Frank Miller's Holy Terror

[theMan-Bat]

1) In a tv documentary about Superheroes today, old Stan Lee said something which I agree with. When Cap America punched Hitler in 1941 on that cover it was a different time, and it was clear to see that what Hitler was a crime against humanity. Later on the identifying óf the enemy became more difficult. First the cold war, and now this "War on terror", and as Lee put it: "To have Cap America punch a muslim leader the same way would not only be out dated, but would also be in bad taste". I agree. The last thing we need now is more hate mongering. I am glad that Miller could not use Batman, or any other classic character, for this purpose. What he does with his own characters concerns me less, although I still think it shows his brain paralysis.

You shouldn't try to diagnose somebody of brain paralysis with your many inaccuracies. Frank Miller does not have a superhero punch out any Muslim leader. He has a superhero defeat al-Qaeda terrorists after a terrorist attack murdered innocent citizens. I don't have a problem with Batman defeating al-Qaeda. They are--and this is a key point--not considered true Muslims by many people of Islamic faith. Al-Qaeda is an Islamofascist terrorist group. They use Islam to manipulate, control, make their followers believe they are doing Allah's work, and preach ignorant hate. They incriminate the faith of Islam by using it as a motivation and justification for their actions. Many Muslims denounce the al-Qaeda terrorists as not truly representing Islam.
http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

It was also silly for Marvel and DC to have Reagan appear in the 80's stories. It could have been handled in a more elegant way, for example to create a president for the comics who suggested Reagan, but not being Reagan.

I have no problem with comic books satirizing Ronald Reagan. Frank Miller explained why he had Reagan appear, "As far as the role of political satire and parody in comics, it seemed to me that we were just missing a big bed. Every time I opened a newspaper, unless it was the New York Times, you see an editorial cartoon, and could see how comics could play against current moments and current issues. I felt that we should be in the middle of that game with all the rest. Everybody else talks politics, why can’t we? I composed Dark Knight Returns when Ronald Reagan was president, and very silly things seemed to be happening, and I wanted to satirize them, but they just kept topping me."
http://convergingtoacenter.blogspot.com/2006/02/manga-artists-part-5-american-artist.html

2) Speaking of bad taste, for the last 17 years I have considered Frank Miller to be the epitome of bad taste. Gary Groth expressed in an old issue of the comics journal that the common defense for Miller being that what he (Miller) did was to simply depict the violence of today was wrong. Groth stated that Miller is NOT depicting violence, he is just violent. There is a clear difference, and that rings even more true now 30 years after Groth wrote this.

No, what critic Gary Groth stated in Comics Journal #71 (1982) is that a "critical singsong about the book (Frank Miller's Daredevil) is that it's about violence." Kim Thompson had interviewed comic book writer Mike Friedrich (who had notably written The Spectre, Justice League of America and Star*Reach) and asked "Do you see any comics currently being produced that you think have any adult values?"
Mike Friedrich replied, "Well, yes, I do. Daredevil comes to mind within the realm of dealing with issues of justice, of the law, of violence."

Gary Groth disagreed and said that "The book (Daredevil by Frank Miller) isn't about violence at all, it's just violent."

Frank Miller does deal with issues of justice, of the law, of violence, showing the brutality of violence and death. Frank Miller depicts violence in his material, of course, as he writes and draws superhero action entertainment, action noir entertainment, martial arts action entertainment, science fiction action entertainment, sword and sandal mythological action entertainment. Frank Miller is not a violent person or he would have been arrested for assaults, like comic book writer/artist Steve Rude has been.
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/11/steve-rude-art-discounted-to-raise-bail-following-creators-arrest/
Frank Miller explained in Comics Journal #70:

I have not read the latest garbage from Miller, because I gave up on the guy in 1995.

It would be wise to actually read books for yourself or at least get the facts straight about them before declaring them "garbage." You admit that you gave up on Frank Miller's comics in 1995 (so you haven't read Happy Birthday, Martha Washington (1995), Martha Washington Stranded in Space (1995), The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot (1995), Dark Horse Presents #100 (1995), Sin City: Silent Night (1995), San Diego Comic Con Comics #4 (1995), Dark Horse Presents #114 (1996), Sin City: the Big Fat Kill (1996), Sin City: That Yellow Bastard (1996-97), Sin City: Lost, Lonely & Lethal (1996), A Decade of Dark Horse #1 (1996), Martha Washington Saves the World (1997-98), Bad Boy (1997), Sin City: Family Values (1997), Sin City: Sex & Violence (1997), 300 (1998), Orion #3 (2000), Superman and Batman: World's Funnest (2000), Dark Horse Maverick 2000 (2000), Sin City: Hell and Back (2001), Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again (2001-02), 9-11 (2002), Dark Horse Maverick: Happy Endings (2002), RoboCop (2003), AutobioGrafix (2003), All-Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder (2005-08), Martha Washington Dies (2007), Usagi Yojimbo #100 (2009) and Holy Terror (2011)). It's showing total ignorance to bash books as "garbage" that you haven't read and are ill informed of. Too many people allow others criticisms to make a decision for them. I view it plainly as allowing others to make up your mind for you.

