Thursday, August 14, 2008

Grant Morrison & Mark Waid Hate Singerman Too!

Man, the people "coming out" against BS and Singerman Peeps is growing by the DAY! MTV asked Grant Morrison, Mark Waid and Brad Meltzer how they would reboot the lame-duck Singerman franchise, and their response was nothing short of PRICELESS:

"“‘Superman Returns’ didn’t work for a lot of reasons,” Grant Morrison said.

“I so wanted that movie to work,” said Mark Waid, “but every choice they made in that movie was wrong. If you’re making the movie in a vacuum, and there will be no other Superman movies ever again, go ahead and give him a son. But otherwise, that’s a staggeringly awful idea. What are you going to do next? Either the kid has to be a part of his life, or get superpowers, which no one wants to see. I want to go to them and say, "What were you thinking?""


This part is particularly interesting, and a good sign of things to come:

"Both Morrison and Geoff Johns have pitched the film studio on how to reboot Superman — properly reboot him, as if “Superman Returns” didn’t even happen."

Brad Meltzer has some advice of his own on how to do Superman justice:

"Brad Meltzer also has an idea that could work as the basis for the character, based on research for his upcoming “Book of Lies.”

"Superman is a character more recognizable than Abraham Lincoln or Mickey Mouse", Meltzer said. “But no one knows crap about Mickey Mouse. He’s a symbol. Understanding a soul is much harder. So don’t treat him like a walking American flag.”

"To understand Superman", Meltzer says, "you have to know why Superman was created in the first place — because a young Jerry Siegel’s father was shot and killed in 1932 (a fact first uncovered by Gerard Jones in “Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters and the Birth of the Comic Book”).

"Superman was created not because America is the greatest country on earth, not because Moses came to save us from Krypton, but because a little boy lost his father,” Meltzer said. “In his first appearances, he couldn’t fly. He didn’t have X-ray vision. He was only bulletproof. So Superman’s not a character built out of strength, but out of loss.”"


Now, I don't agree that Superman HAS to be "born out of loss", or else someone might take the notion to make him all "angsty", and act out of character. Maybe have him "peep" on Lois while having an intimate conversa... Nevermind.

Some of the biggest names at DC Comics have come out against Singerman. Who's next??

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

But the fags at the Homopage, led by Terminal, have come out against these DC writers, calling them 'hacks' just trying to self-promote, & that they themselves, would keep the kid & write it in anyway, because THEY could find a way to make it work. They're 'writers' alright!

theCOLORSblend said...

I'm not the biggest Waid fan in the world but you really can't deny his or Morrison's Superman comics being some of the most prolific of the 2000's. For all the controversy about Birthright, one criticism I haven't heard is that it was poorly done.

The few Apologists who even know anything about Superman comics are (or were, anyway) universally Morrison and Waid fans. This betrayal has got to sting.

But of course most Apologists have never even picked up the comics so they no idea how stupid they sound when they call those writers hacks.

Of course, the same thing happened to Mark Millar, another writer with an unimpeachable track record of Superman comics.

Sepharih said...

I don’t agree that Superman has to be “born out of loss” either AP. Actually, I feel more like Meltzer is just speaking out loud, and I like the way he’s thinking. They’re trying to boil Superman down to his essence, to rebuild him so to speak...because if Superman Returns proved anything, it’s that he needs it.

The most ironic thing about Superman Returns is that it simultaneously is bold enough to ask the question “Does the world need Superman”, and also timid enough to sidestep the issue, because Bryan Singer didn’t have an answer. The answer is no, we don’t need Superman as interpreted by Bryan Singer.
Conversely, a similar question was asked in The Dark Knight and Chris Nolan had the balls to deliver. Batman has become more relevant than ever, and Gordon’s monologue at the end of the movie summed up why the world needs Batman more than I ever could.

These writers are simply attempting a similar process to Superman. They’re trying to get to the core of the character to find out how to make him relevant again. I wish them luck.

Anonymous said...

And now for some comic relief:

What did Singer have for lunch?

Answer: a MEATBALL sub, with a side of 'tossed' salad, washed down with a thick, 'creamy' shake! ;)

Anonymous said...

I don't think that Meltzer talking about Superman and loss means that he has to be tragic and angsty anyway. He probably means that Superman's essense hides in him being a champion for the oppressed (per the motto of the first Superman comics), instead of constantly being portrayed as a stiff and perfect god; you know, like a certain movie portrayed him. Again.

