Meeting #3: Frank Miller - Genius or Hack?

[JohnLees]

Oh, how two weeks fly by! Welcome back to Comic Book Club. In this meeting, the subject of our discussion is one that is sure to spark debate and division: the ever-controversial Frank Miller. I’d like to start off with a strip from Shortpacked, the excellent daily web-comic from David Willis:



The above strip demonstrates how in recent years, Miller has become a figure prone to parody. Some would argue he has become a parody of himself. To the outside world, Frank Miller is one of the biggest names in comics. Arguably behind only Stan Lee, Miller is the comic book writer most well known to the mainstream, thanks largely to the film adaptations of his creator-owned projects – Frank Miller’s Sin City, Frank Miller’s 300 – and his recent move into the role of film director, first as a co-director for the Sin City movie, and recently with his solo work on The Spirit. An outside observer would surely assume that Frank Miller is highly successful in the comic book world. And they’d be right – it cannot be denied that his name sells comics.

But amongst the online comic fan community, it would appear that Miller has become something of a hate figure. Recent output such as Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again and All-Star Batman and Robin: The Boy Wonder has been much reviled, and the critical roasting received by the film of The Spirit paled in comparison to the bile bestowed upon it by some fanboys. Miller has become so unpopular lately, that it seems to have taken some of the luster off his famous earlier stories, previously viewed as untouchable masterpieces. I mentioned last time that Watchmen has taken “greatest graphic novel ever” as a kind of brand name, but for a long time its main rival for that title was Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. But more and more now, I see critics of that story becoming increasingly vocal, to the point where the status of Watchmen no longer appears challenged. Yet a comparatively short time ago, Frank Miller was considered one of the best writers in the medium. What changed? Was it him, or was it us?

Based on the general complaints I’ve read over the years, as well as a little research I did on the topic in preparation for this meeting, I think I’ve boiled down the common criticisms people have against Miller’s writing into a few key points:

1. He’s repetitive, recycling themes, plots and character types in all his stories
2. He’s all style no substance, with no morality or message behind the violence
3. He depicts women as scantily-clad sex objects, often prostitutes or lesbians
4. His tendency for overblown narration, full of clunky language and subpar slang

I mentioned above that I’ve noticed The Dark Knight Returns being more prone to criticism now than it was in the past, but could this simply be because I wasn’t looking hard enough before? Could these flaws have always been a factor in Miller’s work, even in what was considered as his artistic prime? In order to answer this question, I thought it would be interesting to look at both The Dark Knight Returns and Miller’s celebrated return to Daredevil – the title that made his name – with the 7-part saga, Born Again, and see how relevant these four prominent complaints are in reference to this earlier work.

One notable “Millerism” in both The Dark Knight Returns and Born Again is the abundance of captions dominating the pages, alternating between authorial narration and character voiceover. And in terms of repetition, Miller goes to great lengths to portray both New York and his alternate Gotham of the not-too-distant future as nightmarish urban hellholes, with near-hyperbolic depictions of misery, corruption and decay that border on fetishistic. Throughout The Dark Knight Returns, we are reminded constantly of how awful Gotham City is by the onslaught of news reports and skits, some directly relating to the main plot with Batman, others just grim tangents. In Born Again, the whole of Chapter 3: Pariah! just feels like a focused exploration on how crappy a place New York City can be. Foggy Nelson and his potential love interest Glori have to fend off a knife-wielding thief while several onlookers just stand there and watch – “Horrible city! Horrible!” exclaims Glori – while later a lost, injured Matt Murdock is hit by a car, only for the driver to promptly speed away while saying he doesn’t “need the grief”. All this during Christmas. It’s making a point, but it’s all a little heavy-handed. This tendency of Miller’s to lay it on thick with the urban toughness (as well as his love for overwrought captions) was wryly highlighted in Grit!, Alan Moore’s infamous Miller parody piece:


Noo Yawk is grim, and gritty, and realistic. There are big black buildings with little white squares on, and water towers, and manholes and lots of other gritty stuff. And giant black men, hundreds of giant black men in vests and woollen hats carrying large radios. Gritty? Realistic? Buddy, you don’t know the half of it.


Moore’s hilarious 4-page story, featuring Daredevil analogue Dourdevil (hit on the head by a radioactive Ray Charles record as a boy) and similar doppelgangers like the riskily-named Erektra, was featured in the 1983 British anthology series, The Daredevils. Even in the early 80s, then, Miller’s work was subject to parody, and the flaws associated with his current work were present enough to be noted.

But to be fair, I don’t think all of the highlighted complaints apply to The Dark Knight Returns and Born Again. For example, I believe neither is guilty of style over substance. On the surface, The Dark Knight Returns may appear to be. We must remember that Miller first got his break as an artist, not a writer, and that he drew this graphic novel himself. As such, there’s a strong sense of the narrative being borne out of an aesthetic, the chaotic panel layout and stylised characters informing the writing as much as vice versa. But quite the opposite of a lack of morality, The Dark Knight Returns seems to me to be a book utterly driven by a strong sense of moral outrage, an outcry against the decline in moral standards and human decency in society. The whole graphic novel feels like one big extended death scene for Batman (it’s almost a copout he survives in the end), with Miller pointing the finger not just at the criminals, but at the police, the government, the media, even all the regular people like you and me, who have brought our heroes down.

The “style over substance” mantra applies even less to Born Again. In fact, you could say that Born Again falls on the opposite extreme, with much of the style associated with Miller’s previous run stripped away in favour of really getting into the substance of Matt Murdock. Gone are Bullseye and Elektra. Indeed, gone is Daredevil for most of the story, Murdock only donning the costume at the start and end. This is very much a human drama, the story of the fall and rise of Matt Murdock, the man behind the mask.

One thing that Miller has received some bad feedback on is his transformation of Karen Page into a drug-addict porn star, with some detractors using this plot point to neatly tie Karen to Miller’s reinvention of Selina Kyle as a dominatrix in Batman: Year One, and even the old town hookers of Sin City, in the “all Miller’s women are sex objects” argument. Personally, I would question if someone of this mindset had even read Born Again, as there is nothing titillating or sexy about the portrayal of Karen Page here. Though it might seem dated now, for its time this must have been a brave depiction of drug addiction in a mainstream superhero comic. Sure, the idea had been explored before with the likes of Harry Osborn and Roy Harper, but the shocking depths of desperation Miller takes Karen to leave us pitying her and despising her in equal measure. Not only is she prone to selling her body for a fix, but the whole story is set into motion by her selling Daredevil’s secret identity. It is a testament to the skill and nuance with which Miller handles Karen that, while her actions are often despicable, she is never totally beyond our sympathy.

While it is easy to identify negative trends in Miller’s work, I think it would be fair at this stage to identify some positive trends I noticed when reading The Dark Knight Returns and Born Again. For example, one thing I admire is how Miller writes his villains. You won’t find a magnificent bastard in Miller’s work, and if you do, odds are he’s the good guy! No, Miller’s villains are utterly repugnant, devoid of any redeeming features or “cool” attributes. The Joker is the kind of character that can easily become a scene-stealer, his roguish wit often granting him the best lines, and leaving you secretly cheering him over Batman. Even in The Killing Joke, where his actions are monstrous, Moore garners some sympathy for the Clown Prince of Crime. Not so Miller. In The Dark Knight Returns, gone are the witty one-liners and black comedy. For the most part, gone is the trademark smile. Miller strips away many of the qualities that make The Joker such an appealing fan favourite, exposing him for what he is: an ugly, petty, amoral killer. As for The Kingpin, in Miller’s hands in Born Again, he is one of the most frightening antagonists I’ve ever come across in a comic book. The amount of power he wields in the story is chilling. Even given his comparatively limited panel-time, his presence is felt throughout. And as regards to The Kingpin, Miller makes great use of captions. Fisk speaks comparatively little throughout Born Again, and when he does it is either a bunch of barefaced lies – see his conversation with Nuke in Chapter 6: God and Country – or a collection of veiled and not-so-veiled threats – see just about any meeting he has with his subordinates. Little of what Kingpin says gives insight into his motivations, so it is up to Miller’s narration to give insight into his thoughts, albeit still in a way that keeps us at arm’s length. Look at this example from Chapter 2: Purgatory:


As Daredevil, Murdock had cost him little, but hounded him, annoyed him, as a fly would. Now, with all the joy of a malicious child, The Kingpin tortures the fly.


Another thing I liked about both The Dark Knight Returns and Born Again was that, however grim things got in both these worlds – and it was pretty grim – ultimately these books had a note of optimism at their heart. Under all the grit and moral ambiguity, both are basically tales of inherent goodness triumphing over seemingly insurmountable evil. And I think this was something that these books – as well as other early works by Miller – had, that I found sorely lacking in Sin City: that element of hope.

