Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, let's get down to the bottom line here....:

what have you all read about Millar's take on Superman that makes you so vehemently opposed to him taking over the reigns on at least the next film?

Be specific because, frankly, I strongly dislike what Singer did on SR and don't feel that a new hand could do much worse (other than the Burton proposal and the suit-in-a-can script).
 
OK, let's get down to the bottom line here....:

what have you all read about Millar's take on Superman that makes you so vehemently opposed to him taking over the reigns on at least the next film?

Be specific because, frankly, I strongly dislike what Singer did on SR and don't feel that a new hand could do much worse (other than the Burton proposal and the suit-in-a-can script).

CONTRA
1. I don't like Millar's work (especially at Marvel, his Superman Adventures were quite good)
2. Has he ever written a screenplay before?

The good points? He seems to understand Superman. And to love him. I guess you won't find anyone in Hollywood who really "gets" him.
 
CONTRA
1. I don't like Millar's work (especially at Marvel, his Superman Adventures were quite good)
2. Has he ever written a screenplay before?

The good points? He seems to understand Superman. And to love him. I guess you won't find anyone in Hollywood who really "gets" him.

Thanks for the quick response but is there or is there not a posting somewhere that Millar has stated unequivacably what he wants to do with the character?

And your post seems to knock Millar in one breath and praise him in the next. I'm betting you're really anti.

As to whether he's written a screenplay before... everyone has to start somewhere and a story is a story whether it's written for the screen or the 4 colour press. It's all in the translation and there are people who help with that. Those are those people you see listed after the main writer.
 
A few pages back has Millar's ideas on Superman... I pretty much agree with everything except his vision of the Lois & Superman and Clark triangle. I think Superman really loves her. But the tension of them not being together indeed is nice to see. Watch Lois & Clark.
 
Found it. Let me add that I don't care for his vision. It's too silver age and that's a period no one should have to live through twice.

I absolutely prefer Byrne and Wolfman's take.


Here's Millar's take:
From Millarworld itself - Mark Millar's views on Superman and how he would *FIX* him....

On his connection to Batman: "[Superman and Batman are] both orphans. They absolutely understand each other and know that there's nobody else they can count on as much as they other. PS I know Superman isn't an orphan in this dreadful period he's been under seige (from 1986 until Hitchy and I fix him again), but the true understanding of the character is, like Bambi, he loses his Mum and Dad again. All the iconic heroes do whether it's Superman, Bambi or Batman."

On why Bryan Hitch is his ideal Superman collaborator: "Hitchy's even worse than me. Although he looks much older and has trouble sleeping through the night without a piss, Hitchy is only three weeks younger than me. Thus, we grew up on the same Cary Bates Superman comics aged 6-14. Exactly the same comics. We were also 8 years old when we saw Superman and Hitch, like me, can repeat the entire movie line for line. You should hear our daily phone chats. They're a hymn to Superman. Fixing this mess has been our destiny. It'll happen. Not for a while, but it'll happen."

On Clark Kent: "Clark is a pair of glasses. Superman doesn't need glasses. He puts on the glasses for no practical reason; just to dress up and pretend to be this mid-westwern guy he's not as a means of rubbing shoulders with the people on this planet. Superman would have thought he was human until puberty. Until maybe 12. The easiest way to understand it is to think of Jesus in the temple and the moment where his mother has to tell him the truth. He always knew he was different and alone. This is when it was all explained to him. He could still love his parents, but Clark is him trying to understand what humans are all about. As Elliot Maggin puts it, Clark Kent is a living, breathing work of art."

On Lois Lane: "Superman doesn't love Lois. Clark loves Lois and Superman tries HARD to love Lois, but he can't because she's the wrong species. But he tries. Again, Maggin sums it up beautifully. It doesn't have to be complicated... Clark loves Lois, Lois loves Superman, Superman loves Clark [...] Perfect. This is also one of the reasons Superman shouldn't be married to Lois. It's just stupid. It makes no sense and destroys the whole dynamic. Superman is God, Jor-El is the Holy Spirit and Clark Kent is Jesus. The Kents are Mary and Joseph and Lois is Mary Magdelene. She's the NYC girl who's ____ed her way around the city and found nobody who measures up. She's just had it with men and is focusing on her career... then Superman shows up. This is why Margot Kidder was perfect for the role and why Lois should be played by someone around 30 even if Supes is being played by a 25 year old. You'll see what I mean when we fix it."

On the current version of the character: "[Kingdom Come] is close to perfect. Waid gets it. None of the other American writers do, though Loeb comes close. His only weakness is getting caught up in the whole farmboy thing. The farm is where he grew up and knew he was NOTHING LIKE THESE PEOPLE. He affects it for the Clark persona, but that's it. He's as Kryptonian as Jesus is divine. Did Jesus shag Mary Mag? I don't think so. Superman should never shag Lois. It's insane and what happens when artists start touching tyoewriters. Jimmy is the reader-identification figure and the comedy relief. PS I'm saving everything else for the launch. No other ideas from me here, I'm afraid, in case some ____ nicks em."