As a teen I was a Miller fan, and thought DKR was a masterpiece. Now I think it is everything but. I think he did some good things for Marvel in the late 70's/early 80's, notably Daredevil, but that's it. Everyone agrees that Miller selfdestructed at one point. What people diagree on is when. I don't think it in the new millenium, or even in the 90's, but specifically with the Dark Knight Returns. The Dark Knight Strikes Again is just a continuation of what he has started. As I said, I liked his Marvel stuff, and there is even a Batman story of his from 1979, titled "Wanted: Santa Claus - Dead or alive", but that was written by Denny O'neill, and before Miller had gone bad.

Everyone does not agree that Miller was good originally and then self-destructed at one point. Everyone does not agree that Frank Miller's Daredevil was good. Everyone does not agree on Frank Miller at all. The idea that everyone loved Frank Miller's '80s material and then turned against Frank Miller more recently with Sin City or Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again or with All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder, is a false assumption. Frank Miller's had his haters since his early Daredevil material. Frank Miller has been very controversial, from his original Daredevil run to today. He's very polarizing. There were people who disliked his Daredevil material and felt it was too grim, too violent, too nasty, too brutal, too noir. Comics Journal #58 (1980) reported that Marvel's Jim Shooter refused to publish Frank Miller and Roger McKenzie's two-part drug storyline titled "Child's Play" and "Good Guys Wear Red!" in Daredevil, intended by Frank Miller, Roger McKenzie and editor Denny O'Neil for Daredevil #167 and 168 (1980), after it was not approved by the Comics Code Authority.

Marvel finally published the two-part story in Daredevil #183 and 184 (1982). In Comics Journal #77 (1982) it was reviewed by Ted White, who called it "a real letdown."

Frank Miller said in Comics Journal #70 (1981), "There has been an increasing number of letters complaining about the violence in Daredevil. At the same time, the sales have been going up astronomically."
In Comics Journal #71 (1982) Dwight Decker complained about how grim Frank Miller's Daredevil was:

Also in Comics Journal #71 (1982) Gary Groth complained about how brutal Frank Miller's Daredevil was:

Many of the very things they were railing against, the hard-boiled noir (vigilante detectives, corruption, hookers with hearts of gold and drug pushers are classic noir archetypes), the grimness and brutality of the violence (a major characteristic of noir is the brutality of the violence), are precisely elements that I find entertaining about Frank Miller's material. I am not offended by the violence. Within the genres Miller writes, action is necessarily violent, and the villain's must do evil things. The moral justification for the violence is, of course, the protagonist trying to defeat his antagonistic villainous opponents. We live in violent times, art reflects that. Violence existed long before comic books or movies were made, so blaming one or the other is preposterous.

3) Even then he was no match for Neal Adams, and although both of them - and O'neill like them - have declined, Adams was still light years ahead of Miller. It saddens me to see what Adams is doing now, because he was truly great in the 70's. Adams fall from a greater height than Miller, and that makes it even harder to watch.

Whatever art you feel is good or bad comes down to personal preference. It is subjective (is it aesthetically pleasing to you, etc.). I enjoy a wide variety of art. Frank Miller's artistic styles of drawing are very different than Neal Adams'. Frank Miller made variations on his art style with different series from Daredevil to Ronin to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, etc. I'm glad that Neal Adams has returned to Batman again. Of course Neal Adams' art doesn't look the same as it did in the 1970s. He doesn't have the contribution of Dick Giordano since Dick was retired, suffering from lymphoma and later also from leukemia and died in 2010. Neal Adams is inking the majority of the Batman: Odyssey series himself and there is a wide variety of guest inkers on various pages. Neal Adams is not only penciling Batman: Odyssey, he is also writing Batman: Odyssey along with inking the majority of the series himself and he is 70 years old. Other artists his age are either retired or deceased. I'm glad Neal Adams is still around and I appreciate and am enjoying Neal Adams' return to Batman and it's fun to see the artistic contributions of guest inkers Bill Sienkiewicz, Michael Golden, Kevin Nowlan, Scott Williams and Paul Neary.

4) My main problem with Miller is that the Dark Knight Returns, and to a certain degree Year one, violated some classic characters. Not so much Batman, but Superman and Catwoman especially, but also The Joker.
Not only do I not like the visual style he's employing (I think it's ugly), but I think he is doing something with the characters which is not part of their essence.
I am not against a story about the heroes as older, more disillusioned, bitter people, or even having become enemies. It is just that Miller uses these charaters in a wrong way. When using established characters you should be able to tell their story instead of simply using them to tell YOUR kind of story. They have to be of use again afterwards, and to stay true to their essense. I do not like the depiction of Superman as a government agent. I think it would be more in his spirit to become so disillusioned with the hopelesness of the state of mankind that he would withdraw from it (as in Kingdom Come). Superman has traditionally been the most humanistic of the two, despite being an alien. The eternal innocent, but not naive.

