Busiek explains that Miller didn't fail in his rendition of the Man of Steel: "It's Frank presenting an idea of Superman that isn't sleek and pretty.."
Full article here.
Results 1 to 15 of 60
-
10-06-2015, 08:16 AM #1Super Moderator
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 26,245
As Fans Mock Frank Miller's "Dark Knight III" Cover, Kurt Busiek Defends It
-
10-06-2015, 08:35 AM #2Not a Newbie Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
- Location
- Arkham, Mass (lol no)
- Posts
- 9,213
I agree with Kurt that this isn't mere Miller sloppiness at all. But Kurt wisely points out that we're allowed to not like this portrayal of Superman.
Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft
Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”
-
10-06-2015, 08:35 AM #3Spectacular Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 101
Yeah, no, it's just badly drawn.
-
10-06-2015, 08:38 AM #4BANNED
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Posts
- 5,105
Yeah, no, it's a very intentional drawing. Don't have to like it...
-
10-06-2015, 08:42 AM #5BANNED
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Location
- http://tinyurl.com/haad5pl
- Posts
- 3,271
Art is subjective.
Originally Posted by Coco
-
10-06-2015, 08:58 AM #6Extraordinary Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Location
- Weihai
- Posts
- 7,375
Seriously, Bill Watterson could do a Batman story and these "fans" (fans of what? Batman? A thirty year old comic by some of the same guys? DC in a general sense?) would have issue with his anatomy. Rumiko Takahashi could team up with Damien Hirst, with painted backgrounds by Christie Scheele and some "fan" would be upset that Batman's eyes are too big and the colors are wrong. But throw some lazy semi-realist stuff out there, those "fans" are happy, and everyone else is bored.
Same fans who hate Neal Adams post-1983, who hate Sienkiewicz inks or Trevor von Eeden art or Kyle Baker or anything with, to me and many, some energy to it. Some cartooning to it. The difference being, most of the folks in favor of Miller's art or Baker's or Sienkiewicz's, don't go around badmouthing every cover that doesn't look like theirs as if those fans aren't allowed to have their comics, too. Less likely to start saying some artist they don't care for "raped my childhood" or doesn't know how to draw because they chose a style that doesn't appeal to them personally.Patsy Walker on TV! Patsy Walker in new comics! Patsy Walker in your brain! And Jessica Jones is the new Nancy! (Oh, and read the Comics Cube.)
-
10-06-2015, 09:01 AM #7Extraordinary Member
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 8,350
Comic fans in the morning: I hate all this house style art.
Comic fans in the evening: boy I hate this specialized style, glad that book is drawn by someone closer to house style art.
-
10-06-2015, 09:03 AM #8Astonishing Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- WGBS
- Posts
- 2,537
I love artists and I want to see what they come up with, but I don't think I've ever thought about or known the difference between cartoonists or comic artists. The Atom looks sharp?
-
10-06-2015, 09:23 AM #9Moderator
- Join Date
- Apr 2015
- Posts
- 3,010
I don't disagree with Kurt here. The stylistic choice is most likely intentional, but I don't think it conveys its intent as well as it tries to.
But at Busiek defended it more maturely than Rob Liefeld did with his "FRANK MILLER IS A NATIONAL TREASURE FUCK YOU ALL YOU DON'T GET TO CRITICIZE HIM" rant.
-
10-06-2015, 09:28 AM #10Astonishing Member
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 3,175
Superman is an ugly person in this universe so Miller has him on model and gives him a small penis because I guess he's making a commentary about him having no balls
Perfect fit for the Dark Knight Universe
-
10-06-2015, 10:24 AM #11BANNED
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 6,110
To you. Originally Posted by Coco
Technically speaking, the rendition of Superman by Miller does not deviate to what he already looked before in the DK series. With the distinction that he looked sleeker in the sequel. This looks more akin the original story.
Agreed, his defense is equally weak to the "criticism" of the detractors so far. Originally Posted by joybeans
Last edited by Aioros22; 10-06-2015 at 10:26 AM.
-
10-06-2015, 10:34 AM #12Ultimate Member
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 12,602
No Kurt, it shows that:
-Frank Miller has forgotten how to write AND draw even remotely competently.
and.
-Frank Miller doesn't get Superman, AT ALL!! Character-wise or visually.
-
10-06-2015, 10:35 AM #13Father Son Kamehameha <
- Join Date
- May 2014
- Posts
- 8,755
Eh, don't see the big deal at all. It's a Miller drawing basically like any other; wild, but not technically bad. The "visible penis" thing is a silly point imo. I didn't pay attention to it before it was headlined.
While the point is not difficult to understand, how often is it that one particular person says both of these things? Fanbases include tons of different people, and it's illogical to think that there will ever be one way to please all. Originally Posted by HsssH
-
10-06-2015, 10:51 AM #14Spectacular Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 101
And so many other people Originally Posted by Aioros22
-
10-06-2015, 11:26 AM #15Fantastic Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2015
- Posts
- 472
So many of you guys don't even realise the physical condition Frank is in. Just google Frank Miller 2014-15 and compare it to 2009-10. I like that he's enthusiastic enough to do this. Also Liefeld and Capullo defended him on social media as well.
Reply With Quote
