-
[QUOTE=friendly-fire-press;4420782]"actively harm him"??? I seriously doubt that. But many of Miller's peers said the same thing about his take on Batman in DKR back in the 80's when it first came out (apparently there were guys in the industry phoning Miller up saying he had "ruined" the Batman character). It wasn't true of Batman then and it's not true of Superman now. Miller's vision and style may be an acquired taste but isn't a destructive thing. It's the opposite. It breathes new life into the character. [/quote]
DKR’s Frank Miller is long gone. Azzarello is obviously a better cowriter than JRJR, but Miller’s output since like the original Sin City or Man Without Fear is a pale comparison to his DKR’s Born Again or Year One works. He hasn’t breathed new anything into anything in any of his recent works. This is obvious and not really debatable. Year One, Born Again, and DKRs were transformative works that we’re emulated and refocused takes on characters. Nothing he has done since those, outside of Sin City, have had any impact at all. DKSA was a mess. ASB&R is roundly seen as one of the most laughably bad comics produced in the last 25 years. DKIII is passable but missed undermines the entire point of DKR’s. They are all quickly forgotten or are punchlines. And arguably Miller’s takes on Batman, at least in the way it’s been played out over the last 25 years has hurt the character.
And it’s hilarious that you’d argue a bad take by Miller, on Superman no less, isn’t possibly damaging considering the DKR’s Superman is responsible for so much of the negative perception of Superman and the elevation of Batman over the last 35 years. Batman has kicked Superman’s ass for years and Superman’s been the naive fool precisely BECAUSE of a bad take by Miller in DKR’s. We’ve gotten Superman seen by many as a government stooge and boy scout who can’t think for himself because of Miller. So yes, a bad take by Miller definitely has the potential to damage a character. He’s decades past his prime. Born Again this ain’t.
[quote]That's your opinion. Just because a particular artist doesn't appeal to your personal taste does not mean it has no place in pop culture. If you've got a problem with Miller then don't read the book, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be denied reading something we're interested in reading.[/quote]
Obviously it’s an opinion. But Millers track record from 30 years ago doesn’t erase the terrible books he’s put out since. So yeah, if I was DC I don’t care what Miller did 30 years ago. He can write his fan fic with someone else’s billion dollar IP. He did it with Batman already. Let him make his Overman Year One. That way he can take his prize and ravish Super Women for being such a tough guy.
[quote]As for Holy Terror being "actively offensive", it was a response to 9/11 ... so obviously it was going to be confrontational. But nearly all of Miller's work is confrontational. That's the kind of artist he is. Some of the best art in the world is of the confronting type. There's nothing wrong with that [/quote]
I addressed this more below. But again, it’s xenophobic trash. Miller knows it’s trash. DC knew it was trash. Genuinely shocked someone would defend this book. There a lot wrong with it.
[quote]Again, that's your opinion. Nothing more. I would argue that it does (or at least there's nothing wrong with it being explored in Superman's world). Rape is an inhuman crime which tragically occurs all too often in our world. I've often wanted to witness Superman's response to it. To not have him confront it is a bit like saying the issue should be ignored. That's wrong IMO [/quote]
It’s not “explored” here. And Miller isn’t capable of exploring it even if he wanted to. He barely portrays women as actual characters in most books and the ones in YO are stereotypes of stereotypes or cardboard cutouts. The attempt was there to make Clark look tough and for Lana to swoon over him afterwards. It’s gross. If your going to put teen gang rape attempts in a Superman story, in 2019 no less, it needs to be handled properly and not be all about making a guy look cool. So yeah, it definitely doesn’t belong in this book and definitely shouldn’t be handled by Miller of all people. He has serious issues writing women and terrible thoughts on gender stereotypes as seen in this very book.
So while I’ll acknowledge I’m uncomfortable with portraying attempted teen gang rape in any Superman, I’ll admit it’s possible it could be handled well. Definitely not by Frank Miller though. I could see it handled well by certain women writers through like a Lois Lane Year One book. That’d be something that could possibly work. Though it’s a minefield.