And I guess that brings me onto Sin City: The Hard Goodbye. I was actually surprised by how flawed I found this graphic novel. I really enjoyed the Sin City movie. But in comic book form, the aforementioned highlighted complaints against Miller are not only all present, but amped up to the nth degree. Repetition? Not only is the fetish for urban misery present, the whole series is named after it. Style over substance? Let’s take a look at Chapter 2, shall we? In this chapter, over the space of 9 pages, Marv bursts through a door, shrugs off multiple gunshot wounds, smacks around a bunch of cops, jumps down a stairway, jumps through a window, hijacks a cop car, and drives it off a pier into the water…. then he ends the chapter with a smile. And the skilfully implied violence in the likes of The Dark Knight Returns and Born Again is replaced with body parts being hacked off and heads being crushed. Much more happens, with much less consequence. Women as sex objects? Forget the nuance of Karen Page, here the women are all about their breasts, everything else at points so inconsequential that their faces are cast into silhouette. Topless women are splattered all over The Hard Goodbye, even moreso than in the film, with characters that were clothed at sensible times in the movie here freely walking around boobs akimbo. And if ROBERT RODRIGUEZ is saying “Right, I think enough’s enough with the female nudity, let/s put some clothes on that girl”, then you know Miller’s taken it to extremes. Case in point: Chapter 4. We have no less than 5 full-page splashes of topless Nancy dancing, which is of course of no relevance to the plot. Overblown narration? There are whole chapters where Miller abandons dialogue altogether for captions. And just take a look at Chapter 8. It’s like Miller wrote a freaking essay, then spaced it out amongst some scribbled splash pages. I’d call them the longest captions I’ve ever seen, but they’re not even captions, but rather scrawls of narration taking up a solid third of the page.

These excesses are likely a product of Miller’s unfettered creativity, a power to create a world in his own image beyond what he’d be allowed to within the confines of a Batman or Daredevil story. The “Millerisms” are so heightened here, that it is small wonder Miller’s subsequent work has come to be viewed through the prism of Sin City. Take All-Star Batman and Robin: The Boy Wonder. One reader I talked to complained about Miller turning Batman into a “Marv clone”. I’d disagree. Yes, Batman here is a violent psychopath. But Miller wrote Batman as a violent psychopath in The Dark Knight Returns a good decade before he introduced Marv to the world. The same traits are there, from the unhealthy “tough love” he bestows upon his sidekicks, to the pathological hatred he seems to hold against his fellow superheroes. Similarly, All-Star interpretations of characters such as Wonder Woman as a man-hating lesbian, or later, The Joker as a tattooed sex-fiend, were viewed as a Sin City influence. But again, the influence is all The Dark Knight Returns. It’s like people forget that The Dark Knight Returns was in itself a non-canon tale exploring edgy, alternate interpretations of iconic characters. Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of things to condemn All-Star Batman and Robin for – the utter lack of direction or momentum springs to mind – but accusing it as being out-of-canon and too much like Sin City is missing the point, I’d say.

But this demonstrates the lingering influence of Sin City, and the hefty shadow it has cast over Frank Miller’s career. Depending on how you look at it, Sin City could be called both the best and worst thing to ever happen to Miller. On the plus side, Sin City catapulted him into the mainstream, with the success of the film adaptation opening the gates of Hollywood, and elevating Miller’s profile in that world. And in spite of (or maybe because of) the abundance of Millerisms, Sin City remains a highly entertaining series. It provided a raw expression of vision that connected with audiences across multiple mediums. Sin City is the best thing to happen to Frank Miller because now he’ll always be associated with that vision. Sin City is the worst thing to happen to Frank Miller because now he’ll always be associated with that vision.

An analogy I like to make when discussing Frank Miller, is comparing him to Quentin Tarantino. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are 90s classics. They defined a generation of filmmaking, gave birth to a generation of filmmakers, and made an instant icon out of Quentin Tarantino. He was the man of the age, the guy with his finger on the pulse, whose films were tapping into the cultural zeitgeist. Then Tarantino decided he wanted to evolve for his next feature, try something a little different with Jackie Brown. The edgy cool was toned down for something a little more classic in tone (though still plenty of stylish), resulting in what I feel stands as Tarantino’s most mature film. I think there could very well be a chance that, in future years, it will come to be viewed as Tarantino’s best film. But at the time of its release, Jackie Brown was a disappointment, both at the box office and amongst both critics and fans. It wasn’t what people had come to expect from the Tarantino brand. Evidently shaken by the lukewarm reception to Jackie Brown, Tarantino disappeared for several years, and when he returned – first with Kill Bill, then Death Proof – it would appear he regressed as a filmmaker. He went back to the stuff people found cool about Pulp Fiction – retro kitsch, casual banter, etc – only moreso this time round. But what was the height of cool in 1994 just isn’t quite the same a decade later. Audiences and their tastes have changed. People who could once have been called Tarantino’s peers – The Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher – have now surpassed the onetime leader, as they have evolved as filmmakers over the years, they’ve grown up. And Tarantino remains stuck in his niche – partly through his own dependence on what has worked for him before, and partly through our perception of his work – a victim of his own success.

Sounds a bit like Miller, doesn’t it?

So, in conclusion, I don’t think there was some watershed moment where Frank Miller lost the magic touch. Yes, the aspects of Miller that have become the subject of parody are more emphasized in the likes of Sin City and All-Star Batman and Robin than they are in The Dark Knight Returns and Born Again, but new Miller is not an inherently different writer from old Miller. I don’t think it’s really Miller that changed. It was the audiences. Miller’s work defined a generation of comic books, and no doubt there is still a demand for Miller output, as the sales for All-Star Batman and Robin (on the rare, momentous occasions a new issue arrives) are always high. But we’re in a new generation of comics now. Times have changed, readers’ tastes have changed. And if Miller continues to regress as a writer, remains trapped in his niche, then all those writers that were once his peers will continue to leave him in the dust.

Oh, and to answer my title question, Frank Miller’s no hack. Miller could have written any one of Born Again, Batman: Year One or The Dark Knight Returns, and done nothing but smear faeces on paper the rest of his life, and he'd have done enough to earn the title of genius. Miller wrote all three. Like I say, he defined a generation. We may question his relevance now, but so much of the stuff in comic books today that we view as groundbreaking and hip would not have been around if it wasn’t for the groundwork laid by Miller. We can all share a laugh at his excesses, but we’d be best served not to forget that.


Meeting #4
Is continuity in comics a headache? When a comic book franchise has been running 40, 50 or 60 years, what can be done to keep it fresh and accessible to new readers? And how do you balance that with keeping the veteran fans happy? In the next meeting, we study various approaches taken to the tricky process of a franchise relaunch, and the power of #1 in the comic book landscape.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Green Lantern: Rebirth
Geoff Johns and Ethan Van Sciver

The Invincible Iron Man: Extremis
Warren Ellis and Adi Granov

Thor, Volume 1
J. Michael Straczynski and Olivier Coipel


Meeting #5
Animal Man, Volume 1
Hellblazer: Dangerous Habits
The Sandman: Preludes and Nocturnes

[LiamBradley]

I think when Frank was our little secret we all loved him for his unarguable creative talent, and his seemingly endless production of great reading material. However when someone is blasted into the mainstream, and that someone is no longer our little secret, we tend to turn against it.

As comic enthusiasts we somehow like to go against the norm in most aspects of life, the same goes for when Frank's somewhat original style is so enormously publicized to the point where my Mother actually knows who he is, we tend to turn away from that as it actually has switched sides completely and has became the current norm.

Personally I think the guys a genius, his writing speaks for itself, and I think he also makes good movies.

Now some would say he's a one trick pony when making his movies, well yeah I guess that could be true,but no one out there is making movies in that original style that Frank gives. If it works why change it? He hasn't made a BAD movie yet.

I guess the same could be said for his comics?

Some would call him a sell out, but with the industry being the way it is, then I'd be concerned if Frank didn't take every great opportunity that was handed to him.

I say good luck to the guy and thanks for some of the greatest stuff I've ever read and watched.

[DavidPaul]

Jesus! You people complain about the stupidest shit!

[tiggerpete]

Dark Knight Returns was one of the first graphic novel I got when I first got into comics (ok I was a late convert) so for that, Frank has always held a special place in my fanboy heart (also I was a movie buff long before I got into comics, so Sin City really piqued my curiosity, but Sin City was pretty expensive to just pick up, so I went with the cheaper but still recognizable Dark Knight.) While I have yet to read all of his works, I do think his style can be heavy handed at times, but it is definitely iconic. Of all of his stories I have read, Year One is probably my favorite, if for nothing else but setting the standard for rebooting a popular character, something that has become fairly common anymore. That and I am a DC guy, so that was his first (to the best of my knowledge) canon story he wrote for dc.

[LiamBradley]

Jesus! You people complain about the stupidest shit!
who's complaining ?

[joshfromplbcomics]

a very well written and well thought out essay. you make a lot of good points (which i'm assuming most comic fans and miller fans will agree with)
while it's pretty much a given that his dark knight sequel and all star batman are no where near as good as his earlier work, or sin city for that matter- they are still interesting at least, if not altoghether well written.
i'll be the first to say that batman and robin is not miller's greatest work, however it also suffers from long delays. if it was coming out every month, fans might be more receptive to it. that being said- every cliche that is "Miller" is utalized in all star batman and robin.
miller's daredevil, dark knight, year one, sin cities and martha washington's speak for themselves. are they repetive? yes, in some instances. are they increadible and cutting edge stories- absolutely.
speaking not only as a fan but an aspiring independent writer and artist, there aren't many influential figures as important as frank miller. love him or hate him, frank has proven time and again that whether his stuff is a hit or a miss that he's gonna do it his way.
that kind of badass determination is a great thing.

[LukeHalsall]

I agree with most people here so far.

I think that like John said Miller has not changed (to an extent) it is us as an audience that craves him to innovate again which he has not done. This does not mean however, that he is anything less than a great writer.

Now I'd like to talk about The Dark Knight Returns and All Star Batman...

