Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

[BATZARRO WWD]

It shall be merged. But nice find, though.

 

[dark_b]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18028

''The first one is whoever plays Superman will be an unknown so he can become Superman. It won't be Ben Affleck in a suit as much as I love Ben Affleck. ''

what is this guy smoking? and where can i get it?

 

[Crook]

Umm...what exactly is wrong with that statement?

 

[dark_b]

whats wrong? you dont mention ben afleck when you talk about superman.

you dont.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Edit

 

[Crook]

whats wrong? you dont mention ben afleck when you talk about superman.

I suggest you take reading comprehension classes, because Millar precisely says that he wouldn't put Ben in a Superman suit.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

whats wrong? you dont mention ben afleck when you talk about superman.

you dont.

Umm, I think you're missing the point. Affleck is just an example of a high profile actor which he wants to avoid.

 

[dark_b]

I suggest you take reading comprehension classes, because Millar precisely says that he wouldn't put Ben in a Superman suit.

its to me very clear that he would like him as superman thats why he mentions hes name. but he says that he wants an unknown because he doesnt want a recognizable face in the suit.
so he likes ben afflecs face for superamn.

 

[The Man of Steel]

whats wrong? you dont mention ben afleck when you talk about superman.

you dont.

lol Oh my god
he looks so gay in that one on the right

 

[FlawlessVictory]

its to me very clear that he would like him as superman thats why he mentions hes name. but he says that he wants an unknown because he doesnt want a recognizable face in the suit.
so he likes ben afflecs face for superamn.

Are you sure you're not the one that's smoking something? I didn't get that at all from his statement.

 

[Crook]

its to me very clear that he would like him as superman thats why he mentions hes name. but he says that he wants an unknown because he doesnt want a recognizable face in the suit.
so he likes ben afflecs face for superamn.

It's very clear he mentioned Ben's name because he wanted to set an example of who to avoid; which is a recognizable actor. All you have to do is read his first sentence, where he plainly states that he wants to build the actor to the image of Superman. The only way to do that is casting a relative unknown.

Not that hard to understand.

 

[dark_b]

he says that eh would like to see Cage as superman and then he mentiones Affleck. this is hes idea of a creepy superman.

 

[SuperDaniel]

^Are you drunk, high or something, dark? Wtf are you talking about?

 

[The Man of Steel]

he says that eh would like to see Cage as superman and then he mentiones Affleck. this is hes idea of a creepy superman.

hell no to both

 

[dark_b]

he he he

 

[Spade]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18028

''The first one is whoever plays Superman will be an unknown so he can become Superman. It won't be Ben Affleck in a suit as much as I love Ben Affleck. ''

what is this guy smoking? and where can i get it?

He's saying that it won't be an actor that people would detest as Superman. He just added on that his example, Ben Affleck, is an actor that he likes.

 

[I Am The Knight]

its to me very clear that he would like him as superman thats why he mentions hes name. but he says that he wants an unknown because he doesnt want a recognizable face in the suit.
so he likes ben afflecs face for superamn.

Talk about a paranoid looney.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

How on earth can anyone misinterpret that statement?

 

[I Am The Knight]

How on earth can anyone misinterpret that statement?

I think he was/is high on some messed up stuff. Kinda like Docker 2.0.

 

[[A]]

Superamn.. they talking about a different character now!

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think he was/is high on some messed up stuff. Kinda like Docker 2.0.

Sometimes Fanboys/girls hurt my brain.

 

[Motown Marvel]

millar is a fantastic writer. and i appreciate his enthusiasm for this project. but im still not sold on him. he says things and has ideas that really worry me.

 

[Cain]

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

What reason exactly?

Which elements do you miss so much that you want to see?

Well they're being slowly reassimilated into the books, it's been that was since Infinite Crisis. But we're talking adaptations so here is how I'd like to see pre-crisis elements appear in a new movie

- Superman and Clark getting equal screen time like in the 70's and early 80's books not one getting more love than the other like in the books before the 70's or after the mid 80's. Both being portrayed as equally important characters who while occupying the same body are yet different from each other in many ways. This is key to me since both are at the end of the day facets of the same being (Kal-El) and neither should be ignored over the other.

