Miller/ Sienkiewicz Wonder Woman?

[BFF]

Same here. Anything with Frank involved stirs up division among the fan community. That's not necessarily a bad thing tho. At least it gets us thinking and talking. Even if some people don't like his portrayal, style, etc it would be good to have it on the shelves so every fan/ consumer can decide for themselves if it's worth reading.

i agree. i mean, i'm sure there would be enough sales to justify it. so, let the people who want it buy it. and the people who want to pass can pass.

[BFF]

Bad versions of characters can stick around too long. Frank Miller has all but ruined Batman, for instance; his version of a paranoid, unlikeable, mentally unstable, and rather unintelligent Batman has had far too much influence, and most versions of Batman following his lead have been obnoxious and distasteful. We don't need to see more versions of Diana wielding a blood-dripping axe. People get the idea that this is a good way to depict her, and it is not. And with Wonder Woman specifically, fans have to stick up for versions of her that are true to her core, since time and time again we've been shown that DC editorial will not.

meh, this stuff is more subjective than you're making it out to be. a significant number of people like his Batman, even his later stuff.

[friendly-fire-press]

Bad versions of characters can stick around too long. Frank Miller has all but ruined Batman, for instance; his version of a paranoid, unlikeable, mentally unstable, and rather unintelligent Batman has had far too much influence, and most versions of Batman following his lead have been obnoxious and distasteful.

I'd argue that there have been much worse/ harmful portrayals of Batman than that of Miller's version (just ask Joel Schumacher)

As for "bad versions sticking around too long". I'm not so sure that's necessarily true ... at least not these days.

Firstly, there have been so many reboots, revamps, of several characters across various mediums witnessed by the general public that most people , I believe, are not only comfortable but are in fact embracing diversity in that regard

Secondly, I don't think Miller himself can be held accountable for how others are influenced by his work.

We don't need to see more versions of Diana wielding a blood-dripping axe. People get the idea that this is a good way to depict her, and it is not. And with Wonder Woman specifically, fans have to stick up for versions of her that are true to her core, since time and time again we've been shown that DC editorial will not.

Hang on, hang on. I think we DO need to see more of the Diana wielding a blood-dripping axe. I love that Diana. (Which is not to say I don't also love the Perez portrayal, the Azzarello portrayal or that of the Golden Age, Silver Age, etc)

It's all well and good for fans to "stick up for versions that are true to her core" but that's also subjective. I think if Miller and Sienkiewicz had their shot of doing their Wonder Woman story it would be something both uniquely theirs AND true to Diana's core

[Awonder]

Same here. Anything with Frank involved stirs up division among the fan community. That's not necessarily a bad thing tho. At least it gets us thinking and talking. ...

Stirring up division isn't nessecarily a good thing either. But, I'm mainly interested in this "thinking" you speak of. Miller may get people talking, but, I have yet to see the thinking part. DKR is a fun romp, in a very Miller way. But, it isn't what I would call an intelligent read. Sin City may deal with mature subject matter, but it doesn't do so with maturity. So, where's the thinking I've apparently missed?

... Even if some people don't like his portrayal, style, etc it would be good to have it on the shelves so every fan/ consumer can decide for themselves if it's worth reading.

You - and others - keep using this argument. So, my question to you is should DC have no standards for what they produce? Just produce anything and everything to get it on the shelf?

I, for one, think DC should have standards. Batman murdering a bunch of Muslims just to make Miller feel better and just to have it on the shelf was not a good idea.

I know that. And I do read those books. What I'm saying is: I'd like to see more of that Diana (there's nothing wrong with that, is there?)

That Diana? Which Diana? ASB&R is a very different Diana to his DK Diana. But you didn't start this thread with wanting more of either of them, you started it with the article about the nixed Miller/Sienkiewicz pitch, right? So, what part of that pitch sounds like something DC should promote? And what makes you think they could actually handle such a project with that "thinking" you mentioned earlier?

From where I sit, WB has garnered a ton of widespread positive praise for their very female-friendly approach to the WW movie. They should follow that up with the headline: "DC Promotes the 'Humiliation' of Wonder Woman!"?

Yes, I am well aware that the early stories contained bondage. But, not all bondage is created equal. Nothing in "...about how far it could be pushed. I did some others that were far more extreme, no one has seen those, this one was relatively tame by comparison." says to me that these old men either understood what Marston was trying to get across nor that they have the taste level to do it well today.

[BFF]

You - and others - keep using this argument. So, my question to you is should DC have no standards for what they produce? Just produce anything and everything to get it on the shelf?

standards are subjective, and we're talking about a couple of (subjectively) all-time greats in the writer and artist.

i suppose the reply is that miller used to be great and not anymore, but imo, he recently wrote a (subjectively) great one-shot with DKR3: The Last Crusade, so he can still surprise. who knows, maybe he can do that with his take on Diana.

in the end, it is what it is. miller's doing superman: year one, which i won't complain about.

