Batman didn't go up against corrupt business men and the establishment in his earlier appearances.
As Kid A said, Superman continued to be a "MURICA" character long after WWII, much more so than Batman. Miller was saying that it's unnatural for Superman to be that type of character given his initial characterisation and how America is known for it's greed. All of this was very relevant during a time of Reaganomics.
That would have been pretty great under a different writer, but it probably would have been attacked at the time. Reagan was the last US President to be popular in office and won two massive landslides.
I wonder if Alan Moore would have gone with that angle if he had done the reboot. He certainly wouldn't have made Superman pals with Reagan like Bryne did given how much he hated Thatcherism and politics in general at the time (and I'm guessing still does).
That's all well and good. So, he kept the work of O'Neal, Adams, etc to solidify Batman's return as a dark vigilante. Great.
And... I've read that he and Byrne decided to remodel the Superman reboot to be in line with DKR. Instead of returning him as a badass social crusader as well. So we got Supes counseling with Reagan. Fantastic.
Now, That's 'love'.
Byrne and Miller didn't work together on the reboot, and at the time Miller was far from a lover of Reagan. Honestly half the things people complain about with Byrne's Supeman are the things he brought back to many elements of the Golden Age Superman that the didn't like. Including his smart ass attitude towards criminals, his last survivor of Krypton status, patriotism, less then God like powers, and more stories revolving around the adventures around Metropolis and the Planet.
In fact looking on Byrne's forum I found this little tidbit for your point.
So if anything it seems Miller at the time wanted a full out socialist Superman, which isn't what I'd argue for although I would argue for a Superman more aligned towards the Golden Age. In the same thread Byrne also speaks up.Gerber and Miller did pitch a Superman revamp in 1985. There's an interview with Gerber in The Krypton Companion where he says they wanted to "recreate the character with a contemporary sensibility while adhering as closely as possible to the spirit of the Siegel and Shuster original." He says they wanted to emphasize Superman's "role as a force for social justice" which I presume means more of the loose cannon socialist vigilantism we see in the early stories. He doesn't say anything more specific than that.
At any rate, I'm glad it didn't happen. I don't think there's a bigger Gerber fan than me on this board, but I see Gerber's sensibilities as being a bad fit for Superman. I can't imagine it would have worked well. And Miller would be even worse... he shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of Superman.
Honestly I haven't seen anything that makes it seem Miller doesn't love the character. Just because he wrote the character a certain way for his story doesn't mean he hates the character, just that he's using them a certain way. Writers use characters to tell a story, and often alter them to tell the kind of story they want to write. Granted I have no problem with people saying they don't like how an author used a character in a story, but to hint that they are lying about their own feelings of a character is a bit much. I'm not a huge Miller fan for the record, although I do love Sin City, he is very good with a noire settingIn hindsight, I wish JB had been able to take on Superman without it having to be a reboot.
••
As most here already know, that was my original pitch. I wanted to pick up right from whatever happened to be the issue immediately before my first, and set off on a story arc over six or eight issues that would bring Superman to the point I wanted him to be.
The reboot was DC's idea. I didn't fight it, since it effectively made my job easier!
Last edited by victorsage; 09-09-2014 at 10:19 PM.
Ok, I had read at least 2 different people saying that Byrne and Miller decided to keep Supes in line with DKR, but I can't dispute Byrne himself.
Still, for me, Byrne's Superman was like a Frankenstein of the worst aspects possible, removing the fantastic aspects from the character, powering him down and 'relatableising' to 'Marvelise' the character, at a time when Marvel was already powering up their characters to a cosmic level, and keeping him a flag waving boy-scout.
Well they are wrong. If you honestly want to know about Byrne getting the Superman job you can read his forum. He's talked about multiple aspects of his work their (not just the reboot obviously) if your interested enough to look.
I disagree about your opinion of Byrne's Superman though. He brought back many aspects of the character I like personally. From the fact he was the last survivor of Krypton, to him throwing criminals in trash cans and hanging them on poles, to him having "Adventures" that revolved around more Earthly problems and dealing with the city of Metropolis, and the Daily Planet staff. That said this isn't a place for this debate.
Here's a bit more on Steve Gerber and Frank Miller's pitches from a couple of blogs.
Gerber and Miller's Pitch.
More info.
More
"Metropolis"
Thanks!
Well, when I think of earthly problems I think more of Supes strugling to find the line between pro-active and reactive, helping a humanitarian crisis in a fictional country because they asked for his help, for example, yet still getting flak for it, less DP soap-opera and more fighting social issues as Superman and not only Clark Kent. And right now, I think the character should be more cosmic as well. Oh, well, it's all personal preferences.
I think this reboot (52) lost another great chance with Supes because of the 5 year jump. It's implied that as he grew in power he had to dial back his social crusading, because his impact would start being much bigger than Metropolis. This transition, this strugle, the lessons, I think would have been great story material.
Batman went up against a corrupt businessman in his debut story. It was established in that first story that Batman is a vigilante and an enemy of the police. Bill Finger was always conscious of this and would often include scenes of Batman resisting arrest / assaulting the cops when necessary. This lasted until late 1941, when the creative team was ordered to deputize both him and Robin.
As has been said, I think he does like and respect Superman, but he simply loves Batman much more. I always found it interesting that Miller not only thanks Shuster and Siegel in TDKR but also the Fleischer brothers - he must have some fondness for those classic Superman cartoons.