For this meeting, I began to read The Dark knight again and after the shambles that was The Spirit (I'll get on to that later), I had forgotten just how good this book is. The first chapter still after all the times I have read it blew me away. Although I knew what was going to happen between Joker and Batman, I was still on the edge of my seat, biting my nails wondering what was going to happen. To me this would prove that The Dark Knight alone is a work of genius.

It has been proven to be a work of genius by both DC and Marvel trying to replicate: DC by releasing its sequel 'The Dark Knight Strikes Again' and Marvel by creating the awful 'Spider-man Reign' and now 'Old Man Logan' that I'm sure Millar has stated will be Wolverine's Dark Knight.

As mentioned already, this book (similar to Watchmen) was seen as a work of genius by people outside of the medium. Furthermore, the book has influenced in my opinion the Nolan films. Would we have had the Batman copycats in The Dark Knight without the Batman gang in The Dark Knight Returns?

The Dark Knight Returns remains incredibly perspective towards society and infact shockingly erie how Miller seems to have seen the future. In chapter two, it is stated that there has been a tv writers strike and an economic recession. Sound familiar anyone?

For this, he has created a legacy from one single book. Also I personally do not even think that 'The Dark Knight...' is his best Batman book with Year One taking that prize.

Over the weekend, I managed to find a copy of Allstat Batman... I was cautious about this book, but infact quite enjoyed it. It was by no means The Dark Knight nor Year One, but to me it was also not the dire nonsense that others have called.

To start with, although this is nothing to do with Miller's writing, the art in Allstar is as per gorgeous from Lee. When I read the first chapter, I was shocked as to how uch I enjoyed it from all the hate it had received. Then chapter 2 lurked its ugly head...The plot was still ok but the dialogue was to use a Miller term 'goddamn' awful. It felt as if every other word was damn, or goddamn or holy. However, after getting to terms with this, I started to wonder whether this was deliberate. Were the terrible adjectives meant to be reminiscent of the 60s TV show with the trip as a whole taking the edgy darker tone of Batman with the more comical bad dialogue. Therefore, I began to wonder whether Miller had intentionally created 'The Goddamn Batman'.

Another comment I had heard people complain about was Batman's psychotic side and him hitting Robin. I did not find this Batman much darker than that of 'The Dark Knight Returns'. Also, although I did not particularly like Batman hitting Robin, I felt that it could have been done worse. He slaps him to calm him down; its not cold, he is trying his best in a difficult situation. Consequently, Batman does realize that he has made the mistake and feels guilt. When I had heard about his slapping Robin, it was made to sound as if a stone cold monster attacked him, and did not feel any guilt from his actions.

However, as I got more into the book, I approved less of what seemed to me, to be Batman torturing Robin. Again, this was not as bad as people had made it out to be as Batman justifies in his mind why he is doing it, but I did feel it to be closer to V's traits (from V for Vendetta) than Batman's.

So as a whole, I felt Allstar to be a ok story but not the best. However, it was not the worst as I expected and consequently as a writer, I feel that Miller is a genius but his powers have weakened a tad from his ealry days.

On to Sin City. I do feel that this is style over substance to a certain extent but that does not stop this from being an enjoyable book as well as a triumph. As stated already, this world that Miller has created is so dense: Miller knows every little detail of his Basin City and to me often feels like how Raymond Chandler would have written a graphic novel. Also the film adaptation works brilliantly.

So, to sum up, in my opinion Miller (in this medium) is a genius. As John said, he could not have written 'The Dark Knight Returns', 'Year One' and 'Born Again' if he wasn't. One lucky story possibly, but three? Therefore he may not be at the height of his powers now, due to a change in the audience expectation or whatever but he has still not written anything that is too bad in my opinion. Not everything can blow you away and you never know, the next genius Miller book could be just round the corner.

However, I do believe that Miller got it totally wrong with The Spirit. An absolute dire film that didn't know which way it was meant to turn. I also felt however nice the film looked, that Sin City looked better and for someone that was an artist I could not understand how he directed so badly.

Therefore, Frank Miller: genius in the comic medium, hack in films, but will always have a warm place in my heart for him as he was one of the writers to inspire me.

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

Mags

[LukeHalsall]

I think when Frank was our little secret we all loved him for his unarguable creative talent, and his seemingly endless production of great reading material. However when someone is blasted into the mainstream, and that someone is no longer our little secret, we tend to turn against it.

As comic enthusiasts we somehow like to go against the norm in most aspects of life, the same goes for when Frank's somewhat original style is so enormously publicized to the point where my Mother actually knows who he is, we tend to turn away from that as it actually has switched sides completely and has became the current norm.

Personally I think the guys a genius, his writing speaks for itself, and I think he also makes good movies.

Now some would say he's a one trick pony when making his movies, well yeah I guess that could be true,but no one out there is making movies in that original style that Frank gives. If it works why change it? He hasn't made a BAD movie yet.

I guess the same could be said for his comics?

Some would call him a sell out, but with the industry being the way it is, then I'd be concerned if Frank didn't take every great opportunity that was handed to him.

I say good luck to the guy and thanks for some of the greatest stuff I've ever read and watched.

Oh yeah

Forgot to say, agree that peeps will have turned on him for being a 'sellout'

[joshfromplbcomics]

good point Mags.
rock on.

[LukeHalsall]

Sorry forgot to say this as well.

In Allstar Batman, chapter three, Robin continually refers to Batman using a 'Clint' accent. I thought that this was a clever use of pop culture by Miller as people had suggested that if The Dark Knight Returns had been made into a film that Clint Eastwood should play the Bat.

Mags

[LiamBradley]

Clint would be perfect in Dark Knight Returns :p

[joshfromplbcomics]

frank miller is a huge clint eastwood buff. his early daredevil stuff was influenced by dirty harry. he's prob. thinking if batman were real he'd sound something like clint.
clint's the man, but unfornately he's now way too old to play bruce in dark knight.
maybe a cool twist would be to have mike keaton play him- he's now in his 50's....

[JamesFreeman]

I think a huge problem is that comic fans as a whole have changed and evolved. In the late 80's, comics had a very narrow audience, and I doubt they were the ones who cared about the rampant misogyny in his works.

In a post-WIR age of comic books, things like his disgusting portrayals of women in things like Sin City, All-Star Batman, and the Spirit are much more likely to be singled out than they were 20 years ago.

And the odd thing is that he used to write such strong female characters too. Look at Elektra or Martha Washington.

[LiamBradley]

damn Frank, always hating on the women...cause they SOOO do not deserve it at all...seriously...women are real life human beings with emotion...yes they are...okay fine, maybe they do deserve it a little.

Bout time they were represented as the worthless whores they are.


I am ofcourse kidding :|

[JohnLees]

damn Frank, always hating on the women...cause they SOOO do not deserve it at all...seriously...women are real life human beings with emotion...yes they are...okay fine, maybe they do deserve it a little.

Bout time they were represented as the worthless whores they are.


I am ofcourse kidding :|

No you're not! :mad:

;)

[tiggerpete]

didn't Miller write the script for Robocop? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. 300 was Miller's too, and that movie kicked ass, so I think he should stick to writing, but writing for movies he does pretty well too, the problem comes when he directs them.

[joshfromplbcomics]

miller wrote robocop 2 and 3 which were then changed and adapted during the course of the movies being shot.

[JamesFreeman]

And both Robocop films he wrote SUCKED. He should stick to....well....nothing? ;)

[tiggerpete]

they were awesome when I was ten

[LiamBradley]

hate robocop :(

[LanternLight]

I'm among the camp that don't like Miller, for a handful of reasons. In fact I class him among my least favorite creators in comics. To me, he epitomizes the worst thing to happen to comics in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Here are my harms of Miller's contributions to the comic book industry:

1. He started the "Dark and Gritty" comic style for both writing and art. If you compare his "Dark Knight Returns" to the work presented by the Image founders (most notably Liefeld and McFarlane), you will notice several things that they borrowed from him to try and make their books more popular. One of these is the talking heads that seem to pop up in EVERY Image book of the foundations. They seem to try to reinforce the possibility of the comic book world being a real world, one that has serious news casters, yet they overly parody themselves by making these talking heads unbelievable. They also took his dark motifs and just blew them out of proportion. Now dark and gritty works in some circumstances and works some of the time. But when you use the same motif in every book, every month, it not only gets repetitive, but it gets heavy handed.

2. On the dark and gritty theme; he does it without conveying the moral seriousness of say Watchmen or Preacher. With Miller, I find it most often a case of being dark just to be dark. Whereas with Moore or Ennis, they often have a point they are trying to make. In this I would liken Moore, Ennis, Gaiman, and Morrison to the likes of Faulkner, Pynchon and Heller in terms of literary value, whereas Miller could at best be Dean Koontz. Now some would argue an anti-foundationalist narrative can be found in "The Dark Knight Returns" but not nearly the case made that one can be found in Preacher.

