Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

[FilmNerdJamie]

Said it before, say it again. It won't be Abrams.

 

[Showtime]

WB's should just look to go with Danny Boyle or JJ Abrams to direct the next Supes film.

They are talented up and comers who they can mold into "studio" directors and have a good working relationship with. It just depends if they are interested and what kind of vision they have from whatever story gets written of course.

How is Abrams an "up & comer"? Abrams is already known for not being a studio guy, if WB wants somebody they can have some control over...Abrams is not that guy.

 

[Dark Knight]

How is Abrams an "up & comer"? Abrams is already known for not being a studio guy, if WB wants somebody they can have some control over...Abrams is not that guy.

Well thats too bad....Abrams did a good job on Mission 3 and the new stuff I have seen from his Star Trek film looks solid.

 

[Dark Knight]

How is Abrams an "up & comer"? Abrams is already known for not being a studio guy, if WB wants somebody they can have some control over...Abrams is not that guy.

What I mean by "up and comer" is that he hasn't peaked yet as a director.

 

[Dark Knight]

Until I see what he does with this StarTrek movie I wouldn't be happy if Abrams got the gig as I wasn't overly impressed with anything in MI3. That being said, it's highly doubtful he'd get it anyway after the controversy surrounding that old script of his.

I actually thought Mission 3 was a better overall film than the 2nd Mission film. I liked what Woo did with the 2nd film....but overall Abrams did a far better job.

 

[Showtime]

Well thats too bad....Abrams did a good job on Mission 3 and the new stuff I have seen from his Star Trek film looks solid.

I think he is fine, and if WB decides to go that rout, some might think he is a good choice. All I can think of is suit in a can.

What I mean by "up and comer" is that he hasn't peaked yet as a director.

He might not have as many director gigs under his belt, but his clout from TV has certainly transfered to film. If Star Trek goes off as it should, forget it.

 

[Dark Knight]

I think he is fine, and if WB decides to go that rout, some might think he is a good choice. All I can think of is suit in a can.



He might not have as many director gigs under his belt, but his clout from TV has certainly transfered to film. If Star Trek goes off as it should, forget it.

Yeah his FLYBY script certainly needed rewrites and improvements thats for sure....but some elements of that script would have been visually epic to see onscreen IMO.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I actually thought Mission 3 was a better overall film than the 2nd Mission film. I liked what Woo did with the 2nd film....but overall Abrams did a far better job.

I prefer MI3 to MI2 as well.

 

[Showtime]

Yeah his FLYBY script certainly needed rewrites and improvements thats for sure....but some elements of that script would have been visually epic to see onscreen IMO.

I'm still from the same mindset that I always have been from, anybody who writes a script that includes such elements doesn't get Superman.

 

[kalelkilla]

I'm still from the same mindset that I always have been from, anybody who writes a script that includes such elements doesn't get Superman.

Some of his ideas might not have worked, but some of them might have, at least he wrote some interesting scenes that we haven't seen before and didn't rehash lines/scenes of a movie made 30 years ago. There were some rewrites that needed to be done for sure, but just because he made a few mistakes in writing the movie, doesn't mean he can't direct it...he would be a solid choice I think, Peter Jackson would be better though...

 

[Showtime]

Some of his ideas might not have worked, but some of them might have, at least he wrote some interesting scenes that we haven't seen before and didn't rehash lines/scenes of a movie made 30 years ago. There were some rewrites that needed to be done for sure, but just because he made a few mistakes in writing the movie, doesn't mean he can't direct it...he would be a solid choice I think, Peter Jackson would be better though...

I think giving Superman a kid is just as bad as a homosexual Jimmy Olsen, Suit In A Can, Kryptonian Luthor. Should Bryan Singer be given another chance? If not, then I don't see how Abrams gets a shot. They both are in the same boat of not understanding the character in my opinion.

 

[terry78]

Sometimes there is a such thing as "too much vision."

 

[Sub-Zero]

I think giving Superman a kid is just as bad as a homosexual Jimmy Olsen, Suit In A Can, Kryptonian Luthor. Should Bryan Singer be given another chance? If not, then I don't see how Abrams gets a shot. They both are in the same boat of not understanding the character in my opinion.

i think abrams get a lot of **** b/c he tried to reimagine superman. you don't need to do that. there's a rich history there, but its been altered many times. what never changed was that krypton blows up, and the only kryptonian's left, besides kal-el and maybe kara, are in the phantom zone.

singer on the other hand was so stuck in the donnerverse that he thought he had to keep going with it. the 70s superman is unrecognizeable now. luthor is a genius-level, ruthless, no nonsense villain. i agree the kid was a horrible idea, and he really doesn't get the character. he got x-men b/c he could relate to them, and got us to relate to them as well. i kinda wish he had that shot at x3, and someone else did superman.

i for one think it's easy to make a superman movie. give him someone to fight and don't take liberties with his character. he wouldn't have a child out of wedlock. what nolan did with harvey dent, making him the hope/savior of gotham is exactly what they should do with superman. he's a hero with a face that doesn't have to break the law to help those in need.