[quote]Firstly, I think it makes total sense that Clark joins the Navy. Secondly, yeah getting specific terminology inaccurate is a bummer but it happens to all writers now and then. No big deal. [/quote]
The Navy element is not that big of a deal. I don’t like it. I don’t think it works for Superman at all. But having read the actual comic now it’s like the least of its many many problems. But the screw up is hilarious because big alpha Miller can’t even get that the army and navy are different. It’s like 30 seconds of research. I guarantee you he spent more time and detail on Lana almost getting gang raped than he put into whether the navy has sailors or soldiers.
[quote]As for "jingoistic" ... there may be some elements of that in some of his work but, let's face it, superhero comics is basically: Good versus Evil. That whole concept is basically warfare. So that issue is bound to come thru in one way or another.
As for his writing being "xenophobic" ... that's just wrong. I've read all of his stuff. Even Holy Terror (while not his best) isn't xenophobic or even Islamophobic. Just because the villains in the story are Muslim terrorists doesn't mean the story suggests that ALL Muslims are terrorists.[/quote]
Holy Terror is a pornographicly violent xenophobic revenge fantasy. That’s all it is. It doesn’t confront anything. It’s Miller pissed off about 911 and imagining Batman and Cat Woman murdering and torturing Muslims. It’s trash. It has no message. Miller knows it is trash. He won’t even talk about it in interviews and admits he was having problems when he wrote it. I mean, Stan for they guy all you want I get that to a certain extent, but why you are trying to justify and defend Holy Terror is beyond me.
[quote]I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm so glad Miller is still producing top quality comics.[/QUOTE]
We definitely disagree.
-
[QUOTE=Yoda;4421066]DKR’s Frank Miller is long gone. Azzarello is obviously a better one than JRJR, but Miller’s output since like the original Sin City or Man Without Fear is a pale comparison to his DKR’s Born Again or Year One works. He hasn’t breathed new anything into anything in any of his recent works. This is obvious and not really debatable. [/QUOTE]
Everything's debatable. But first you need an argument. You don't have any.
[QUOTE=]Year One, Born Again, and DKRs were transformative works that we’re emulated and refocused takes on characters. Nothing he has done since those, outside of Sin City, have had any impact at all. DKSA was a mess. ASB&R is roundly seen as one of the most laughably bad comics produced in the last 25 years. DKIII is passable but missed undermines the entire point of DKR’s. They are all quickly forgotten or are punchlines. And arguably Miller’s takes on Batman, at least in the way it’s been played out over the last 25 years has hurt the character. [/QUOTE]
They were groundbreaking works. But not every artwork an artist produces has to be groundbreaking or "transformative" in the same way. They can be unique, shocking, humorous, thought-provoking, non-traditional, excessive, angry, the list goes on, on a multitude of levels. All of his works, in one way or another, achieves some or all of these -- just not necessarily in the same way.
[QUOTE=]And it’s hilarious that you’d argue a bad take by Miller,[/QUOTE]
It's better than being narrow-minded and dismissive
[QUOTE=] on Superman no less, isn’t possibly damaging considering the DKR’s Superman is responsible for so much of the negative perception of Superman and the elevation of Batman over the last 35 years. [/QUOTE]
It's not. He may have drawn Batman kicking Superman's butt on 2 occasions but he didn't mass-market it, not did he insist that others had to mimic him. Also, I believe the original ending had Superman winning the fight
[QUOTE=]Batman has kicked Superman’s ass for years and Superman’s been the naive fool precisely BECAUSE of a bad take by Miller in DKR’s. [/QUOTE]
And here we have a chance to see Miller present him as something different, possibly better, cooler, etc by breaking some new ground, taking some risks, and you're just being dismissive. Why should DC or anyone take such close-mindedness seriously? (Frankly, I think such a closed-minded approach has much more potential to damage the character because all that approach leads to is stagnation)
[QUOTE=]So yes, a bad take by Miller definitely has the potential to damage a character. He’s decades past his prime. [/QUOTE]
In Red Son, Clark was a soldier for Stalin, that didn't "damage" him. In Injustice, he was a murderous tyrant, that didn't "damage" him. Your comments suggest this isn't about "damaging the character". They suggest you just don't like Frank Miller (and are possibly scared of taking risks, or even threatened by concepts that don't sit well with you). That doesn't do much for your credentials as a critic.