3. This is my most important harm of Miller's work, so I'm going to start it with a clarification. As someone who dislike's Miller's writing I try to avoid it for the most part. I haven't read "Born Again" in many years, have only read "Dark Knight Returns" two or three times, "Dark Knight Strikes Again" once. I stopped reading "All-Star Batman & Robin The Boy Wonder" after two issues. I do enjoy the story of "Batman: Year One" but I prefer Loeb's two sequels for early Batman stories, along with Marv Wolfman's beautiful Batman: Year Three. Now the harm that three of the titles I mentioned above share (DKR, DKSA, and ASB&RTBW) is that they have highly misconstrued versions of characters I love. Superman as a blind supporter of the American president, no matter what? No thank you. I remember many times over the years that Superman has gone around U.S. foreign policy and administration that he does not agree with. Superman should not be the government lapdog that Miller always seems to make him. More disheartening however was his treatment of one of my favorite characters of all time in "Dark Knight Strikes Again." Now let me clarify once more that I've only read the book once, and that it was a good five years ago that I did, but his characterization of Dick Grayson as a villain goes against every thing that has ever been laid out about the character. Now I understand that this is an alternate future, but I can not foresee any future that would result in such a dramatic changing of Dick Grayson's character. The man is in my opinion the heart of the DC Universe. He is the man ties everything together, the social climber of the Bat-family who has established relationships within every facet of the DC Universe. In no reality will I ever accept him being the heavy handed villain that Miller presented him as.

Now these are the main problems I have with Miller's work as a whole, just to name the primary ones, I also take issue with his art style when he pencils, with his dialogue, and like presented above, his inability of portraying a strong female character.

[LiamBradley]

1. I don't think you could really hold Frank to account for his predecessors failing to recreate his dark and gritty world. He had the talent to create that world so well that it left anyone else who tried to do the same, with no chance. Damn you Frank for being good at your job.

2. I agree with most of what you say here...however it doesn't really justify not liking Frank Miller, you're comparing him to other amazing writers. It's like me saying I don't like Van Gogh because I only like the works of Frida Kahlo.

3. Well for someone who tries to avoid his works you sure seem to have a pretty solid opinion on his writing. Yes I know what you're saying about Supes not being the presidents biggest fan, but Supe taking on that persona for that particular book was necessary for Batmans character development and it also helped lead to the climax of the book...it worked well with the story and that was the main thing, after all it isn't a Superman story, so who cares?



You seem pretty narrow minded in your critique of his works. It comes across as if you're just looking for reasons to not like him?

You do raise some good points though, the part about Dick Grayson I can kinda sympathize with, however it did make a good storyline so maybe it was necessary. Writers in comics have to do things that the fans might not like at first, in order to progress the story, or steer it in a certain direction in order for the story to become even better...the whole reason we read them.

[wiegeabo]

Almost done with B&R. I'll get my thoughts up when I finished.

[LanternLight]

1. I don't think you could really hold Frank to account for his predecessors failing to recreate his dark and gritty world. He had the talent to create that world so well that it left anyone else who tried to do the same, with no chance. Damn you Frank for being good at your job.

2. I agree with most of what you say here...however it doesn't really justify not liking Frank Miller, you're comparing him to other amazing writers. It's like me saying I don't like Van Gogh because I only like the works of Frida Kahlo.

3. Well for someone who tries to avoid his works you sure seem to have a pretty solid opinion on his writing. Yes I know what you're saying about Supes not being the presidents biggest fan, but Supe taking on that persona for that particular book was necessary for Batmans character development and it also helped lead to the climax of the book...it worked well with the story and that was the main thing, after all it isn't a Superman story, so who cares?



You seem pretty narrow minded in your critique of his works. It comes across as if you're just looking for reasons to not like him?

You do raise some good points though, the part about Dick Grayson I can kinda sympathize with, however it did make a good storyline so maybe it was necessary. Writers in comics have to do things that the fans might not like at first, in order to progress the story, or steer it in a certain direction in order for the story to become even better...the whole reason we read them.

1. I can't hold him to account for his successors (predecessors are those that came before, not after) take on the same theme, no. What I can hold him to account for is establishing those themes in comic books. I am not saying that grim and gritty can not work within comic books, but I am saying that grim and gritty for no other reason than to be dark doesn't. Watchmen works. Preacher works. Identity Crisis works. Because they have more of a morality theme behind them than Sin City or the Image books do.

2. So why compare anything? The writers that I listed are the ones that I see making dark work without being overly heavy handed and pointless with it. This is the point I was trying to make about Miller's writing is that it is just dark and gritty for the sake of being dark, not to serve a greater purpose in the writing. He seems to be a writer whom people attribute literary value too, but in further examination there is none. As I said before, Morrison, Moore, Gaiman and Ennis bring to the comic world what Joseph Heller, Thomas Pynchon, William Faulkner and Vladimir Nabokov brought to 20th Century fiction. Whereas Miller to me rings closer to that of say Dan Brown. Enjoyable to some? Yes. People attribute literary value to him? Yes. Influential? Undoubtedly. Upon close examination of his prose does it hold any real value? No. You could argue that Brown does, but most literary critics agree that his writing often contradicts itself and pads itself to make things work. I compare this man to others that write in the same medium, because that is what we as readers do, is compare and contrast the styles of one artist to another. Only one of the writers I mentioned above even cracks my top ten, I wasn't comparing him to my favorite writers, I was comparing him to writers that are similar in style, but do it better. If I were to compare him to my favorites the list would include Wolfman, Busiek, Rucka, Tomasi, Johns, Brubaker, and Willingham, not Morrison, Moore and Ennis.

3. I avoid his works, because of my strong opinion of them. It isn't that I haven't read a good portion of them. I have. I do however refuse to read them again, or spend money on new works by him. I have read Born Again. I have read Dark Knight Returns. I have read Dark Knight Strikes Again. I have read some of All-Star Batman. I have read Sin City and 300. I will not read any of those again. The only book by Miller that I reread every so often is Batman: Year One. I have established my strong opinion by recognizing the themes that prevail through all of his works, themes which I don't typically enjoy reading.

4. If it is a Batman story, why include Superman at all, especially to bastardize him in the format that Miller does consistently? Your argument is that it wasn't a Superman story, mine is that why did the character need appear at all? I disagree also that ruining the character of Dick Grayson made for a good story. Dick Grayson would never cross that line that Bruce has set, as is currently being shown in the Battle For The Cowl mini-series, with Jason Todd doing just that and the reaction Dick is showing. It is one thing to take characters in new directions when you take over a book. That's expected of a new writer on a title. It is entirely another thing to completely disregard every thing that has been established with a character so that you can force that character into the role you want for him. That is the sign of bad writing and a lack of imagination, and it is something that happens often in what I have read of Miller's work on established characters.

[LiamBradley]

shit, haha, can't believe I actually wrote predecessors haha!



yeah I see where your coming from, and when I think about it, you are right in what you say, atleast from the point of view I know you're coming from.

when you first posted it just seemed as though you were blaming Miller for creating this world that everyone has tried to recreate, but failed so miserably that it lead you to blame the source.

Don't get me wrong, you do make some excellent points, hope you don't think I was trying to be a dick, was just saying how I interpreted what you said.:p

[LanternLight]

shit, haha, can't believe I actually wrote predecessors haha!



yeah I see where your coming from, and when I think about it, you are right in what you say, atleast from the point of view I know you're coming from.

when you first posted it just seemed as though you were blaming Miller for creating this world that everyone has tried to recreate, but failed so miserably that it lead you to blame the source.

Don't get me wrong, you do make some excellent points, hope you don't think I was trying to be a dick, was just saying how I interpreted what you said.:pHey, no problem. Thats what this kind of thing is for is for intelligent debate. I have the advantage of having taken several upper level literature courses (one of which I'm in right now) throughout my collegiate career.

[wiegeabo]

So, I wish I had read these in a slightly different order. Because Born Again would have provided a nice transition between 'regular' comics and Miller's style in Dark Knight, which would have been a pretty good transition itself to Sin City. But, I read DKR first, so I'll start with that.


I tried reading DKR a few years ago, but I don't think I got past the first or second book. It just wasn't my type of comic story. Now that I've read a lot more comics of different types, I actually found myself rather engrossed. It was much better than I expected.

In an interview, Frank Miller once quoted someone who said that, by writing DRK, Miller had given Batman his balls back. In some sense, I can agree with this. Batman is a very dark figure living in a very dark world. He's an expression of his environment, while Gotham is an expression of the Bat. And while there were dark Batman stories before DKR, there was also a lot of more silly stuff (especially if you start looking back through the decades). But DKR truly did give Batman a dark world to live in, even outside of Gotham.

Remember that the story was written in 1985. And if DKR is nothing else, it's a not-so-subtle attack on 1980's US and the effects and control the media had on the country/world. And not only does it attack the media of the 80's which was just as factual as it was fluff and hype, it's almost a prediction of what the media would become today: more prevalent, and just as influential with stories both real an unreal or speculation rather than actual news.

It was also an attack on US policy at the time. Especially of Regan's "Cowboy Diplomacy" that led to the battle and eventual drop of the nuke in the book. DKR essentially takes the classic elements of the story, Batman, Gotham, Superman, the media, the president, and takes them to their logical, and illogical extremes. Superman blindly becomes a weapon of the US (I say blindly because, while he's damning Bruce for his actions as Batman, he's committing the same crimes without seeing that he is), Gotham is essentially a burned out shell of nothing but criminals and victims (even the average citizens become criminals in order to avoid being victims), and the Joker has aged into a rather humorless version of himself.

