Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

[Michael Corleone]

If he is involved I can see them using his story ideas and him getting a story credit with screenwriters coming in to work on it.



If this is all it is, then there is nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to know which it is.

I have a hard time believing it mainly because it's the exact same story he was giving prior to Singer being signed on.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Hey, you never know how his movie could turn out. We could all be crying when all is said and done...Or laughing like hyenas with happyness

I would just perfer a real screenwriter.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

If this is all it is, then there is nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to know which it is.

We will know forsure in the future, near or distant. I'm betting he won't get the job but I've been wrong before.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Gotta be honest...to me, this Pre-Crisis/Post-Crisis argument is just absurd. I can't take anyone who argues for or against one or the other seriously, because the solution to which one is use is obvious: both. It's just that simple. How can you honor a character's entire history when you're stuck on one particular version?

I could care less if the version Millar prefers is the version that was around for most of the character's history. All that means to me is that HE'S the one stuck in a rut. That version limits the character, by limiting his options and his development. Is that what Millar wants to do? Again, he seems to be more about the concepts involved. And that's all well and good, but so far, Millar's take on Superman is just...obvious. Using Krypton is obvious. Using Braniac is obvious. There's nothing new or interesting to it from what he's said, as far as I can tell. Could there be? Sure, but I have yet to hear a whisper of it.

I'm so glad we have someone like you here who sees the "potential" of the character

 

[Cain]

do i really look that naive that if Millar mentions LOTR that i will like him?
really epic like LOTR? ohhhhhh i want babies from you.

lol I have never liked LOTR myself. Not when I was forced to read the books in 8th grade english class and not when it became an oscar winning blockbuster trilogy. Though I do admit Fellowship is one of the best made films of this decade and Two Towers was a lot of fun. ROTK though is the only movie I watched in a theatre that literally put me to sleep. That comparison wasn't even it when it came to me agreeing with Millar's thoughts on Superman I can't speak for others though.

I'll bite. How does Post-Crisis Superman preclude the use of any of the elements Millar is talking about?

You could totally live up to a lot of what he says while still using post-crisis elements. When you look deeper into the presentation though you have things like more limited power reducing him to the likes of The Flash, Batman and other heroes he was once above by diluting his powers and the whole "Clark is who I am and Superman is what I can do" thing do somewhat contradict certain other things that he says.

Gotta be honest...to me, this Pre-Crisis/Post-Crisis argument is just absurd. I can't take anyone who argues for or against one or the other seriously, because the solution to which one is use is obvious: both. It's just that simple. How can you honor a character's entire history when you're stuck on one particular version?

Here we agree cause I love and dislike elements of both even if I do favor pre-crisis I see a lot of value in certain elements of post crisis continuity and my favorite Superman comic of all time (Action Comics #775) falls under the post-crisis umbrella.

I could care less if the version Millar prefers is the version that was around for most of the character's history. All that means to me is that HE'S the one stuck in a rut.

But it's a rut that hasn't been dugged upon by adaptations in over 20 years. That's the thing that makes it different yet appealing when you really think about it pre-crisis Supes hasn't been showed yet on TV during all that time. We either get an amalgation of that with the Donner movies and post-crisis like in Smallville or we get Byrne influenced stuff all the way (STAS, Superboy, Lois & Clark).

Also the Superman not even Clark in Singer's movie was unintentionally or intentionally very Byrner Superman like rewatch the movie and you'll see. So there's room for a Superman that's more Superman than Clark in entertainment media now a days cause it has never really been explored. The last time was Donner's first movie and even that reinvented a lot of things as any adaptation would.

That version limits the character, by limiting his options and his development.

How so?

Again, he seems to be more about the concepts involved. And that's all well and good, but so far, Millar's take on Superman is just...obvious. Using Krypton is obvious. Using Braniac is obvious.

It's not so much in using them but how you use them we have never seen a silver age and bronze age influenced Krypton on the big screen same thing with Brainiac.

There's nothing new or interesting to it from what he's said, as far as I can tell. Could there be? Sure, but I have yet to hear a whisper of it.