On mixing metaphors: "No brimstone for Superman. He's interesting enough without it. He sees Earth the way immigrants saw America 100 years ago. He sees a chance for hope and a new life after losing his homeland as a kid. He loves people because he recognizes their great potential and, like Krypton, he wants to encourage them towards the Utopia his father sent him from. Forget Byrne. Read the Bible."

On the previous pitch Millar had made with Grant Morrison, Mark Waid and Tom Peyer: "The pitch we did was very late 90s and all the things I WOULDN'T do if Superman was being revamped now. It was nice, but it was the whole retro 60s thing that Grant's into as opposed to what I'd want to do myself. This thing was pretty good, but would be absolutely wrong for now. It still had Superman married to Lois and all that ____. There was another draft Mark Waid added with Earth getting a mind-wipe to forget that stuff and it had some nice touches, but I'd just start from scratch."

On how close Superman is to humanity: "Humans were apes less than 50 million years ago. Kryptonians are what we'd be like in 20 billion years. I have this all worked out as part of the proposal. In the last two years, I've filled two entire ring-binders with the plan. There's some AMAZING stuff in here. Hitch has also been doing little design doodles for the last five years. It's fate that we met."


This was Millar in an interview from 2004. ......originally from MILLARWORLD. It's a wizard interview.
 
Me too...I prefer Byrne`s too especially when comes To Lex Luthor. I think a Superman movie should be a mix of both ages.

However the silver age can work when it`s written good like All Star Superman. Thats one of the best Superman stories ever written.
 
Plus i`m tired of all this relatable Superman crap. On the planet forums a poster called Enlighted one showed a great view of the Superman character I previously argued a lot but I finally agreed with it now.

It says Clark Kent is Superman fight for "Truth" using words. Superman is a man of action. Clark is the idea justifying the fact that the pen is mightier than the sword...I actually love this and i`m using it on my script.
 
Meh, I find this extremely unprofessional and disrespectful...basically outlaying your political plan to oust the current director and take over the franchise.

It's just bad professionalism and betrays a man who just wants to get into movie making -- it's the same reason he ran around with his head cut off ranting about Wanted being this amazing, revolutionary film when in fact, it made no sense and was just fun to watch. He had an incentive to get us there...

As much as I love Mark Millar's comic book writing, his puppy dog attitude toward lapping up anything HOllywood'll give him is really just nauseating and sort of pathetic.

Not to mention that great comic book writers RARELY translate into great screenwriters. It's a totally different medium.
 
I`d still take him over Singer...

That's stupid.

You'd take a novice screenwriter and a total newbie to film over an established director that, whether or not you like it, created the modern comic book genre film with X-Men, redefined it further with X2, and then also introduced a new Superman take with SR that was critically received very well and also earned as much money as Batman Begins did, if not more.

Not to mention having made a film that earned multiple oscar nominations, and even one win.

Yeah, that's smart.

I swear, humanity's devolving.
 
Me too...I prefer Byrne`s too especially when comes To Lex Luthor. I think a Superman movie should be a mix of both ages.

However the silver age can work when it`s written good like All Star Superman. Thats one of the best Superman stories ever written.

Yeah, if you like that paginated **** that Morrison puts together every week then there's not hope for me discussing anything with you when it comes to matters of taste.
 
I stick to my guns that what MIllar just did is extremely arrogant and unprofessional, and probably will make him a very difficult writer to collaborate with since he apparently has no conceptualization of boundaries or proper channels.

If I was his producer friend, I'd be dropping him right now with a nice, "What the **** were you thinking?"

Studios rarely respond to being bullied during the development process, because it basically just guarantees production and post-production issues later on.

Millar just put a nail in any hope he had -- let him stay with comics.
 
Meh, I find this extremely unprofessional and disrespectful...basically outlaying your political plan to oust the current director and take over the franchise.

It's just bad professionalism and betrays a man who just wants to get into movie making -- it's the same reason he ran around with his head cut off ranting about Wanted being this amazing, revolutionary film when in fact, it made no sense and was just fun to watch. He had an incentive to get us there...

As much as I love Mark Millar's comic book writing, his puppy dog attitude toward lapping up anything HOllywood'll give him is really just nauseating and sort of pathetic.

Not to mention that great comic book writers RARELY translate into great screenwriters. It's a totally different medium.

Word.



And I'd take Singer's over his...

I really like Singer's vision so far. And Singer also loves Superman. :yay:

Besides, he has promised more action for the sequel. I know he will deliver. I'm sure he will do all the necessary improvements to produce a Superman film that more people will like. He did it already with X-2.
 
To me Superman Returns plain sucked. Singer should`ve stayed with X-men who are much more his field.

Millar could write the story with the help of a more experienced screenwriter then...
 
Meh, I find this extremely unprofessional and disrespectful...basically outlaying your political plan to oust the current director and take over the franchise.

