I have feeling Lex luthor would still be around even if his body has loooooooog deteriorated. Maybe having the attitude of "what makes you think you can be the only person alive after all this time, how dare you"
Mark Millar and his proposed Superman movie
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
I actually like the idea of following Superman's journey all the way to the end... but the idea of him surviving millions of years into the future, to the death of the Earth itself, is just ridiculous. He might have a long lifespan, but not THAT long.
That would be a cool story for some other, truly immortal character, but not Superman.
That would be a cool story for some other, truly immortal character, but not Superman.
Sure, his idea sounds interesting, but I'd much rather JJ Abrams' Superman trilogy be made 
Would make a better Elseworld's story than a movie. Watching one of the world's most iconic figures die alone on a planet long dead, seems a bit of a downer for a summer tent pole trilogy.
I couldn't agree more.
He won't die but at least earth's and kryptons values will go on and on and on through him.
I know it seems a bit down for a proposed idea but I guess Millar heard Superman was going dark or as someone said it
"as dark as the characters can go within reason"
well said. every time his mouth opens about Superman, it just gets worse. His ideas could be good for a spinoff or a totally new superhero.
Superman is my favorite superhero because he gives hope through the adversities of life. When your hear the Williams' theme in the opening credits, you know who Superman is.
Superman is not dark at all. Let's hope WB have enough common sense to shut him up once and for all and let the pros handle Superman the way it truly deserves to be.
Butch
I think the idea of a coherent beginning-to-end Superman trilogy is nice, but I don't think Millar has the chops to pull it off. The tone is wrong, first of all, as all of you have pointed out. Superman is about optimism and vigilance. You want depression and isolation, go to Gotham and talk to the Bat or the Martian. Second I seem to get the feeling that Millar actually thinks Krypton exploded thousands of years ago and Kal-El's ship was in transit for that long. Um, no. I don't think that has ever been the case and I hope he doesn't want to make it so. What would that really give to the story? The whole thing lacks any logic.
Didn't Superman go live in the sun at the end of a certain comic that I won't name in case anyone hasn't finish it because he had to restart it? If they're going to end Superman, that would be a much better way than having humanity dead. AND, the only person that will still be alive at the end of the world is Vandal Savage.
Didn't Superman go live in the sun at the end of a certain comic that I won't name in case anyone hasn't finish it because he had to restart it? If they're going to end Superman, that would be a much better way than having humanity dead. AND, the only person that will still be alive at the end of the world is Vandal Savage.
Actually, that's exactly what Marlon Brando said when Kal-El first entered the Fortress of Solitude in Superman: The Movie.
Right, I personally believe 1 year on earth equals 1000 years for Krypton, because of the line
"I will have been dead for many thousands of your years"
I hate to point out that that doesn't make much sence. Jor-El specifically says "your years". You might have an argument if he just said "years". Then you could argue that the two years are different.
And even if he had just said "years" the only way the ratio could be 1000:1 is if Krypton employed some kind of advanced technology. Even Mercury only obits the sun a little more than 4 times in one "earth-year". 1000 times would require Krypton to be basically inside the Kryptonian sun. The sun's affects would have to be dampened or screened, or Krypton would have to be farther away and to have some kind of temporal dialation.
As for determining how far away from Earth Krypton is, Luthor (in the first movie) says that Krypton exploded in like 1952 or something like that. Also in the first movie, Superman as a baby grows to about age 2-3 during the flight. In Superman Returns, Superman made it to Krypton and back in about 5 years using Kryptonian technology.
Ignoring Jor-El's statement, it would seem most logical that Krypton didn't explode that long ago. But unless the pieces of Krypton were dragged along with superman's "rocketship", they couldn't really get to Earth in that time.
On the balance, I would say that the distance to Earth, the time it takes to get there are all "whatever you need to make the story work". As long as it is internally consistant within the propsed trilogy, I can't see a strong arguement against any given position.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
Frankly Superman could use a little bit of "outlandish" vision after that last decidedly un-Super and un-Epic installment.
RE: "Your years"....
Just recently rewatched Plan 9 From Outer Space and when Eros tells the Army Brass about the Solarmenite bomb, they say "There's no such thing!"
Eros responds with: "Perhaps to you. But we discovered it eons of your years ago."
The conceit of the "your time units" phrase has been around forever. Even Balok gave Kirk and crew "Ten of your Earth minutes" to make peace with their God.
Just recently rewatched Plan 9 From Outer Space and when Eros tells the Army Brass about the Solarmenite bomb, they say "There's no such thing!"
Eros responds with: "Perhaps to you. But we discovered it eons of your years ago."
The conceit of the "your time units" phrase has been around forever. Even Balok gave Kirk and crew "Ten of your Earth minutes" to make peace with their God.
Since Kent's ship would have arrived in 1952 or somewhere around that for him to be the correct age in the movie, I always assumed that Krypton was observed being destroyed in 1952, meaning that Kent's ship was traveling at the speed of light, and arrived at about the same time Earth saw Krypton's destruction.
So, we're not going to get the version with Nicholas Cage as Superman with knives? 
I don't want to get too deep into this, but lets also remember that Jor-el said in the scene where his son is sent to earth that each of the galaxies has it's own laws of space and time, so I think that effects any judgement made on this as well.
As for this whole project, I agree that superman just isn't dark. Not saying it won't be good, it could be awesome, but it wouldn't really be superman, at least not at all as we know it. When I think Superman, I think Christopher Reeve and The 1940's cartoons, which are not dark by any means.
That's a good point. I always just assumed that Lex (being a suuupergenius) was speaking of the actual destruction date, but to make Superman's age fit, he would have had to arrived around 1952. Thinking about that whole scene (with the national geographic and the newspaper), it makes no sense that Lex knows when Krypton exploded. Superman is careful not to tell Lois how old he is, and Lex & Co. seem to be learning the "facts" about Superman from the article. I just don't see any logical way that Lex could know when Krypton exploded (it would beyond coincidence if Krypton's star, whatever its name is, is also called Krypton by us here at Earth before superman arrives). Despite the purposeful showing superman disguise his age, the next scene Luthor has already cracked it. I guess it comes down (again) to "lex needed to know, so he does."