Anonymous said...

France is now number 4 in medals....how soon before Austrailia falls? Is even the might USA next? Who cares what these loser think. There time has come and gone. It is now MOS time. Need I remind you idiots that "Returns" made more money then Hulk, Wanted, Hellboy,Get Smart, and a slew of other summer movies. And its 2 years old. It was that great of a movie. It even overcame oversaturation with Lois&Clark, Smallville, Justice league, etc. This is why fans know it, WB knows it, and you should know....................

MOS in 2009!

Restart

Does the truth hurt good. AP/SSS/Father have all got their asses owned by me and in this post I owned them again. Singer's MOS will bury Dark Knight like it buried Begins.

Anonymous said...

apologistpuncher said, "Now, I don't agree that Superman HAS to be "born out of loss", or else someone might take the notion to make him all "angsty", and act out of character."

***

Meltzer needs to be kept away from the Superman film at all costs. Johns, Morrison, and Waid have all proven that they can write Superman well. Meltzer's run on JLA had the big three sitting doing scrapbooking for four issues. By his own admission, he does not know how to write big and epic stories.

"[Last Will and Testament is] the only story that I know how to write, which is that small emotional one." -from his recent Wizard interview

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/080808meltzerqa2.html

SR was a Superman movie that wanted to be small and emotional. If you didn't like SR, you don't want Meltzer writing the reboot/sequel/followup, because he'll do the EXACT SAME THING.

Keep Meltzer away from this.

***

thecolorsblend said, "I'm not the biggest Waid fan in the world but you really can't deny his or Morrison's Superman comics being some of the most prolific of the 2000's. For all the controversy about Birthright, one criticism I haven't heard is that it was poorly done."

***

Well... the whole angle with kryptonite causing wormholes was kinda a stretch. It could be easily resolved by replacing it with Lex Luthor's scheme from Johns' Up, Up, and Away! arc. Use the look of the Birthright Krypton, but still have Lex using the K to find the warship and have a big aerial battle between Superman and Lex at the end.

Graft the first three-fourths of Birthright onto the last quarter of Up, Up, and Away! and you've got your Superman reboot.

***

sepharih said, "The most ironic thing about Superman Returns is that it simultaneously is bold enough to ask the question “Does the world need Superman”, and also timid enough to sidestep the issue, because Bryan Singer didn’t have an answer."

***

That's because Bryan Singer was trying to cast Superman as something he isn't, at his core. Singer only makes movies about outsiders. He wanted to portray Superman as "the ultimate immigrant"... ie, the prototypical outsider.

How do you make that essential to the world? You can't. That's why Singer didn't try to answer his question.

See, Superman is about HOPE. Hope is essential to the world. Therefore, Superman is, by definition, necessary. If Singer had seen that, he would've been able to answer his own question.

Instead of showing how Superman's absence affected the world at large, though, SR showed how it affected Lex, Lois, Richard, Jimmy, and Jason. That's it. The rest of the world didn't seem to be affected by Superman's absence, because they immediately welcomed him back with open arms.

SR had a great concept that Singer completely failed to follow through on.

***

anonymous said, "And now for some comic relief:

What did Singer have for lunch?

Answer: a MEATBALL sub, with a side of 'tossed' salad, washed down with a thick, 'creamy' shake! ;)"

***

Sir, your tuner is between stations. Please check your connections at the earliest opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Sir, your tuner is between stations. Please check your connections at the earliest opportunity.

You obviously fail to get the punchline, don't you, Sandwich Man? Sandwich Man? Yeah, Sandwich Man. I gotcha sandwich right here: sausage sandwich, with extra mayo!

Anonymous said...

anonymous said, "You obviously fail to get the punchline, don't you, Sandwich Man?"

***

I understood it fine. I just found it to be the the same kind of humor that ridicules people for their skin color, weight, height, or other things they just can't help. And I don't find that funny.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say ONE WORD about race, over-weight people, or ANYTHING ELSE of that nature that people REALLY CAN'T help. No, I was giving the same kind of humor as 'Singer sucks cocks', which, I guess, according to YOU, makes me a homophobe, right?

Dude, maybe you're on the WRONG site to be defending your homo-erotic rhetoric, YA THINK?! Why don't you crawl back to the Homopage? AP, why not hand this guy some?