 

[BestGirl]

i for one think it's easy to make a superman movie. give him someone to fight and don't take liberties with his character. he wouldn't have a child out of wedlock. what nolan did with harvey dent, making him the hope/savior of gotham is exactly what they should do with superman. he's a hero with a face that doesn't have to break the law to help those in need.

I love the idea of Superman as a Harvey Dent-like character. Keep Dent's charisma and kindness and reduce his aggression and you've got a solid foundation for Superman's personality.

 

[Dotten]

That isn't even close to being the point, the point is he is giving away the final scene in a trilogy of a film yet to be made. What is this amatuer hour?

That's what you do if you try to sell an "product idea".

Maybe he has been paying attention to the new fenomenon that is Internet. It's not amateur hour, it's innovation. Maybe he's been listening to the recent expert statements from Harvard and so on (maybe from Zittrain).

Point is to try to sell a product to the fanbase on internett. He uses the same procedure one does when aproaching companyes. One gives the synopsis and the synopsis must contain the plot point, the ending, the twists.

This is not the business model of yesturday, it's what some people think is the business model of the future. Generativity. Look it up

If it's succesfull remains to be seen. But if you pay attention you would not ask if its amateur hour. You will se more people trying out the generativity way, pitching their ideas to the GA to use it as a "weapon".

If Millar is doing this because he actually listen to the Harvard-guys or just stumbled into this strategy I don't know. Maybe he's not doing the Apple routine, he's going for the Wikipedia strategy.

Point is, it's not stupid to reveal the ending if he wants to make the movie "Web 2.0"-wise. If he wants the fanbase with him all studies show you don't keep it locked and you don't keep secrets. Give them the synopsis

Just a thought. This is not the 90's

 

[dark_b]

That's what you do if you try to sell an "product idea".

Maybe he has been paying attention to the new fenomenon that is Internet. It's not amateur hour, it's innovation. Maybe he's been listening to the recent expert statements from Harvard and so on (maybe from Zittrain).

Point is to try to sell a product to the fanbase on internett. He uses the same procedure one does when aproaching companyes. One gives the synopsis and the synopsis must contain the plot point, the ending, the twists.

This is not the business model of yesturday, it's what some people think is the business model of the future. Generativity. Look it up

If it's succesfull remains to be seen. But if you pay attention you would not ask if its amateur hour. You will se more people trying out the generativity way, pitching their ideas to the GA to use it as a "weapon".

If Millar is doing this because he actually listen to the Harvard-guys or just stumbled into this strategy I don't know. Maybe he's not doing the Apple routine, he's going for the Wikipedia strategy.

Point is, it's not stupid to reveal the ending if he wants to make the movie "Web 2.0"-wise. If he wants the fanbase with him all studies show you don't keep it locked and you don't keep secrets. Give them the synopsis

Just a thought. This is not the 90's

are you making fun of him?

 

[Showtime]

That's what you do if you try to sell an "product idea".

Maybe he has been paying attention to the new fenomenon that is Internet. It's not amateur hour, it's innovation. Maybe he's been listening to the recent expert statements from Harvard and so on (maybe from Zittrain).

Point is to try to sell a product to the fanbase on internett. He uses the same procedure one does when aproaching companyes. One gives the synopsis and the synopsis must contain the plot point, the ending, the twists.

This is not the business model of yesturday, it's what some people think is the business model of the future. Generativity. Look it up

If it's succesfull remains to be seen. But if you pay attention you would not ask if its amateur hour. You will se more people trying out the generativity way, pitching their ideas to the GA to use it as a "weapon".

If Millar is doing this because he actually listen to the Harvard-guys or just stumbled into this strategy I don't know. Maybe he's not doing the Apple routine, he's going for the Wikipedia strategy.

Point is, it's not stupid to reveal the ending if he wants to make the movie "Web 2.0"-wise. If he wants the fanbase with him all studies show you don't keep it locked and you don't keep secrets. Give them the synopsis

Just a thought. This is not the 90's

A synopsis of a film put forth by studios does not include the ending, if that was the case not only is it amateur hour, it’s “Bizzaro World”. If Mark Millar feels he needs to market his idea to the inter-webs it means that WB has already passed on him, and since they did so a couple of times before, I can’t say that I’m surprised. When selling a movie you do not sell the twists or the ending, we’re not selling Mac’s here. Movies are a form of art just as literature, and who wants to spend a couple hours or read through 500 pages when you already know how it ends.