If there was one thing in the book that stood out badly (remember my mention of illogical extremes), it was Dick Grayson. There was absolutely no reason for Miller to make Dick the leader of the mutants. Well, there was, I guess. Shock value. But it comes off as more "WTF did you do to Dick?!" than actually a shocking "Oh wow. Look what happens to Dick". Miller could have just left this guy as the nameless mutant leader who Bruce discovers is actually really good in a fight, and it would have been just as effective. I think it would have been better to make the mutant leader Jason Todd. Jason was an unpopular Robin anyway, and him being the leader would have been an acceptable surprise and more of the shock Miller intended. (I think Jason was Robin when DKR came out.)


***


So now, Born Again.

This book kicked my ass. I really enjoyed it, as dark as it was. The beginning, with Matt's descent into 'madness' felt too quick. But it seems like it had been setup in prior issues, so I'm guessing if I had read those it wouldn't have been an problem. The whole thing is like reading a condensed version of the Batman Knightfall saga and breaking of the Bat, but even more brutal and satisfying.

This is a well crafted piece where Kingpin methodically picks apart Matt's life until there's nothing left. The man himself is lost as he thinks his closest friends are out to get him and his mind slips away. Even the Kingpin 'signing' his attack on Matt's home turns out to be all part of the plan (where in other comics it would likely be the mistake that turns everything around). The only mistake Fisk makes is underestimating Matt's sheer will. But even that he almost gets right because he does kill Matt, even if it was just for a few moments. Only the things Kingpin couldn't predict, Matt's mother and Karen's return, foil his plan.

And speaking of Karen, she goes from a weak addict in the first page who I initially despised, to finding an inner strength and seeking redemption. Even though it means sinking to new depths, she does whatever she needs to in order to return to Matt and make everything right again. To save her soul. So, not only is Matt reborn, but so is Karen. So, despite my best efforts to not like her, I ended up rooting for her in the end.

This book is also all about obsession and the destruction it brings. Matt literally, and metaphorically, loses his life with his obsession of Kingpin. Karen almost destroys herself and the man she loves because of her addiction. And Kingpin's obsessive need to punish and destroy Daredevil is his undoing.

The use of Nuke felt over the top. But the subplot with Captain America seemed like it was going to use Nuke as a jumping point for another story, so I can live with it.

I really wish I had read this first because you can see elements of
traditional comics, and the style and darkness the appears in DRK.


***


And on the topic of darkness: Sin City.

So, my first exposure to Sin City was the film. Invariably, as I read, I could see the movie play out in my head and almost do a side by side comparison. What did I find? First, that the movie was a great translation of the book. Second, unlike the other two stories, this book seems to be dark, just to be dark.

In DKR, the darkness played the duel role of satirizing life in the 1980's and creating a Gotham and Bat (probably) darker than anything ever seen before. All leading up to the end of the book where there's actually some hope that Bruce will be able to turn the mutant criminals into an army of crimefighters to save Gotham. In Born Again, the darkness of Hell's Kitchen reflected the darkness engulfing Matt literally (blindness) and metaphorically (madness and loss), and was the background for his rebirth and ultimately the promise that he and Karen may find happiness together.

In Sin City...the darkness just seems to be there so Miller can tell a brutal and twisted story. The style is awesome and fits the story. But it is jarring to go from brief, even absent narration/dialog, to long bouts of exposition. Of course, the whole story and much of the imagery is just as jarring.

I also saw mention about the (over) use of nudity. Well, that there is nudity makes sense. The story starts with Goldie and Marv having sex. Another part takes place in a strip club. And Miller wasn't pulling his punches for the book. But, the nudity in the scenes with his parole office wasn't really necessary, yet didn't exactly feel out of place. Well, it did in Kevin's house. But, I could believe Kevin only saw these women as food and prizes. Not in a sexual way at all. So he'd have no need to keep them dressed (they're just animals to be slaughtered).

I enjoyed the read, but I don't know what else to say about it. Unlike the first two, the darkness didn't seem to have any purpose other than being a backdrop for a dark story. And the story's darkness and brutality, hell, the story itself, didn't seem to have any purpose other than to just be told. Whereas DKR and BA had deeper themes in them. Maybe Sin City is an exploration of the depravity in human beings and the dark side we suppress (most of the time), and what happens when we try to suppress them completely or not at all. Maybe Miller just felt like telling a dark and sick story.


***


All-Star Batman.

Ok, here we go.

So, I read issues 1-10. Somehow, the book was both better and worse than I expected at the same time. I'm not sure how Miller accomplished that, but he did.

Sometimes I liked what I read. Like the glimpses of self-doubt that plagued Batman when he softened up. You could almost see the classic Batman we all know in those moments. But then it would quickly be replaced by this almost Joker-like Batman who took far too much pleasure in the pain. A few years ago, a friend described Batman as a homicidal maniac that does not kill. To some degree, that may apply to the classic Batman. But it almost perfectly describes the All-Star Bat.

And with pretty much everything else in the issues, as soon as I'd start liking something, Miller would pull a switch and cause me to hate it, or vise versa. For example, I liked Dick Grayson, I didn't like Robin. And with other characters, I just either never ended up liking this version (Hal, Canary, Wonder Woman), or didn't care about them (Batgirl). I will say this much, I didn't mind Plastic Man, Joker, and Alfred because they were relatively unchanged (so far). And I did enjoy Alfred's little bit where he told Batman off.

But, as hard as I try, I can't really find any reason for this book to be made. The All-Star line was sort of DC's counter to Marvel's Ultimate line. But the purpose of the Ultimate line was to retell Marvel in a more realistic, or at least more contemporary world. All-Star Batman just feels like Miller doing whatever the hell he wants. Like he's pushing the Batman mythos to the limits just to see what he can get away with. It worked in DKR because it served a purpose. But I can find no purpose in the All-Star book. Maybe there's one coming in the future. Maybe Miller's got something wickedly cool planned and he's waiting to spring it on us, and it'll all make sense.

But I doubt it. As it stands, AS Batman comes across as little more than a poor man's version of Sin City in Gotham.


***


So what does this boil down to? Is Miller a genius or a hack?

Well...if he's not a genius, I think he's definitely had moments of genius. Or he was once, and may still be, a genius, but there's just little evidence of it in his latest offering.

DKR and Born Again are both complex stories. And I think they're really good reads. (I enjoyed BA more than DKR). For better and worse, DKR is both blamed and praised for bringing about a new level of darkness and reality to the comic world. The darkness provides new levels and layers for comic writers to explore. It's just that they seem to have been trapped in it.

And a quick mention about his apparent inability to write strong female characters. That all of the women he writes are either prostitutes, weak, or both. Well, in Sin City there are strong women, but they're prostitutes. In All-Star, they're not prostitutes, but they're so strong they're more caricatures of a strong women then actual strong women (coughWonderWomancough).

But, I think he can write strong women. In DKR, although a young girl, Robin was actually strong and strong willed. She outright defied Batman and still earned his respect doing so. Sounds just like a couple of other Robins. And the new Commissioner was also a strong woman. She went after the Batman. And not just because of political pressure (as it at first seemed), but because she actually learned to see him as a necessary evil. And not only were they strong, neither of them were prostitutes, defying the Miller 'convention' (and that funny comic from the first post ;)).

And then there's Karen. Ok, she was essentially a prostitute. So, yeah, there's that. But she found an inner strength in herself. Enough to pretty much go through hell, and who knows what horrible things, in order to save the man she loved. If that's not a tragic hero, I don't know what is.



Now, somehow, Miller has this odd knack for getting a weird love/hate thing out of readers. Not only do some readers love him, while others hate him, but readers can also love some parts of his work, while hating other parts of the same story. They can even love and hate the same part at the same time. I've never really felt that kind of reaction from other writers, at least not as consistently as Miller can pull it off.

It takes me back to the question of whether he's a genius or a hack. Notice how there's no middle ground? Sort of like there's no middle ground in the whole love/hate thing he pulls off. Maybe that's what Miller is. A guy who can evoke completely opposite extremes from readers and stir up controversy, conversation, and contemplation by doing so. Like it or not, that's a hell of a thing for a writer to accomplish.

[LukeHalsall]

1. I can't hold him to account for his successors (predecessors are those that came before, not after) take on the same theme, no. What I can hold him to account for is establishing those themes in comic books. I am not saying that grim and gritty can not work within comic books, but I am saying that grim and gritty for no other reason than to be dark doesn't. Watchmen works. Preacher works. Identity Crisis works. Because they have more of a morality theme behind them than Sin City or the Image books do.

2. So why compare anything? The writers that I listed are the ones that I see making dark work without being overly heavy handed and pointless with it. This is the point I was trying to make about Miller's writing is that it is just dark and gritty for the sake of being dark, not to serve a greater purpose in the writing. He seems to be a writer whom people attribute literary value too, but in further examination there is none. As I said before, Morrison, Moore, Gaiman and Ennis bring to the comic world what Joseph Heller, Thomas Pynchon, William Faulkner and Vladimir Nabokov brought to 20th Century fiction. Whereas Miller to me rings closer to that of say Dan Brown. Enjoyable to some? Yes. People attribute literary value to him? Yes. Influential? Undoubtedly. Upon close examination of his prose does it hold any real value? No. You could argue that Brown does, but most literary critics agree that his writing often contradicts itself and pads itself to make things work. I compare this man to others that write in the same medium, because that is what we as readers do, is compare and contrast the styles of one artist to another. Only one of the writers I mentioned above even cracks my top ten, I wasn't comparing him to my favorite writers, I was comparing him to writers that are similar in style, but do it better. If I were to compare him to my favorites the list would include Wolfman, Busiek, Rucka, Tomasi, Johns, Brubaker, and Willingham, not Morrison, Moore and Ennis.