Singerman, giving head AND packing fudge!

ApologistPuncher said...

"I understood it fine. I just found it to be the the same kind of humor that ridicules people for their skin color, weight, height, or other things they just can't help. And I don't find that funny."

Watch your step, milquetoast. YOU have no control over what people talk about here, and YOU are no "moral compass" for this Blog.

I've let you continue your pathetic "crusade" in other threads, but it's wearing thin. Either stick to the subject at hand, or fuck off.

Don't bother responding with your long-winded whines, either. I really don't care what you have to say.

theCOLORSblend said...

"I don’t agree that Superman has to be “born out of loss” either AP. Actually, I feel more like Meltzer is just speaking out loud, and I like the way he’s thinking. They’re trying to boil Superman down to his essence, to rebuild him so to speak...because if Superman Returns proved anything, it’s that he needs it."
What Singerman proved is that changing the fundamental nature of the character (ie, making him into a self-absorbed stalker with messianic delusions of grandeur) is exactly what NOT to do with the character.

For whatever it's worth, I'm not nuts about Meltzer's breakdown of the character either.

Anonymous said...

If Superman was "born out of loss", was Singerman "born out of anal sex"?

Anonymous said...

Singerman, the 'love child' of 'BS' Singer & 'BJ' Routh!

Anonymous said...

WB will be announcing shortly that MOS is on track. Check out SHH. Soon all superman fans around the world will be cheering for MOS....................................

The international Icon will return in 2009!

REstart

You may not like it but it is coming! You better jump on board or dont consider yourselves superman fans.

Anonymous said...

LOL!

Poor old ReTard doesn't even understand the word "revamp"

There'll be cheering, but only if Singer isn't involved.

Father Finian Egan

...oh, and how are those Frenchies travelling in the Olympic medal tally now? They still in the top ten? But there's so many of them?

Anonymous said...

Singerman, giving head & packing fudge.

Anonymous said...

anonymous said, "I didn't say ONE WORD about race, over-weight people, or ANYTHING ELSE of that nature that people REALLY CAN'T help. No, I was giving the same kind of humor as 'Singer sucks cocks', which, I guess, according to YOU, makes me a homophobe, right?"

***

When did I call you a homophobe?

***

thecolorsblend said, "Watch your step, milquetoast. YOU have no control over what people talk about here, and YOU are no "moral compass" for this Blog."

***

I never claimed to be, on either count. There's a difference between trying to convince someone and trying to control them.

***

thecolorsblend said, "I've let you continue your pathetic "crusade" in other threads, but it's wearing thin. Either stick to the subject at hand, or fuck off."

***

What other threads? It was one comment trail. And if you'll notice, the vast majority of my initial reply in this thread was COMPLTELY on-topic. The fact that the one-off comment I made at the end got more attention than the actual on-topic content only underscores just how far afield this blog has drifted.

But hey, if you're that upset by my opinions, ban me.

***

thecolorsblend said, "Don't bother responding with your long-winded whines, either. I really don't care what you have to say."

***

Who are you trying to convince?

ApologistPuncher said...

Some people never learn.

Anonymous said...

This guy can't even tell the difference between AP & colors; he can't even quote the right one right. He MUST be an apologist!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ApologistPuncher said...

I warned you.

theCOLORSblend said...

Huh. I wondered what happened to that Emily Manners loser that had been wandering around here. Guess he got banned?

Good, now the Apologists know what it's like.

Anonymous said...

apologistpuncher said, "I warned you."

***

I'm proud of you. Not many would stand up and take credit for an action that effectively turned them into a person they'd been denouncing for years.

The ironic part is that the post that was deleted wasn't even offensive.

***

thecolorsblend said, "Huh. I wondered what happened to that Emily Manners loser that had been wandering around here. Guess he got banned?"

***

Hardly.

And I thought people didn't get banned around here, as long as they had the sack to take the heat for their own opinions?

08/19/08 27-16:47
08/14/08 21-16:54

Anonymous said...

Why did they have to waste a Superman movie? Why!!???!!I mean after Batman Begins Warner should've understood the whole thing needs a reboot.

And they shouldn't call the next one Man of Steel. Last Son of Krypton or Last Son is a heck of a lot better for a title. We need a Superman who has some angst, but what we need is someone that is as bright a symbol of hope that a hero can be