It's just bad professionalism and betrays a man who just wants to get into movie making -- it's the same reason he ran around with his head cut off ranting about Wanted being this amazing, revolutionary film when in fact, it made no sense and was just fun to watch. He had an incentive to get us there...

As much as I love Mark Millar's comic book writing, his puppy dog attitude toward lapping up anything HOllywood'll give him is really just nauseating and sort of pathetic.

Not to mention that great comic book writers RARELY translate into great screenwriters. It's a totally different medium.

Not that I disagree with your post, but the comments Millar made on what he would with Superman were for a comic book reboot, not a film. He posted them on his forum in 2004. It just gives us a rough idea on what he would do if he ever wrote a Superman movie.

With that said, I would love to see him go back to DC after his contract with Marvel ends, and be able to write his Superman story with Bryan Hitch.
 
Any sequel to SR will still be hampered by the issues that plagued the first movie. IMO, Singer and his writing crew painted themselves into a corner. If and how they can fix that is beyond me. I don't like Millar's take on Lois. He needs to fix that, but the article was written a while ago. Maybe he has some new ideas.
 
That's stupid.

You'd take a novice screenwriter and a total newbie to film over an established director that, whether or not you like it, created the modern comic book genre film with X-Men, redefined it further with X2, and then also introduced a new Superman take with SR that was critically received very well and also earned as much money as Batman Begins did, if not more.

Not to mention having made a film that earned multiple oscar nominations, and even one win.

Yeah, that's smart.

I swear, humanity's devolving.

Never said Singer is a bad director. Usual Suspects is one of my favorite movies of all time and I love the first 2 X-men movies.

However, to me, Singer is wrong for Superman.
 
Any sequel to SR will still be hampered by the issues that plagued the first movie. IMO, Singer and his writing crew painted themselves into a corner. If and how they can fix that is beyond me. I don't like Millar's take on Lois. He needs to fix that, but the article was written a while ago. Maybe he has some new ideas.

Well he won't have the same writing crew.
 
Not that I disagree with your post, but the comments Millar made on what he would with Superman were for a comic book reboot, not a film. He posted them on his forum in 2004. It just gives us a rough idea on what he would do if he ever wrote a Superman movie.

With that said, I would love to see him go back to DC after his contract with Marvel ends, and be able to write his Superman story with Bryan Hitch.
Well said.
 
That's stupid.

You'd take a novice screenwriter and a total newbie to film over an established director that, whether or not you like it, created the modern comic book genre film with X-Men, redefined it further with X2, and then also introduced a new Superman take with SR that was critically received very well and also earned as much money as Batman Begins did, if not more.

Not to mention having made a film that earned multiple oscar nominations, and even one win.

Yeah, that's smart.

I swear, humanity's devolving.

It's nice to see someone actually acknowledging what Singer has done for comic book movies. These days it's all "Singer suckz" whining. I've noticed the same thing done to Raimi over time. 2 very well done, very well received movies, and then a third one that is "controversial" and people start screaming for their heads. People go "Praise Nolan, Praise Favreau!!" but wait till they make a movie they don't like.

Even if you don't like SR, give the man some well deserved credit!
 
That's stupid.

You'd take a novice screenwriter and a total newbie to film over an established director that, whether or not you like it, created the modern comic book genre film with X-Men, redefined it further with X2, and then also introduced a new Superman take with SR that was critically received very well and also earned as much money as Batman Begins did, if not more.

Not to mention having made a film that earned multiple oscar nominations, and even one win.

Yeah, that's smart.

I swear, humanity's devolving.

Whether the film was critically aclaimed or not, the film just was not the film a lot of us ... and I do mean a lot ... had hoped for. It was dreary, dull, and turned the characters into people we had a hard time recognizing.

As to whether Singer re-invented the Superhero film, I seriously doubt that. He may have made Hollywood take notice that superhero films can be done without camp ... but he wasn't the first. We had Darkman (not a comic book character but definitely a superhero), we had Blade, even Burton's original Batman was certainly a far cry from the sixties camp (although I often accuse it of being a comedy). Singer didn't reinvent so much as take the costumes away so that the buying public wouldn't equate them with their four colour origins and allow for a serious story to be told.

And, just because I'm being honest here, if it weren't for the Wolverine, the film probably wouldn't have done all that well.
 
Well he won't have the same writing crew.
But that still wont solve the problems of the first movie like Superman being too afraid to do the right thing, Superkid, Richard...etc That what she meant, i guess.
 
It's nice to see someone actually acknowledging what Singer has done for comic book movies. These days it's all "Singer suckz" whining. I've noticed the same thing done to Raimi over time. 2 very well done, very well received movies, and then a third one that is "controversial" and people start screaming for their heads. People go "Praise Nolan, Praise Favreau!!" but wait till they make a movie they don't like.

Even if you don't like SR, give the man some well deserved credit!
I do and i love his movies. I just hate him for Superman after seeing SR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"