As for Frank being "past his prime"... He recently had an art exhibit at the Louvre. Not many cartoonists can say that. He's a legend. He always will be. Deal with it.
[QUOTE=]Born Again this ain’t. [/QUOTE]
I suspect the real issue at play here is YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE. You've made up your mind to dislike it before even reading it. Your statements suggest you have a vendetta against Miller personally. You've provided no evidence to back-up your claims and you can't even seem to critique his works on an analytical level. It's just hollow fanrage.
[QUOTE=]Obviously it’s an opinion. But Millers track record from 30 years ago doesn’t erase the terrible books he’s put out since. So yeah, if I was DC I don’t care what Miller did 30 years ago. He can write his fan fic with someone else’s billion dollar IP. He did it with Batman already. Let him make his Overman Year One. That way he can take his prize and ravish Super Women for being such a tough guy. [/QUOTE]
It's pretty ironic that you attack Miller's style for being "bad" while simultaneously throwing as much sarcasm, narrow-mindedness and petty insults as possible. It's a bit hypocritical, really.
[QUOTE=]I addressed this more below. But again, it’s xenophobic trash. Miller knows it’s trash. DC knew it was trash. Genuinely shocked someone would defend this book. [/QUOTE]
I'm an admirer of art. I don't believe in censorship. I defend all art. I suspect you mistake confrontational for "trash". Some art is more disturbing than others. Some people may think that automatically makes it "trash" but that says more about their perception (or lack thereof) than anything else.
[QUOTE=]There a lot wrong with it. [/QUOTE]
Maybe there's just something wrong with your comprehension of certain artworks that don't appeal to you
[QUOTE=]It’s not “explored” here. And Miller isn’t capable of exploring it even if he wanted to. He barely portrays women as actual characters in most books and the ones in YO are stereotypes of stereotypes or cardboard cutouts. The attempt was there to make Clark look tough and for Lana to swoon over him afterwards. It’s gross. If your going to put teen gang rape attempts in a Superman story, in 2019 no less, it needs to be handled properly and not be all about making a guy look cool. So yeah, it definitely doesn’t belong in this book and definitely shouldn’t be handled by Miller of all people. He has serious issues writing women and terrible thoughts on gender stereotypes as seen in this very book.[/QUOTE]
You said it "had no place in a Superman story" and are still unable to explain why. You've just alluded that (surprise, surprise) you don't like his portrayal of women ... even tho he's responsible for creating some of the toughest female characters in comics (from Elektra to Carrie Kelley to Miho) ... so yeah, you're just throwing more fanrage with zero evidence and/or analysis.
[QUOTE=]Holy Terror is a pornographicly violent xenophobic revenge fantasy. That’s all it is. It doesn’t confront anything. It’s Miller pissed off about 911 and imagining Batman and Cat Woman murdering and torturing Muslims. It’s trash. It has no message. Miller knows it is trash. He won’t even talk about it in interviews and admits he was having problems when he wrote it. I mean, Stan for they guy all you want I get that to a certain extent, but why you are trying to justify and defend Holy Terror is beyond me. [/QUOTE]
As I said it was a response to 9/11. The villains were portrayed as Muslim TERRORISTS (I notice you conveniently left that out of your analogy again) because it was Muslim terrorists that carried out 9/11. Nowhere in the story does it suggest that ALL Muslims are terrorists. You keep saying it is xenophobic and are still unable to explain how.
[QUOTE=]We definitely disagree.[/QUOTE]
Yes. But you don't seem to be too good at handling a contrary opinion or providing any evidence or analysis to back up your own opinion. That's the difference.
-
[QUOTE=DragonPiece;4415196]it's in the first issue, some people who read the book early tweeted about it.[/QUOTE]
Ah - thanks
-
[QUOTE=Vordan;4420965]“Top quality comics” is pushing it. While I don’t have the same strong negative feelings that Yoda does, this is nowhere near as good as [I]Batman: Year One[/I] or [I]The Dark Knight Returns[/I]. It’s a fairly middling work so far, we’ll see how he handles the next two books.[/QUOTE]
To early to tell really. It definitely feels like a successor to man without fear though even from issue one.
Issue 2 and 3 will make or break this series because there will be the major diversion point.
