io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 2:22 AM
Sun Nov 29
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/19/09
It was massive bullshit before and NOW we're supposed to believe it since he's been so truthful on this topic and other movies he's been connected to in the past.
09/19/09
That's a *little* pompous, considering that even the biggest names in the movie industry like Spielberg, Cameron, Tarantino, etc. need to pitch their ideas to their studios. Hell, even Hitchcock needed to pitch his ideas even though every single thing he made was instant gold.
So he's pretty much saying he's above these sorts of directorial legends, huh?
09/19/09
Just because Tarantino, Cameron, and Hitchcock put up with the pitch process doesn't mean they had to like it, or that it was the great part of their job. The comic process is different, and Millar sees the particular process as... well, demeaning. You're the one who read into that is 'he's shitting all over the greatest directors of all times!' No. He's shitting all over the Hollywood process. He's not the first one to do it, either. It's not a far stretch to say the greats often were successful in SPITE of the process, and in some cases, studio involvement (the same guys you pitch to) has massively screwed up what could be a good picture.
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
Right, homie. That faint clanking-tinkle in the distance? That is a cash register, and you're actually sneaking up on it.
09/19/09
09/19/09
Ah, wait. I'm doing it wrong. Are we doing this only based on movies based on his comics? Give me a second...
09/19/09
Which surprises me, personally, because I thuoght Avenger's biggest legacy is they could never get an even remotely decent reader base.
09/20/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/26/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,200 for "mark millar" delayed.
09/19/09
this and wonder woman need to be shelved and more interesting characters need movies.
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
Grant Morrison arguably wrote one of the best comic stories of all-time without fundamentally changing anything about Superman/Clark Kent.
Gail Simone's writing on Wonder Woman has been fucking fantastic - she's successfully fleshed out a character that for years was just a lame-duck feminist trope.
I love these characters. They appeal to me on a very basic level. I like characters that strive to do Good Things, and based on the commercial success of products related to them, so do a lot of other people. It absolutely makes sense for these properties to be developed - hopefully, they do it in a smart way.
And that doesn't mean giving Mark Millar or Bendis the reigns. They are medium talents (at best). But that's another ranty comment.
09/19/09
there are decent stories with supes, but if you notice he is never the interesting part of it. a movie with limited time focused on the uninteresting portion of the story (red and blue boy scout) is a yawn fest.
09/19/09
And depending on the Superman story you're reading, the character is one of many interesting aspects of the story.
Superman and Wonder Woman may be the only character in comics who are allowed to behave like an adult, who aren't entirely driven by how they can be portrayed stabbing, shooting, or plasma blasting someone. For many people, the repetition of cycle of violence seen in many other superhero comics is a yawn fest.
If that's America "growing up" beyond Superman, then we're royally screwed.
09/19/09
It took one issue for Simone to make Wonder Woman fabulous again. It took John Byrne one issue to make her brilliant... you're missing out.
Like I said, it's okay if you don't like the characters, if they're not your cup of tea, but your insistence that they are "boring" just shows a lack of familiarity with the material.
It takes approx. 90-120 pages of script for a two hour movie. That's a six to eight issue story arc. Believe me, the material is there in comics about all kinds of characters (even the "boring" ones, if producers, film studios, and directors have the gumption.
09/19/09
Endless violence perpetrated by immature nihilistic kick-ass "characters" is boring, dull, and repetitive to actual grown-up humans. Sure, it's great for adolescents and those who think like them.
Wonder Woman has been the best she's ever been. "All-Star Superman" is one of the best series I've read in my entire life -- exciting, suspenseful, funny, touching, moving, plus plenty of stuff getting destroyed. It's truly, gasp, literature.
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
What makes the Superman-Luthor dynamic interesting, which more and more writers are picking up on, is that they are a clash of power ideals. Superman is pure brawn and ridiculously good. That's what you'd have to do with him to. Jerry Ordway once observed in an interview about SHAZAM! that you have to make Captain Marvel a boyscout because, really, what else CAN you do with a character who has that much power? You can certainly analyze the concept of goodness, but if you made Supes or Marvel a bad-ass or supervillain, the story pretty much ends at issue 1: he wins, the world now sucks.
Luthor, by contrast, is pure intellect and ridiculously bad. He's the trope of every mean impulse humans can use their best gifts in service of, but lacking in overt power. He's more interesting that way than Darkseid, Doctor Doom, Megatron or Cobra Commandder with their juvenile ambitions for world conquest simply for the sake of taking it over. Luthor has come around to seeing himself as the hero even, because good or bad, he's standing up for human potential against alien demigods. Their conflict is really one over who is the actual ubermensch.
That's also why Luthor has been so undone by films. Superman Returns lapsed all over the place, and one of them was how awful Luthor was. Kevin Spacey did a great acting job with a terrible character nursing a poorly-thought-out real estate scam. A new Superman movie would have to have a worthy Luthor.
Another key to the conflict is that Luthor also better reflects real life problems. Sure, there is murder and theft and things. But Luthor is a corporate criminal. Superman can't punch Enron. And so, Superman stories can get terribly interesting when he's pitted against more realistic problems, further raising questions about power ideals. That's also why Paul Dini and Alex Ross' Superman: Peace on Earth was so good.
That comic gave me my single favorite image of Superman anywhere. Just as he decides to resolve world hunger, Clark Kent pauses and looks for all the world like he's praying. Is he just meditating? Or is he praying? Who does Superman pray to?! What is the power behind Superman? I'd eat a movie exploring that right up!
As for Wonder Woman, I talked about that in other threads about her. She's an ambassador of peace sent to man's world of corruption and violence from a society of warrior women who is prepared to use lethal force if necessary. If you can't see deconstructions of female inferiority/superiority myths, the War on Terror and the sexy/strong dialectic, you got no damn imagination. A twist I'd like to throw in that movie is something I was just thinking about the other day: Ares is the God of War. The Amazons are warrior women. Ares ALREADY rules the Amazons as surely as he rules the world of men.
09/20/09
09/20/09
seriously though supes is terribly boring. only way to stop him is with awkward socializing and a green rock. i like my heroes a little more realistic and complex.... human.
09/20/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
08/31/09
It's just a huge company that already owns a million tv and radio stations and movie studios, and have retained the iconography that founder Walt Disney created (like Mickey Mouse) as their corporate identity.
Whatever it once meant, died with Walt Disney and that was over 250 years ago.
Now it's just a very powerful company that makes money off that old brand recognition it had when it was a company dedicated to family entertainment.
It's like that Afleck insurance, they have a memorable talking duck in their branding and commercials, but their business actually has nothing to do with talking ducks.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Oh, Donald would murder him. I love Howard, but Donald is full of rage.
Donald vs. Daffy would be the real match up, because Daffy would fight dirty.
08/31/09
08/31/09
He wasn't doing that before? What have I been reading?
08/31/09
"oh no it's i-ron mann!"
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
I would expect Marvel to operate fairly independently since they've shown a good (recent) track record. But there will be times when certain films and projects are reviewed by the corporation writing the checks - inevitably making it a less nimble, autonomous production company.
Pixar avoided that due to the strength of Lasseter, the demands of the deal giving them their own creative control and their creative vision (left to their own corporate devices Disney would NOT have voted for a film about an old man with balloons tied to his house). Marvel's been recently led by savvy people, but hasn't exactly had a long history of a strong coordinated vision.
08/31/09
08/31/09
1) Agreed. For evidence, look at the Henson company.
2) otoh, maybe the Mouse could stop Marvel from doing a crossover EVERY DAMN YEAR.