[Awonder]

standards are subjective, and we're talking about a couple of (subjectively) all-time greats in the writer and artist.

i suppose the reply is that miller used to be great and not anymore, but imo, he recently wrote a (subjectively) great one-shot with DKR3: The Last Crusade, so he can still surprise. who knows, maybe he can do that with his take on Diana.

in the end, it is what it is. miller's doing superman: year one, which i won't complain about.

Actually, my first reply would be that you didn't actually answer my question. ;-) You're right, that standards may be subjective, and we may not agree on where to draw than line. Which is why I'm curious. If you were the publisher, would you approve just anything for any character?

My second reply would be as you said - Miller's best days seem behind him. His "all-time great" isn't the right approach for all characters. To give him some more credit, I was thinking about the "thinking" he may inspire. I still don't think he handles mature subject matter with a lot of maturity, but his work does spark the imagination. He can be quite good at what he does.

Here's hoping his Superman turns out well.

[numberthirty]

You - and others - keep using this argument. So, my question to you is should DC have no standards for what they produce? Just produce anything and everything to get it on the shelf?

I, for one, think DC should have standards. Batman murdering a bunch of Muslims just to make Miller feel better and just to have it on the shelf was not a good idea.

What you are laying out assumes this is only possible outcome in this scenario. In reality, it isn't even the "Most Likely" outcome.

[Awonder]

What you are laying out assumes this is only possible outcome in this scenario. In reality, it isn't even the "Most Likely" outcome.

Please, show me where I said "only possible outcome." You can't? Wouldn't that make the "assumption" YOURS?

Speaking of "most likely," DC seems to have agreed with me, that not all of Miller's ideas are worth publishing.

[numberthirty]

Please, show me where I said "only possible outcome." You can't? Wouldn't that make the "assumption" YOURS?

Speaking of "most likely," DC seems to have agreed with me, that not all of Miller's ideas are worth publishing.

The only way what you are discussing is worth mulling over is if the only possible outcome is one that is not up to these "Standards" you are discussing.

While I think Miller's best work is probably behind him, the idea that this project finally going forward results in what you are talking about is incredibly unlikely. At best.

[Awonder]

The only way what you are discussing is worth mulling over is if the only possible outcome is one that is not up to these "Standards" you are discussing.

While I think Miller's best work is probably behind him, the idea that this project finally going forward results in what you are talking about is incredibly unlikely. At best.

Have they changed the definitions or is "unlikely" not the same as "only"? ;-)

It's incredibly "unlikely," according to you, that Miller could produce a work that isn't good. Because good is what I'm talking about. So, let's test that idea. My exhibit A - Would Miller make Catwoman a prostitute? Unfortunately, yes. Did he do it well? No, it was junk. And that's from one of his best works.

But, hey, in the spirit of fair play (though I probably shouldn't mention Spirit as that was crap), let me give Miller a bit more praise than I already have. Maybe he could do Amazons ala his 300 Spartans? I do like 300. If we would be getting more of his DK version of WW? I could be more excited for that. But more of his ASB&R WW? That wasn't even very good as over-the-top satire (though I'm not fully convinced Miller knew he was writing satire).

[numberthirty]

Have they changed the definitions or is "unlikely" not the same as "only"? ;-)

It's incredibly "unlikely," according to you, that Miller could produce a work that isn't good. Because good is what I'm talking about.

You brought up a Batman that attacks Muslims. If it was potentially a "Good" version of it was nowhere to be found.

As it stands, the only potential versions that wouldn't be up to "Standards" would be...

- Something as far out as said Batman pitch.
- Something as "On The Fence" as "All Star".

Otherwise, it's a perfectly passable work and there is nothing as far as "Standards" to discuss.

Right now, DC is back to "Classic Coke" Wonder Woman. That said, this probably doesn't even happen. Therefore, nothing to discuss. "Standards" are a non-issue. If they did decide to allow it, Miller hasn't written for DC solo in a while. His most recent "Co-Authored" work seemed perfectly up to "Standards". Again, nothing to discuss in that scenario.

You have not look for something that has almost zero chance of coming to pass to cook up some sort of a scenario where Miller writing something that isn't up to "Standards" is even remotely possible.

[Awonder]

You brought up a Batman that attacks Muslims. If it was potentially a "Good" version of it was nowhere to be found.

Actually, Miller brought up a Batman that attacks Muslims. It was his idea, not mine. Want a review of the final product: "This book is absolute racist, xenophobic garbage. Miller has created the type of propaganda that we will all look back on and hang our heads in shame. " (via Amazon; there are also positive reviews)

You have not look for something that has almost zero chance of coming to pass to cook up some sort of a scenario where Miller writing something that isn't up to "Standards" is even remotely possible.