- Lex Luthor not being an evil buffoonish greedy megalomaniacal crook like Donner's. Nor Lex being an evil bastard from the ghetto that kills his own parents out of greed. Acts like he's above the law and hates Superman because he can't use him to further his goals like Byrne gave us.

I'd rather a Lex that we sympathize with at first because he's a brilliant mind and views himself as a great human being that could help humanity in general but then feels unappreciated once Superman is introduced to the world. That leads to him slowly having more villanous desires even though he always views himself as the good guy and Superman as a menace.

One that sees the world not appreciating all his hard work and concern over the human race because some alien has showed up and averted a few disasters and in turn took attention away from Lex. One who doesn't understand why mankind embraces an alien without ever suspecting him. Basically the Lex we have in the comics now who's very similar to his silver age counterpart without relying on the cornball "YOU CAUSED MY BALDNESS!!" scenario and mixes that up with the best elements from modern age Lex.

- Krypton being a utopian society but not one that became so perfect that they lost touch with human aspects and became a cold and desolate society that we can't even really care about anymore since it's residents are so emotionless.

- The Kent's not being around once Kal-El is an adult living in metropolis. I think once they've raised him into adulthood they have played their part. I see no real value in using them in scenes with an adult Superman because those scenes could be used to show us more of Superman himself or more of his supporting cast and even the world beyond metropolis.

Plus I think it's very touching that Superman loves his Clark personality so much because it's a gift from the folks who raised him. A special gift that helps him get to know the world in a way he can't as Superman. It's a tribute to them on his behalf and to me that's just as strong as them still being around but without having them show up in potentially filler scenes.

Those are elements from older comics not seen in the modern ones for decades but are being slowly reintergrated into them. To me though most importantly they are elements that the movies still haven't taken advantage off.

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

I'm talking about the Superman character here not Pa Kent being a corpse or Clark Kent being a disguise. Superman himself as presented in SR was a more humane type of character. He felt flawed he was more concerned with his own individual goals (Ie: leaving Earth for 5 years without saying a word), he was naive (Ie: being fooled by Kitty) and was angsty & vulnerable (Ie: complaining to Lois Lane about how hard it is to be Superman) as well. Just like Byrne's Superman was. I don't know if that was intentional or not but it was there.

Now I know what you're going to say "but pre-crisis Superman had angst because Superman is a loner" yes there were elements of angst but he will always pick himself back up and realize that he is a symbol of hope and confidence towards us right away not after long periods of reflection like we see post-crisis or in Singer's movie. He would never sulk and brood certainly not for the extent that we saw in that film something that I can't say about his post-crisis counterpart.

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.

But it's never been properly balanced has it? we either get a Clark Kent who is a dolt like in Donner's movies, a Clark Kent that doesn't act any different than when he was on Kent farm like on Lois & Clark or just straight up more focus on the Superman identity. None of the live action adaptations have managed to play the balancing act fairly well yet.

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 neither you nor I are vocally petitioning for the job either by reaching out to the studio and directors. Since he is a guy who understands the essentials I'd have more faith in him writing than somebody who doesn't even like or just doesn't really understand the Superman myth.

 

[Cain]

I think he was/is high on some messed up stuff.

Then he needs to find himself a new connection.

 

[hammy]

I definitely want it to be epic. Superman and epic go together like pb and j. But I don't like the idea of limiting it to three films. Why limit it. Start with a grand origin tale, a krypton like we've never seen and progress from there. Leave it open to several films. There are lots of great villians Superman could be challenged by and enough interesting plot lines for Clark that there is no need to look at it as a three package, origin, hero status and death of superman type deal. I definitely don't want to see Superman die!! No!

I would like to see several great Superman movies. I see no reason why this couldn't be an ongoing, evolving franchise with 5-7 great films.