3. I avoid his works, because of my strong opinion of them. It isn't that I haven't read a good portion of them. I have. I do however refuse to read them again, or spend money on new works by him. I have read Born Again. I have read Dark Knight Returns. I have read Dark Knight Strikes Again. I have read some of All-Star Batman. I have read Sin City and 300. I will not read any of those again. The only book by Miller that I reread every so often is Batman: Year One. I have established my strong opinion by recognizing the themes that prevail through all of his works, themes which I don't typically enjoy reading.

4. If it is a Batman story, why include Superman at all, especially to bastardize him in the format that Miller does consistently? Your argument is that it wasn't a Superman story, mine is that why did the character need appear at all? I disagree also that ruining the character of Dick Grayson made for a good story. Dick Grayson would never cross that line that Bruce has set, as is currently being shown in the Battle For The Cowl mini-series, with Jason Todd doing just that and the reaction Dick is showing. It is one thing to take characters in new directions when you take over a book. That's expected of a new writer on a title. It is entirely another thing to completely disregard every thing that has been established with a character so that you can force that character into the role you want for him. That is the sign of bad writing and a lack of imagination, and it is something that happens often in what I have read of Miller's work on established characters.

I can see your points but I don't think its fair to compare Dan Brown and Frank Miller. Yes, Dan Brown wrote one good book terribly (i.e. the story is good but his style is awful) whereas to me Frank Miller's writing style is so much better than that. I would compare him to Raymond Chandler if you are going to compare him with anyone. Again though thats just my opinion and I can see your point. For example, the catastrophic Spirit film felt like the character was spewing out lines from what Marv would have said in Sin City.

Your argument about Miller being dark for the sake of it. Again yes, can see the point but in real life, the world can be very dark, nasty and gritty for on real point apart from being dark. Also, I don't know whether you were including his portrayal of Batman and Daredevil in the 'dark for being dark' argument but Batman originally was like that and his work on Daredevil revolutionized the character to the extent that he almost brought it back from the dead.

[tiggerpete]

4. If it is a Batman story, why include Superman at all, especially to bastardize him in the format that Miller does consistently? Your argument is that it wasn't a Superman story, mine is that why did the character need appear at all? I disagree also that ruining the character of Dick Grayson made for a good story. Dick Grayson would never cross that line that Bruce has set, as is currently being shown in the Battle For The Cowl mini-series, with Jason Todd doing just that and the reaction Dick is showing. It is one thing to take characters in new directions when you take over a book. That's expected of a new writer on a title. It is entirely another thing to completely disregard every thing that has been established with a character so that you can force that character into the role you want for him. That is the sign of bad writing and a lack of imagination, and it is something that happens often in what I have read of Miller's work on established characters.

Superman has always been the counterpoint to Batman, so it makes sense to include him. if you ever read superman/batman, you realize there is an intense connection between the two. as for comparing Miller to Dean Koontz, sick burn, I understand why you said it, but I don't think that is accurate. Koontz isn't controversial, he isn't polarizing, he just sucks.

[LukeHalsall]

It takes me back to the question of whether he's a genius or a hack. Notice how there's no middle ground? Sort of like there's no middle ground in the whole love/hate thing he pulls off. Maybe that's what Miller is. A guy who can evoke completely opposite extremes from readers and stir up controversy, conversation, and contemplation by doing so. Like it or not, that's a hell of a thing for a writer to accomplish.

I agree. Miller does seem to be the writing equivalent of Marmite

[tiggerpete]

what the hell is marmite?

[LukeHalsall]

what the hell is marmite?

Obviously a British thing. Its vegimite. Horrible stuff. But people either love or hate it. Wikipedia it :p

[tiggerpete]

love it or hate it? kind of like our current president, a lot of people really like him (myself included) but a lot of people think he is the end of the world, and are hording guns for the coming appocolypse (true, just watch the news) (one of the reasons I like Green Arrow is because he is very politically minded, like myself, hence he is my avatar)

[LiamBradley]

haha yeah m9an, marmite is AWFUL, but some people LOVE the stuff,
I think it's disgusting.

[tiggerpete]

whats it taste like?

[LiamBradley]

like pure concentrated evil!

eugh, I can't really describe it.

[LukeHalsall]

like pure concentrated evil!

eugh, I can't really describe it.

:D HAHAHAHAHA here;s got it in one. When you try some its like your being tortured but dont know why as the taste is seared into your tongue. its like your whole mouth has taken a bath in salt and nothing else.

absolutely disgusting

[LiamBradley]

yeah haha, felt like my tongue was being raped...but not in a good way.

hey, where in glasgow are you ?

[LukeHalsall]

yeah haha, felt like my tongue was being raped...but not in a good way.

hey, where in glasgow are you ?

Yeah. felt all violated after it. My tongue is still in therapy from the assault it took from it years ago.

I'm in the West end most of the time. How bout u?

[tiggerpete]

so basicly I should avoid marmite at all costs?

[LukeHalsall]

so basicly I should avoid marmite at all costs?

yes

[tiggerpete]

so I just wiki'd it, and it seems to be nothing more than yeast and salt. not exactly something that sounds particularly edible, but then again I guess it is vegan friendly or something. although, I wonder why vegans are ok with eating microscopic life, and not macroscopic. Do they only care about the life they see getting eaten?

[LanternLight]

Superman has always been the counterpoint to Batman, so it makes sense to include him. if you ever read superman/batman, you realize there is an intense connection between the two. as for comparing Miller to Dean Koontz, sick burn, I understand why you said it, but I don't think that is accurate. Koontz isn't controversial, he isn't polarizing, he just sucks. Thats why I changed it from Koontz to Brown in my second reply, I tried to find an author who was more controversial and polarizing. And yes, there is a big connection between Superman and Batman, but the man that Frank Miller writes is not Superman. Frank Miller writes Captain Nazi in Superman's costume. He dramatically changes the personality and attitude of the character to squeeze him into the role that he needs him to fit, and as a fan of the character, it disgusts me.


I can see your points but I don't think its fair to compare Dan Brown and Frank Miller. Yes, Dan Brown wrote one good book terribly (i.e. the story is good but his style is awful) whereas to me Frank Miller's writing style is so much better than that. I would compare him to Raymond Chandler if you are going to compare him with anyone. Again though thats just my opinion and I can see your point. For example, the catastrophic Spirit film felt like the character was spewing out lines from what Marv would have said in Sin City.

Your argument about Miller being dark for the sake of it. Again yes, can see the point but in real life, the world can be very dark, nasty and gritty for on real point apart from being dark. Also, I don't know whether you were including his portrayal of Batman and Daredevil in the 'dark for being dark' argument but Batman originally was like that and his work on Daredevil revolutionized the character to the extent that he almost brought it back from the dead.

I personally don't think that Miller's writing style is better than that. He recycles dialogue over and over, his DKR and All-Star Batman and Marv say the same sort of thing over and over again. Dan Brown has written two books that were popularly acclaimed, yet full of stylistic errors. And yes, I included Batman as being dark for being dark (Daredevil it has been so long since I read it, that I can't really say anything about it, I'm personally not a Matt or even a Marvel fan). And I understand that that is where the character came from, but again, I can rattle off a list of writers who can do 'dark' Batman better in my opinion. Starting with Denny O'Neil and Greg Rucka. Greg Rucka and Ed Brubaker in my opinion did the best dark and gritty Batman story, because they didn't even include Batman. Gotham Central destroys whatever Frank Miller can put out.

[LukeHalsall]

I personally don't think that Miller's writing style is better than that. He recycles dialogue over and over, his DKR and All-Star Batman and Marv say the same sort of thing over and over again. Dan Brown has written two books that were popularly acclaimed, yet full of stylistic errors. And yes, I included Batman as being dark for being dark (Daredevil it has been so long since I read it, that I can't really say anything about it, I'm personally not a Matt or even a Marvel fan). And I understand that that is where the character came from, but again, I can rattle off a list of writers who can do 'dark' Batman better in my opinion. Starting with Denny O'Neil and Greg Rucka. Greg Rucka and Ed Brubaker in my opinion did the best dark and gritty Batman story, because they didn't even include Batman. Gotham Central destroys whatever Frank Miller can put out.

Not read Gotham Central but sounds good. Will have to give it a look. Loeb and Sale's Long Halloween is the king of Batman stories in my opinion but Miller's work for me is brilliant. Gotham Central will have to be pretty darn good to 'destroy' Millers

[tiggerpete]

I think in the portrayel of Superman, it was more of a comment on how powerful the government had become compared to how bad Batman's reputation had become, to the point that Superman, ever the Boy Scout, was honestly convinced that Batman needed to be stopped. keep in mind, this is Superman in a dystopian future, there is no telling what may have happenned in the intervening years. I personnaly was fine with Miller's portrayel of Superman, as I could see that as a possible future for the Man of Steel. btw loved the idea of Green Arrow as this grizzled old revolutionary, perfect projection of Ollie, especially in light of Longbow Hunters, which I think was published after, but it made sense. Greyson as a bad guy was too much of a stretch though.

[tiggerpete]

Not read Gotham Central but sounds good. Will have to give it a look. Loeb and Sale's Long Halloween is the king of Batman stories in my opinion but Miller's work for me is brilliant. Gotham Central will have to be pretty darn good to 'destroy' Millers

Hush was my favorite of Loeb's, though Long Halloween was really good.