Yeah like most comic writers he's not the most eloquent speaker during interviews yet strangely I totally got what he meant at the same time.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I would just perfer a real screenwriter.

Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris were real screenwriters and look what happened.

The answer is you can get both. I want someone who is a HUGE fan of the character. Millar sounds like a guy who's clearly passionate about this

He can give a treatment and a then a real screenwriter could work with him in the actual script.

 

[dark_b]

Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris were real screenwriters and look what happened.

The answer is you can get both. I want someone who is a HUGE fan of the character. Millar sounds like a guy who's clearly passionate about this

He can give a treatment and a then a real screenwriter could work with him in the actual script.

what did happen? did they writte superman like a horse? was he acting like a duck?
or did they writte a story for bryan singer who pitched the idea to WB?

 

[The Guard]

The second Millar said "Clark Kent is a pair of glasses", he lost my support until he pulls something brilliant out of his ass.

But it's a rut that hasn't been dugged upon by adaptations in over 20 years.

Other than SUPERMAN RETURNS, that might be true. But there's a reason for that.

I think it's absurd to keep labeling adaptions Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis. Which elements do you miss so much that you want to see?

Also the Superman not even Clark in Singer's movie was unintentionally or intentionally very Byrner Superman like rewatch the movie and you'll see.

Eh. There was a lot more Pre-Crisis than Post-Crisis to SUPERMAN RETURNS, from what I can see.

So there's room for a Superman that's more Superman than Clark in entertainment media now a days cause it has never really been explored.

Again. There's a reason for that. It's the same reason they haven't presented a Clark with almost no "Superman" side to him.

It's not so much in using them but how you use them we have never seen a silver age and bronze age influenced Krypton on the big screen same thing with Brainiac.

That's true. But it's still not a ridiculously clever idea. I still don't see anything from him that indicates that he "gets" it any more than you or I.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

The second Millar said "Clark Kent is a pair of glasses", he lost my support until he pulls something brilliant out of his ass.

Did Siegel also loose your support? Retrospective or something like that?

Eh. There was a lot more Pre-Crisis than Post-Crisis to SUPERMAN RETURNS, from what I can see.

Reeve's Superman had a soft side, but Routh's Superman is a whiny boy. Like post-crisis. I want my Superman more masculine, dominant.

Again. There's a reason for that. It's the same reason they haven't presented a Clark with almost no "Superman" side to him.

They should present a Superman who has a "Clark Kent" side as a touchdown for his humanity.

That's true. But it's still not a ridiculously clever idea. I still don't see anything from him that indicates that he "gets" it any more than you or I.

Well, since you advocate the Byrne Marvel-Man...

 

[The Man of Steel]

Loose Routh, Bring on Cavill or Caviezel

 

[dark_b]

Loose Routh, Bring on Cavill or Caviezel

Routh is already out

 

[Groho]

Hi all, I found this:

ComicBookResources.com spoke with Mark Millar recently, and during the interview Millar revealed more details on his pitch for a 3-picture Superman epic. Here's a portion of the interview...

• You've said this will be Superman's "Lord of the Rings."
  I wanted to do Superman's entire life. That's my plan, to tell an epic Superman story. I love the structure of the three "The Godfather" films. Just something that starts with a young man building up to him being an old man. I just think with Superman, you can't go small on it. So I wanted to do something like a Superman magnum opus -- a giant Superman three-picture spectacular with a story that runs between seven and eight hours.
  The story I've got is colossal. It's got everything I like about Superman all in one movie. It's a lifetime's worth of notes all put together. It starts 1,000 years ago on Krypton and with the technology we have now, I see people saying, "No. We don't need to see Krypton again." And all that. But really, you haven't seen Krypton before. You've seen lame TV show special effects. And you've seen pre-CGI technology of Krypton before. And the idea of scarlet jungles and jewel mountains and just Superman's genealogy; his ancestors. There's lot to play with -- Brainiac and so on. So starting there and then going 10 million years in the future by the end of the third movie. It's just a giant movie.
  So we'd spend a lot of time on Krypton in your first movie? Obviously, there is still tons of Superman in the first movie but I think the first half-an-hour would be great on Krypton. For the plot I have, Krypton is very important. So I really established the world there and the religion on Krypton. All the stuff you have seen teased in comics but you've never really seen in movies. Just make it grand. I wanted "The Dark Knight" to look like Superman 4. I want it to be just a big, grand Superman story.
  
