Is Frank Miller the David Fincher of comic makers?

[Manbat]

What about Bendis? His old work is amazing like Alias but his newer stuff is not that good like GOTG.

[Carabas]

What about Bendis? His old work is amazing like Alias but his newer stuff is not that good like GOTG.

I think his superhero team books are about as good or bad as they were when he first got Avengers.

Bendis kinda disappeared from my radar at some point. Is he still doing anything that's not "big superhero teams that trapped in a cycle of events" and if yes, is it any good?

[Spike-X]

I think his superhero team books are about as good or bad as they were when he first got Avengers.

Bendis kinda disappeared from my radar at some point. Is he still doing anything that's not "big superhero teams that trapped in a cycle of events" and if yes, is it any good?

Powers is still smashing it.

[codystarbuck]

I never cared much for Bendis on "straight" superheroes. I much prefer him on stuff like AKA Goldfish, Torso, Fortune & Glory, Powers, Alias, etc... His superhero stuff is okay; but, it just feels like a rehash of old material, with his version of "snappy" dialogue. I didn't think he added anything I didn't see 20 years ago, in one form or another.

Miller is one that lost me before people started putting the "insane" label on him. I'm not a fan of Sin City. The art is too derivative of Jose Munoz (Alack Sinner), as is the plot, and the rest is a Mickey Spillane pastiche. Of his post Dark Knight stuff, I prefer the stuff done in collaboration with others, like Give Me Liberty, Big Guy and Rusty (more than Hard Boiled), or Elektra Assassin, rather than his solo work. As it is, I think he owed a heck of a lot of credit to Joe Rubinstein and Klaus Janson for the praise his artwork got and I found his work with David Mazzuchelli on Daredevil: Born Again and Batman: Year One to be superior to both his own Daredevil and Dark Knight. I just think he is someone who needs a filter.

[FanboyStranger]

if David Lynch wasn't already the David Lynch of comics, Frank Miller would be.

Fincher would never be balls out goofy or as willing to take a sharp turn left then up into the sky like Miller (or Lynch). Big Guy and Rusty? DKSA? Hell and Back? Not even remotely (okeh, maybe remotely) Fincheresque.

Ted McKeever has staked the claim to the "David Lynch" of comics far more than Frank Miller has. I don't like the film analagoies because they reduce both mediums, but Frank Miller, if anyone, is Sam Peckipah. The satire is omnipresent in both.

[FanboyStranger]

What about Bendis? His old work is amazing like Alias but his newer stuff is not that good like GOTG.

Again, I hate the film analogies, but Bendis is Shane Black. A gift for dialogue and occasionally plotting. Not going to reinvent the wheel, but give you a few good rpms every now and then.

[FanboyStranger]

I think Frank Miller is the Frank Miller of comics.

That is the right answer. At this point, film has taken as much from Miller as Miller has taken from film.

[Darrell D.]

Interesting question on comparing comics talent to directors.

I don't see Miller as Fincher, because he is even better regarded within his industry. He might be the Scorcese, the guy best known for crime stuff who had made several of the most acclaimed works of the medium (Elektra Saga/ Dark Knight Returns/ Batman Year One/ Daredevil: Born Again/ Sin City/ 300 VS. Mean Streets/ Taxi Driver/ Raging Bull/ Goodfellas/ Gangs of New York/ Wolf of Wall Street.) A slight difference is that Miller's recent work isn't as acclaimed, although Scorsese was Miller's age when Gangs of New York kicked off a 14+ year winning streak.

Stan Lee's best analogue is probably John Ford. They both entered the industry very early, and were very prolific.

I could see a link between Moore and Kubrick, although Moore was more prolific. In terms of acclaim, he's closest to Spielberg, although their tone and subject matter were different.

Stan Lee's best comparison would be a producer rather than director, like Jerry Bruckheimer: he was able to put great talent to together for the books and did some editing of the stories, along with adding some dialog and shaped them.
Kirby I would say Orson Welles. His influence on comics is undeniable, much as Welles' influence on film.

[dancj]

Powers is still smashing it.

Yeah. I've pretty much given up on everything else by Bendis, but I think I'll stick with Powers for as long as it comes out.

[dancj]

Ted McKeever has staked the claim to the "David Lynch" of comics far more than Frank Miller has.

I had Dan Clowes for David Lynch. Ted McKeever might be David Cronenberg for me.

For Frank Miller I always had Paul Verhoven - but it's not a great match.

[bloodofthegods]

Doesn't matter.
He writes about historical facts and portrays the actual fascists as freedom-loving heroes.

"300" is like a WWII movie where the Nazis are the heroic good guy.

Doesn't matter as long 300 is catalogued fiction, historical accuracies are moot.

[Mister Mets]

Stan Lee's best comparison would be a producer rather than director, like Jerry Bruckheimer: he was able to put great talent to together for the books and did some editing of the stories, along with adding some dialog and shaped them.
Kirby I would say Orson Welles. His influence on comics is undeniable, much as Welles' influence on film.

I think Lee's contributon is more significant than that of a producer. Keep in mind that in film a director takes a lot of credit for the contributions of actors, screenwriters, cinematographers, etc.

Welles is an interesting fit for Kirby, given the multiple hats they wore. The film version of Kirby has to be an actor and director. The biggest difference is that Kirby had a greater output.

[Darrell D.]

I think Lee's contributon is more significant than that of a producer. Keep in mind that in film a director takes a lot of credit for the contributions of actors, screenwriters, cinematographers, etc.

Welles is an interesting fit for Kirby, given the multiple hats they wore. The film version of Kirby has to be an actor and director. The biggest difference is that Kirby had a greater output.

Yeah, I guess I can see the comparison of Lee taking a lot of credit for the entire production, so maybe a director does fit him..and no, not a compliment. He was fortunate to have true visionaries like Kirby and Ditko to breathe life into the work.
Welles and Kirby were both extremely influential, and future creators/filmmakers followed the trails they blazed. They both changed their respective mediums.

[dancj]

I'm pretty sure Orson Welles is Will Eisner.

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Doesn't matter as long 300 is catalogued fiction, historical accuracies are moot.

Garth Ennis, to name one example, has said he won't do an outright biography of a famous military figure because he doesn't want to disgrace them or their relations by 'putting opinions in their mouth that they may have never actually had or spoke.' But that even so, thorough knowledge/research is inescapably crucial if the time & experiences of the subject(s) is going to be captured with any seriousness whatsoever. Really, the characters of something like War Stories/Battlefields,' their status as 'fictitious' is really just a empty technicality.

The inherent 'way out' of fiction isn't some magic license for laziness and ignorance.