Do you remember that time when M. Night was trying to sell Sixth Sense and he gave away that Malcolm was dead? What about that time when Kevin Williamson revealed that Billy Loomis was one of the killers in Scream? I’ll personally never forget the time that Bryan Singer revealed who Keyser Soze was at a press junket. You know why you don’t remember that, because when marketing a movie you don’t give away an ending. That is why Harvard is a university and not a studio, how do you like them apples?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I actually thought Mission 3 was a better overall film than the 2nd Mission film. I liked what Woo did with the 2nd film....but overall Abrams did a far better job.

In my opinion MI2 is one of the worse movies ever made so no arguement here.

A synopsis of a film put forth by studios does not include the ending, if that was the case not only is it amateur hour, it’s “Bizzaro World”. If Mark Millar feels he needs to market his idea to the inter-webs it means that WB has already passed on him, and since they did so a couple of times before, I can’t say that I’m surprised. When selling a movie you do not sell the twists or the ending, we’re not selling Mac’s here. Movies are a form of art just as literature, and who wants to spend a couple hours or read through 500 pages when you already know how it ends.

Do you remember that time when M. Night was trying to sell Sixth Sense and he gave away that Malcolm was dead? What about that time when Kevin Williamson revealed that Billy Loomis was one of the killers in Scream? I’ll personally never forget the time that Bryan Singer revealed who Keyser Soze was at a press junket. You know why you don’t remember that, because when marketing a movie you don’t give away an ending. That is why Harvard is a university and not a studio, how do you like them apples?

Damn! Somebody just got pwed.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Sometimes there is a such thing as "too much vision."

I agree;

Just look at Wanda Maximoff.

 

[Double Down]

That's what you do if you try to sell an "product idea".

Maybe he has been paying attention to the new fenomenon that is Internet. It's not amateur hour, it's innovation. Maybe he's been listening to the recent expert statements from Harvard and so on (maybe from Zittrain).

Point is to try to sell a product to the fanbase on internett. He uses the same procedure one does when aproaching companyes. One gives the synopsis and the synopsis must contain the plot point, the ending, the twists.

This is not the business model of yesturday, it's what some people think is the business model of the future. Generativity. Look it up

If it's succesfull remains to be seen. But if you pay attention you would not ask if its amateur hour. You will se more people trying out the generativity way, pitching their ideas to the GA to use it as a "weapon".

If Millar is doing this because he actually listen to the Harvard-guys or just stumbled into this strategy I don't know. Maybe he's not doing the Apple routine, he's going for the Wikipedia strategy.

Point is, it's not stupid to reveal the ending if he wants to make the movie "Web 2.0"-wise. If he wants the fanbase with him all studies show you don't keep it locked and you don't keep secrets. Give them the synopsis

Just a thought. This is not the 90's

If you want to work with Warner Bros. you do keep secrets.

 

[Double Down]

In a new interview, this is what Geoff Johns said:

Legendary moviemaker Richard Donner thinks his former assistant deserves a Hollywood crack at DC’s icons too, and told the Los Angeles Times last month that he thinks Johns should write Warner Bros.’ planned Superman requel.
“Obviously, I am really flattered that Donner said that. Going from his protégé to being someone he would trust with the next Superman film means a lot to me,” said Johns. “It was really nice to hear and I was really grateful but yeah, I’d love a crack at a Superman movie. And I have ideas. I have very specific ideas for a lot of DCU heroes’ films.”
Asked point blank if his next project outside of comics was a DC property, Johns said only, “I don’t really talk about my projects until they are announced.”

Notice how you do things when you actually have a chance to get the job.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah his FLYBY script certainly needed rewrites and improvements thats for sure....but some elements of that script would have been visually epic to see onscreen IMO.

That script needed more than just rewrites and improvements. Suit in a can, Krypton is still around, Kal-El is a Kryptonian prince, and Kryptonian Lex Luthor.

Abrams should be nowhere near this project, even more than Singer. And if there's anyone who says that Abrams' Superman would have been better than Superman Returns, they're downright delusional.

 

[Double Down]

Who or what is that directed at?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That script needed more than just rewrites and improvements. Suit in a can, Krypton is still around, Kal-El is a Kryptonian prince, and Kryptonian Lex Luthor.

Abrams should be nowhere near this project, even more than Singer. And if there's anyone who says that Abrams' Superman would have been better than Superman Returns, they're downright delusional.

I think that it would have made for a more exciting movie but it would have been a terrible Superman movie. I damn sure don't want him anywhere near Superman.