  http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18028

 

[arachnid-guy]

An epic Superman story is definitely needed.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

The more that I think about it, the more that I am starting to get excited at the potential new Superman story that could be told. I have been a SR supporter from the beginning and I absolutely loved what Routh brought to the table as Superman, but I have, unfortunately, come to grips with the fact that the particular story that was told by Singer is not going to be concluded. So I have no choice but to move on, and now I am finding myself rooting for Mark Miller and Henry Cavill as Superman. When it comes right down to it, I think that we ALL want a good Superman story to be told, no matter how much some people ***** and moan. There may be some people that "fight" about their opinions on this board, but at the end of the day we are ALL Superman fans, and we ALL want whats best for the character.

 

[The Guard]

Did Siegel also loose your support? Retrospective or something like that?

That's like asking me if I prefer everything Batman has become to what he started out as, at his most basic.

Everything is retrospective. I recognize fully that Siegel and Shuster hardly presented the character to his full potential. I much prefer the versions of Superman that came later, than the one Siegel and Shuster originally presented, who was brash, often cruel or sexist, certainly not nearly as morally upstanding, who had less interesting powers, no Fortress, Kryptonite, etc.

By the way, if you cannot get beyond this ridiculous "So, do you just hate EVERYTHING from Pre-Crisis?" attitude and this absurd need to go "Well, did you hate the original Superman, too?" nonsense, I'll simply place you on ignore.

Reeve's Superman had a soft side, but Routh's Superman is a whiny boy. Like post-crisis. I want my Superman more masculine, dominant.

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE homages, revenge-driven mad scientist Luthor, Clark as the disguise, Superman's power levels, Jonathan Kent dead, an almost complete lack of development for the Clark Kent side, Jimmy and Perry White as stock characters...definitely more from Pre-Crisis than Post-Crisis in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

 

[MichaelEsquire]

Here, here! I agree. Frankly I would love to have Millar let his epic be made. He seems really passionate about it.

 

[Lighthouse]

The only hiccup I see is that WB wants to do Justice League, and if Superman is dead by the third movie, thats going to make it difficult.

Other than that, I really love this idea.

 

[Lighthouse]

The only hiccup I see is that WB wants to do Justice League, and if Superman is dead by the third movie, thats going to make it difficult.

Other than that, I really love this idea.

 

[bunk]

I wouldn't want them to kill of Superman at all. That could be interesting though, if they killed him off in one of his movies and then brought him back in a JL movie released in the same year. That would probably be too much though, but the hype would be crazy.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE homages, revenge-driven mad scientist Luthor, Clark as the disguise, Superman's power levels, Jonathan Kent dead, an almost complete lack of development for the Clark Kent side, Jimmy and Perry White as stock characters...definitely more from Pre-Crisis than Post-Crisis in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

More or less, what we're getting in the Superman titles these days.

 

[I Am The Knight]

This is all very nice...But it has been posted in the main Millar thread already.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Good that i don't buy the comics anymore.

 

[The Sage]

I prefer seeing more Superman than Clark Kent in the stories.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I prefer seeing more Superman than Clark Kent in the stories.

Agreed.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Everything is retrospective. I recognize fully that Siegel and Shuster hardly presented the character to his full potential. I much prefer the versions of Superman that came later, than the one Siegel and Shuster originally presented, who was brash, often cruel or sexist, certainly not nearly as morally upstanding, who had less interesting powers, no Fortress, Kryptonite, etc.

These are EXPANSIONS of the core concept. At first he battle regular criminals, but when he started to fly his stories became more and more science fiction-ized. I'm not really fond of the old Weisinger-era were Superman plays constantly pranks on his friends. And so on. But Byrne's reboot was an INVERSION. It's like making Spider-Man a spider who was bitten by a radioactive human.