It only has a "zero chance," because DC, like me, has a higher standard than 'just publish it, how bad could it be.' And they, like me, have (yet?) to think that this was an idea worth publishing.

[friendly-fire-press]

Stirring up division isn't nessecarily a good thing either. But, I'm mainly interested in this "thinking" you speak of. Miller may get people talking, but, I have yet to see the thinking part. DKR is a fun romp, in a very Miller way. But, it isn't what I would call an intelligent read. Sin City may deal with mature subject matter, but it doesn't do so with maturity. So, where's the thinking I've apparently missed?

The thinking part you have missed is about looking at things from different angles and perspectives. Perception is very closely linked with thinking, I would argue. I'd argue also that DKR is intelligent in that it utilised relevant political and social commentary in new and sometimes confronting ways (to name one example). As for Sin City, I'd argue that it is a mature read and achieves such with maturity. Have you read 'That Yellow Bastard'? (and I don't mean the film adaptation, either, because there are very intelligent and unique levels of artistry utilised in that comic book that are very rarely (if ever) found in other comics (and which couldn't be adapted to the screen). That's pretty smart, maybe not in the same realm as Einstein but there are different types/ levels of intelligence

You - and others - keep using this argument. So, my question to you is should DC have no standards for what they produce? Just produce anything and everything to get it on the shelf?

That's a loaded question. Because you're suggesting that the creative team of Miller and Sienkiewicz is not a high standard to apply to a DC comic/ character and I completely disagree with you in that regard

I, for one, think DC should have standards. Batman murdering a bunch of Muslims just to make Miller feel better and just to have it on the shelf was not a good idea.

Firstly, I think they should have standards too (which is why I'm pushing for this idea and want to see it eventuate).

Secondly, 'Holy Terror' is a separate discussion from this topic. If we get into that we may potentially lose focus of the real issue at hand (but to humour you, I'll say that Holy Terror IMO is a dark satirical homage to war propaganda comics. Did it work or not? That will always be the debate

That Diana? Which Diana? ASB&R is a very different Diana to his DK Diana. But you didn't start this thread with wanting more of either of them, you started it with the article about the nixed Miller/Sienkiewicz pitch, right? So, what part of that pitch sounds like something DC should promote? And what makes you think they could actually handle such a project with that "thinking" you mentioned earlier?

With respect, I think you're splitting hairs here. I'm a fan of Frank Miller. I'm a fan of provocative art. I want to see more of his portrayals of DC characters, including Wonder Woman, because his work fascinates me. That's all I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with that.

From where I sit, WB has garnered a ton of widespread positive praise for their very female-friendly approach to the WW movie. They should follow that up with the headline: "DC Promotes the 'Humiliation' of Wonder Woman!"?

I'm aware of the praise the Wonder Woman film has received (and rightly so). I enjoyed the film (btw so did Frank, in fact he called it "the crown jewel of superhero movies"). And I would argue that you're jumping to negative, and to some extent baseless, conclusions by labelling the possibility of seeing a Miller/ Sienkiewicz WW book as being all about "The Humiliation of Wonder Woman". I think there would be a lot more to the book than seeing a scene or two with Diana tied up.

Yes, I am well aware that the early stories contained bondage. But, not all bondage is created equal. Nothing in "...about how far it could be pushed. I did some others that were far more extreme, no one has seen those, this one was relatively tame by comparison." says to me that these old men either understood what Marston was trying to get across nor that they have the taste level to do it well today.

However, you're just taking one aspect of the sketch idea (bondage) and immediately assuming the entire book would be tasteless. That's tantamount to 'judging a book by it's cover' which is a very inaccurate way to form conclusions

[numberthirty]

It only has a "zero chance," because DC, like me, has a higher standard than 'just publish it, how bad could it be.' And they, like me, have (yet?) to think that this was an idea worth publishing.

If a company is taking a character in direction "A", the fact that it is unlikely that a story that would likely go in direction "D" could come to pass has nothing to do with "Standards".

It is about the direction they are taking their IP in. The potential artistic merit of the story going in direction "D" is a complete non-issue.

[borntohula]

If Batman Year One and Xerxes turns out to good, and Miller then wants to write a Wonder Woman book (he's been very passionate about the mythological aspect of her character of late) then I think it could be an interesting read.

ASBR (the scene by the grave stones aside) isn't really for me. But I've read Miller saying that he wrote the story the way he did to match Jim Lee's visuals. There was probably more/other things involved than that (perhaps something akin to why Grant Morrison has dubbed Miller's later day comics as cocaine comics).

But I really enjoy how he (and Brian) wrote Diana in DK3. Very intense, but at the same time very stoic. Passionate. I wouldn't mind a DK Wonder Woman story like that one. I imagine a lone wolf and cub story, with Diana and Jonathan. Where she shows him the ropes (or golden lasso). Cliff Chiang on art, channeling Jean Giraud.