[LanternLight]

I think in the portrayel of Superman, it was more of a comment on how powerful the government had become compared to how bad Batman's reputation had become, to the point that Superman, ever the Boy Scout, was honestly convinced that Batman needed to be stopped. keep in mind, this is Superman in a dystopian future, there is no telling what may have happenned in the intervening years. I personnaly was fine with Miller's portrayel of Superman, as I could see that as a possible future for the Man of Steel. btw loved the idea of Green Arrow as this grizzled old revolutionary, perfect projection of Ollie, especially in light of Longbow Hunters, which I think was published after, but it made sense. Greyson as a bad guy was too much of a stretch though.

But from what I've seen, the 'Superman' of the dystopian future, is the same 'Superman' he portrays in All-Star. Same government lapdog personality, but there I am just going from third person reviews, since I refuse to read it.

[tiggerpete]

I haven't read all-star, so I was not even considering it. plus, is DKR even part of the main DCU? isn't it on a different world or something? if so, I don't think it is canon.

[JohnLees]

Wow, 5 pages in just a couple of days! I'm very happy with the response to this meeting. Some good points raised, I'll work on some replies a little later.

[LanternLight]

I haven't read all-star, so I was not even considering it. plus, is DKR even part of the main DCU? isn't it on a different world or something? if so, I don't think it is canon. It isn't part of the main DCU, it is an alternate Earth, but it still goes against the principles of a Jon and Martha raised Kal-El. They have NEVER taught him to be a blind follower of any leader be it the president or not. Now a Kal-El that didn't get raised by the Kents, say Superman: Red Son, or Justice League: The Nail; those I can accept a stray from the personality established in canon.

[tiggerpete]

do they ever mention DKR's Supe's backstory? I think a lot can happen that causes someone as good as Supes to be a government pawn. maybe it was a comment on the whole "truth justice and the American way" stuff. plus this was written in the 80's when the American way was all about muscling people into line with our views. in that respect, I think it fits pretty well.

[LiamBradley]

Yeah. felt all violated after it. My tongue is still in therapy from the assault it took from it years ago.

I'm in the West end most of the time. How bout u?




oooh posh!, I'm from Springburn originally, live in Cumbernauld now though!

through town every weekend though :p

[LukeHalsall]

oooh posh!, I'm from Springburn originally, live in Cumbernauld now though!

through town every weekend though :p

Ah cool.

Yeah live in the Westend to be close to uni.

[LiamBradley]

Ah cool.

Yeah live in the Westend to be close to uni.

ah, you at Glasgow Uni ?

doing what?

[LukeHalsall]

ah, you at Glasgow Uni ?

doing what?

Yeah.

Hate it. I chose the wrong degree. But fingers crossed I'm doing an mlitt Masters in creative writing next year which would be amazing!!

What bout u?

[LiamBradley]

Awesome man, I wanted to do creative writing, but I pussied out and decided to go for something with a guaranteed job at the end of it.

I start this year doing Psychology, Stirling Uni though :p

[LukeHalsall]

Awesome man, I wanted to do creative writing, but I pussied out and decided to go for something with a guaranteed job at the end of it.

I start this year doing Psychology, Stirling Uni though :p

Yea good plan. I live in hope that I'll become a comic book writer. LOL. That sounds good. Should be a bit of a laugh

[LiamBradley]

well yeah that's what I wanna do to. Gonna keep it up as a hobby though.

yeah it's a bit of a buzz sometimes :p

what age you ? what pubs and stuff you go to?

[LukeHalsall]

well yeah that's what I wanna do to. Gonna keep it up as a hobby though.

yeah it's a bit of a buzz sometimes :p

what age you ? what pubs and stuff you go to?

21. Nearly 22. generally drink in Curlers, union, Rufus, Firewater that kinda thing. N go to ABC, Cathouse, Union, Art School sometimes dabble with a little bit of Buff club. U?

[LiamBradley]

Rufus T, Union, Firewater and ABC are all my, should I say locals haha.

go to the Union most tuesdays, then go to Firewater/ABC, most weekends.

and I'm 18 :p

[LanternLight]

do they ever mention DKR's Supe's backstory? I think a lot can happen that causes someone as good as Supes to be a government pawn. maybe it was a comment on the whole "truth justice and the American way" stuff. plus this was written in the 80's when the American way was all about muscling people into line with our views. in that respect, I think it fits pretty well.

Yet the same characterization is used for a Superman at the beginning of his career? And is used in the years 2002 and 2007-2009 with DKSA and ASB&RTBW.

[tiggerpete]

Well, I didn't really like DKSA, but as a sequal, it made sense to continue character developments from the first. as for ASB&RTBW, I haven't read it, so I am offering no opinion on that.

[tiggerpete]

Awesome man, I wanted to do creative writing, but I pussied out and decided to go for something with a guaranteed job at the end of it.

I start this year doing Psychology, Stirling Uni though :p

hey, what do you know? I am a psych major. (Peru State College, located in a tiny Nebraska town that is barely on a map) though it is my seventh different major, really hope I will complete this one.

[LukeHalsall]

Rufus T, Union, Firewater and ABC are all my, should I say locals haha.

go to the Union most tuesdays, then go to Firewater/ABC, most weekends.

and I'm 18 :p

Cool

Well i'll probably see you there at some stage.

N u can dar really well. Should meet up n do some brainstorming bout a strip

[LiamBradley]

hey, what do you know? I am a psych major. (Peru State College, located in a tiny Nebraska town that is barely on a map) though it is my seventh different major, really hope I will complete this one.

hey :p

right now I'm covering stress, causes of stress, stress reduction strategies, stress in the work place,memory, aspects of memory, comformity and such. All the basics that I done at college this year before I go to Uni.

Hey man, why you done so many? haha:p

[LiamBradley]

Cool

Well i'll probably see you there at some stage.

N u can dar really well. Should meet up n do some brainstorming bout a strip


that would be awesome man. I used to be a really good drawer until I injured my right hand, my hand's starting to get better but it just doesn't feel the same when I draw, that's why I'm sticking to writing and trying to learn to colour.

If we could find a kick ass penciller and inker from Glasgow, there'd be no stopping us :D

Hit me up on my profile if you ever feel like brainstorming anyway! I'm always up for it.

[LanternLight]

Oddly enough, I too am a psychology major...

[LiamBradley]

lol!
that's weird huh, who knew us psychology folk were so into comics :p

[tiggerpete]

well, the psychology of the supervillians in the DCU is just fascinating, one could write a thesis on the Joker alone, not to mention batty old Bats. (faces of evil was great for me, loved seeing the dark side, and why some are the way they are, Rogues Revenge kicked ass too) so that is one reason I still pick up comics, if for anything else, it is intellectual stimulation.

[LiamBradley]

yeah I see what you mean there, especially in Batman titles.

[JohnLees]

To belatedly respond to LanternLight's criticisms on the depiction of Superman in The Dark Knight Returns, I think you're being a little harsh. Yes, Batman dismisses Superman as a government stooge, but I believe the basis of your problem is you are mistaking how Batman views Superman in the story for how Miller wants US to view Superman.

I don't think it's as simple as Superman blindly sucking up to the President and doing whatever he asks because he's a good little Boy Scout. Through his voiceover, we see the difficulty in his particular moral dilemna, as regards to Bruce:


They'll kill us if they can, Bruce. Every year they grow smaller. Every year they hate us more. We must not remind them that giants walk the Earth.


And a little later:


I gave them my obedience and my invisibility. They gave me a license and let us live. No, I don't like it. But I get to save lives... and the media stays quiet. But now the storm is growing again... they'll hunt us down again... because of you.


Superman here is far from some generic corporate stooge set up for Batman to knock down. In fact, the divide between Batman and Superman is the key moral struggle of the whole story. In fact, when you look into Superman's motivations, he makes a valid case. By compromising himself, in a way he made the ultimate selfless heroic sacrifice. He sold himself to the Government, an act which Miller recognises is totally against what Superman is all about. But he made this sacrifice to save his friends, so all the other superheroes he spent his life fighting alongside wouldn't suffer the same fate, or worse. And after all he's sacrificed, here comes along Batman, in Clark's eyes undoing all this delicate work, sentencing their friends to a witchhunt, just for the sake of cheap thrills, or maybe even out of spite. In Clark's eyes, Bruce is being selfish in every way Clark has been selfless.

Furthermore, Clark's every attempt to talk his old friend down is responded to with aggression, then outright violence. From his perspective, he's justified in how he acts. I don't think there was any character assassination in how Miller handled Superman, far from it. I think the nuance of his portrayal was one of the highlights of The Dark Knight Returns.

[LiamBradley]

well said, good sir!

[tiggerpete]

took the words right out of my mouth

[LiamBradley]

So before we move on to the next topic of discussion.

What conclusion have we actually came to?

Genius or Hack?

In all honesty I wouldn't say he was a genius, but he's more of a genius than a hack in my books.

[JasonStephens]

He's a guy that has turned his writing of comics into a way of sitting on top of a pile of money with the leeway to do pretty much whatever comes into his head regardless of quality.

I'm gonna go with "genius".:D

[LiamBradley]

haha, indeed that is logical!!

[tiggerpete]

money doesn't equal quality half the time, but in this case I would go with "genius" if for nothing else than the impact his stories have had on comics in general.

[LanternLight]

If money was the same as quality, Rob Liefeld would be an amazing artist.

