his outlook change somewhat? Absolutely. Does he realize more about his Kryptonian heritage? Sure. Does he occassionally struggle with his heritage, and his powers, and his place in the world? Yes.

But he struggles with these things not because he is Kryptonian, but because he is Clark Kent. If He WASN'T Clark Kent, odds are he wouldn't HAVE to struggle, because the humanity that Kent holds so dear wouldn't matter to him, now, would it?

The proof is in the pudding. He still enjoys being Clark Kent. He still wants to be Clark Kent. He doesn't just go "Ho hum, I will disguise myself and pretend to pine for Lois while in secret, I am Superman and I have no insecurities and am all powerful". God, that's just...that's such a boring take on the character.

For some stupid reason, some of you want this only-drawn from Pre-Crisis Superman, where Clark Kent is the disguise, and the Kents are dead, and Superman can't relate to anyone because he's an alien. When you could have Post-Crisis Superman, who not only is Superman, but is also Clark Kent. Post-Crisis Superman not only has the Post-Crisis elements, he also has the Pre-Crisis elements to draw from as well. Why the heck would you want to choose one when you can have both?

And damn it, people, Bruce Wayne didn't die with his parents, not even metaphorically. He was forever altered, but he did not die.

your post is to long so i dont knwo if you already said this. he meant clark kent from metropolis. the guy who works at the DP. not the clark kent on smallville.

 

[charl_huntress]

Lois and Clark--Best quote ever

"Superman is what I can do. Clark is who I am."

 

[SuperDaniel]

Bah...Superman is part a desguise too. He is an icon and he doesn`t say he was raised by the Kents in public so he lies about some things too...

Both Metropolis Clark and Superman are kind of an act too. They are public personas to the same altruistic character who is the inner Clark Kent.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Bah...Superman is part a desguise too. He is an icon and he doesn`t say he was raised by the Kents in public.

Both Metropolis Clark and Superman are kind of an act too. They are public personas to the same altruistic character who is the inner Clark Kent.

I always looked at it like that too pretty much. I still would say that Clark is more like him then Supes but Supes is totally apart of him because he gets to use his powers in public.

 

[The Guard]

your post is to long so i dont knwo if you already said this. he meant clark kent from metropolis. the guy who works at the DP. not the clark kent on smallville.

The only part of Metropolis Clark that is really an act is his bumbling shyness and "cowardice". The reporter elements, the friendships, etc...that's real, and those are the important elements of the character. The man really does enjoy what he does, and he's good at it.