[LiamBradley]

poor rob. Watching him try to draw a foot is like watch a retarded bull dog trying to lick the back of its head.

[LukeHalsall]

i'd say genius in 80s early 90s in comics. greatness over time has weakened and terrible director.

[tiggerpete]

i'd say genius in 80s early 90s in comics. greatness over time has weakened and terrible director.

well put

[LiamBradley]

we should have a meeting with regards to why Rob Leifield is so successful.

[tiggerpete]

what has he done?

[LiamBradley]

what hasn't he done!

http://progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html

I think this pretty much sums up his artistic ability

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/orcho5000/liefeld_cap.jpg

[wiegeabo]

Everytime I see that picture of Cap, I want to cry.

Or hurt someone.

[LiamBradley]

yeah I know. It's like rape or something.

[JasonStephens]

...but you've got to admit, that big-tittied Cap is a fair trade off for the creation of Deadpool. That's Rob's true claim to fame.:p

[LiamBradley]

I know:( Deadpool's the only reason he isn't dead! haha!

Deadpool's my fave, so I gotta love the guy to be honest.

But everything else sucks!!!

[Cary]

I think you guys are missing some really integral time context here with regard to the Dark Knight and what Miller did to and for Batman.

At the time Dark Knight came out Batman was still very much under the yoke of the 70s TV show sort of sexuality confused Batman. That was the perception of the character, and nothing that Neil Adams (who Miller studied under), or any of his contemporaries of the time, had done changed that. Batman was for lack of a better word, campy. In that campiness he was fast becoming irrelevant. His audience was getting tired of the funny Batman. The laughing Batman. What did the guy have to laugh about? He’s a violently orphaned man who has dedicated his whole life to kicking the piss out of criminals, and he’s laughing? Cutting up with the “Batman family”? Having tea at the JLA table with Superman and Wonderwoman? No. DC needed a new Batman. In fact, they needed a whole new universe. And they’d begun to get it with Crisis the year before Dark Knight, and other titles like Watchmen following later. They were changing their image because they had no choice. They were losing market share fast and had to stop the landslide.

Enter Frank Miller with a story idea. He hated the 70s Batman and wanted to banish that from our collective minds. So out comes this very scary bad ass Batman in all his glory. Problem is, they only have so much rope to give him to hang himself with, so they do this so called “out of continuity story” and see where it goes. And it’s win win for DC. If it tanks, then screw Miller he was a hack. If it rocks, he comes back with Batman Year One and the train keeps rolling. We all know how that turned out, and it solidified his legacy. At least for Batman fans.

But Frank Miller wasn’t just the Batman savior! He has such a large body of work that’s often overlooked in these silly debates about his time having passed him over that it makes me want to puke.

What’s sad in terms of Miller’s work is that amongst all the other stuff he’s done people seem to forget that Frank Miller also owns the absolute definitive Wolverine story ever created. Sure he teamed with Claremont, but there’s SO much Miller in that book you can’t deny how much he influenced that character and the tone and direction of the story. And big Daredevil fans love to drag out Born Again, but it was his first run on Daredevil that rocked the hardest. The life and death of Elektra is far and away superior to his second run on Daredevil.

Ronin debuted prior to DKR and is still considered an incredible piece of graphic storytelling, largely misunderstood by the masses it’s gripping and real, and quite intelligent. But sadly is has no prostitutes or mob mooks and so it doesn’t fall neatly into the so called “Millerism” theory, thus must be disregarded.

Wolverine again, no hookers or mass misogyny so we’ll skip that. It did have a down on her luck backstabbing semi-street love interest assassin chick though. Precursor to the hookers maybe?

Give me Liberty? Hard Boiled? A host of other credits no one brings up because they don’t fit neatly into that pigeon hole. Cut the guy some slack, huh? He writes Sin City the way he wants to write it, and he draws it his way as well. You don’t like the tits and ass? Well then it’s not really your type of story. That doesn’t mean it’s not great work, nor does it mean the guy has lost a step. If anything, Miller has evolved well beyond where he was when he wrote Dark Knight Returns and Year One. He’s put down a lot of the childish restraints that hemmed his work in during those times, and broken new ground that most creators today still fear to tread on. You want to tear the guy a new one because you don’t like ASBAR? Get a grip and grow some stones. Speak with your wallet and find something you DO like. If people weren’t buying Miller’s work by the thousands of issues, the dude wouldn’t have work.

[LiamBradley]

Cary has just backed up pretty much the opinion of 95% of this thread.

and also has just admitted to liking prostitutes, tits and ass.

You sly dog you!!

haha, yeah but I agree with everything you say here, as will the majority of the thread.

[joshfromplbcomics]

liefiled's success is pretty much a spit and slap in the face to every half way decent indie artist who's ever been told by an editor to "work on thier anatomy some more."

[LiamBradley]

lmao so true!!

if a publisher ever says that to you, the reply should be


"Liefield"

[LanternLight]

I think you guys are missing some really integral time context here with regard to the Dark Knight and what Miller did to and for Batman.

At the time Dark Knight came out Batman was still very much under the yoke of the 70s TV show sort of sexuality confused Batman. That was the perception of the character, and nothing that Neil Adams (who Miller studied under), or any of his contemporaries of the time, had done changed that. Batman was for lack of a better word, campy. In that campiness he was fast becoming irrelevant. His audience was getting tired of the funny Batman. The laughing Batman. What did the guy have to laugh about? He’s a violently orphaned man who has dedicated his whole life to kicking the piss out of criminals, and he’s laughing? Cutting up with the “Batman family”? Having tea at the JLA table with Superman and Wonderwoman? No. DC needed a new Batman. In fact, they needed a whole new universe. And they’d begun to get it with Crisis the year before Dark Knight, and other titles like Watchmen following later. They were changing their image because they had no choice. They were losing market share fast and had to stop the landslide.

Enter Frank Miller with a story idea. He hated the 70s Batman and wanted to banish that from our collective minds. So out comes this very scary bad ass Batman in all his glory. Problem is, they only have so much rope to give him to hang himself with, so they do this so called “out of continuity story” and see where it goes. And it’s win win for DC. If it tanks, then screw Miller he was a hack. If it rocks, he comes back with Batman Year One and the train keeps rolling. We all know how that turned out, and it solidified his legacy. At least for Batman fans.

But Frank Miller wasn’t just the Batman savior! He has such a large body of work that’s often overlooked in these silly debates about his time having passed him over that it makes me want to puke.

What’s sad in terms of Miller’s work is that amongst all the other stuff he’s done people seem to forget that Frank Miller also owns the absolute definitive Wolverine story ever created. Sure he teamed with Claremont, but there’s SO much Miller in that book you can’t deny how much he influenced that character and the tone and direction of the story. And big Daredevil fans love to drag out Born Again, but it was his first run on Daredevil that rocked the hardest. The life and death of Elektra is far and away superior to his second run on Daredevil.

Ronin debuted prior to DKR and is still considered an incredible piece of graphic storytelling, largely misunderstood by the masses it’s gripping and real, and quite intelligent. But sadly is has no prostitutes or mob mooks and so it doesn’t fall neatly into the so called “Millerism” theory, thus must be disregarded.

Wolverine again, no hookers or mass misogyny so we’ll skip that. It did have a down on her luck backstabbing semi-street love interest assassin chick though. Precursor to the hookers maybe?

Give me Liberty? Hard Boiled? A host of other credits no one brings up because they don’t fit neatly into that pigeon hole. Cut the guy some slack, huh? He writes Sin City the way he wants to write it, and he draws it his way as well. You don’t like the tits and ass? Well then it’s not really your type of story. That doesn’t mean it’s not great work, nor does it mean the guy has lost a step. If anything, Miller has evolved well beyond where he was when he wrote Dark Knight Returns and Year One. He’s put down a lot of the childish restraints that hemmed his work in during those times, and broken new ground that most creators today still fear to tread on. You want to tear the guy a new one because you don’t like ASBAR? Get a grip and grow some stones. Speak with your wallet and find something you DO like. If people weren’t buying Miller’s work by the thousands of issues, the dude wouldn’t have work.
I agree that everyone has their own opinions, and that you should buy what you like. The point of this was to discuss the writing legacy of Frank Miller, and I realize I'm in the minority that dislike him. I DO speak with my wallet and buy what I like, and therefore do not buy anything put out by Miller. I'll take my Fables and Sandman for mature audience fare any day of the week. But again, too each their own, and thats what makes this world great. I won't buy the shit I don't want to read, you don't have to buy what you don't want to read.

[tiggerpete]

I guess that settles that then?

[JohnLees]

Sorry for the delay on Meeting #4, folks. It WILL be going up tonight, but it may end up being later tonight. Every time I think I'm nearly done, more things occur to me to add in. Currently clocking at 10 pages - and counting - this is the column that just won't end!

Should be finished before long, but formatting it will take ages. Sorry again, hopefully it'll be worth the wait!

[LiamBradley]

haha, no bother man, can't wait!

[wiegeabo]

I did mention that Miller is credited with "giving Batman his balls back."

And I agree with this. For the most part, Batman before DKR was campy and losing sales. After DKR, Year One, and the Crisis, the Dark Knight exploded again.

[Dungbeetle]

Think I came to the party late here... 10 pages and no mention of Miller's Ronin? whatwhatWHAAAT? Not enough spandex in there for you?

I always thought Superman needed a bit of subversion. Superheroes are, like, so conformist, and stuff.