If Frank Miller turned Superman into his kind of character for his kind of story then he would have made Superman into a dark vigilante type, not a patriotic law-abiding establishment figure. Superman has been shown iconically as a patriotic member of the establishment for decades in the '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, '2000s in the comic books, on radio, on television and on films. The Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age and Modern Age. For decades Superman has been involved legally with the police (Superman #20 (1943) "Lair of the Leopard", and many others), as well as the U.S. Army (Superman #23 (1943) "America's Secret Weapon", and many others), the U.S. Navy (Superman #15 (1942) "The Napkanese Saboteurs", and many others), the F.B.I. (Superman #25 (1943) "The Man Superman Refused to Help", and others), the U.S. Treasury Department (Superman #102 (1956) "Superman For Sale"), the Secret Service (Action Comics #256 (1959) "Superman of the Future") and U.S. Presidents (Superman #107 (1964) "Superman's Mission for President Kennedy").
The Superman School for Officers' Training, the nations largest Army officers training center, constructed single-handedly by Superman, at super-speed, as a favor to the U.S. Army in Action Comics #210 (1943) "Make Way for Fate!" Superman has held the rank of General in the U.S. Army in Superman #133 (1959) "Superman Joins the Army!" It's revealed that every nation knows how to get in touch with Superman through the White House in Action Comics #306 (1963) "The Great Superman Impersonation." It would actually have been out of character with the way Superman has iconically been since the early '40s for Frank Miller to have had Superman suddenly just disregarding the law, his iconic patriotism, and just going rouge and becoming a vigilante again in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. On the other had, in Batman's case, he had returned as a dark, mysterious vigilante back in the '70s by Denny O'Neil, etc. Neither Superman or Batman feel that the state of mankind is hopeless, they are not consumed with disillusionment and bitterness in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Superman and Batman are both still fighting crime. Superman fights crime in Gotham in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Superman heroically diverts a bomb from a populated area and suffers the explosion himself, and still hopes to be able to save mankind. The withdraw of the Kingdom Come Universe Superman was because the general public and the media turned against him and preferred the dark vigilante Magog, and the Kingdom Come Universe Joker had killed Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White. The general public and the media did not turn against the Dark Knight Universe Superman and prefer any dark vigilante. Batman is extremely controversial and hated by much of the general public and the media in the Dark Knight Universe. Lois, Jimmy and Perry had not been killed by the Joker in the Dark Knight Universe.

I do not like the homosexual (and perhaps homophobic) way that both Miller and Alan Davis portray The Joker. I never saw that in the character before, and I do not se any use for it. My biggest problems with Miller is the way he uses Catwoman in his two seminal 80s works.

Frank Miller does not portray the Joker as a homosexual. The Joker calling Batman "darling" and "my sweet" in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was not an indication of a homosexual love, but rather a sinister mocking, a sadistic taunt. The Joker explained in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns that he loves Batman for keeping count of all of the people the Joker has killed. As Denny O'Neil explained in the book Batman Unauthorized: Vigilantes, Jokers, and Heroes in Gotham City (2008), "His (the Joker's) 'affection' for the Batman, whom he calls 'darling' more than once, comes precisely from knowing how much the mayhem he causes wounds the other man. He knows exactly what he is doing, tormenting the Batman with his crimes, deliberately attempting to force Batman to take a life preemptively. Finally, in the end, when the Batman broke his neck but failed to do so with enough pressure to kill, he (the Joker) chided, 'I'm really...very disappointed with you, my sweet...the moment was...perfect...and you...didn't have the nerve... Paralysis...really...they'll kill you for this...and they'll never know...that you didn't have the nerve..." The Joker finished himself off, and as the Batman hobbled away, the clown's corpse seemed to mock him for his lack of nerve."
The Joker is referred to as Bruno's "boyfriend in the loony bin" by the clerk at the liquor store in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. I believe she's called the masculine name Bruno because she's unfeminine. She's a neo-Nazi tomboy punk with a buzz-cut. The stretch marks reference in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was referring to her having plastic surgery to cover up her aging sagging breasts, etc. As seen in All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder, she already had breasts, which takes place long before her appearance in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. I've never believed Frank Miller was trying to imply in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns that Bruno was a man who had became transgendered. Trans people want to look, dress and act feminine and adopt a feminine name, Bernice, not Bruno. It's also made pretty clear that the Joker had just had sex with Donna Gugina in All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder, as we see the Joker shirtless and her putting her clothes on and saying to Joker, "I was just joking that maybe you slipped something into my drink. It's really not my style, doing...well, this sort of thing. Not with someone I just barely met," and the Joker refers to, "That tawdry thing we just did with each other in this bed." Alan Davis and Mike W. Barr did not portray the Joker as a homosexual, either.

 

[theMan-Bat]

5) Catwoman is my favorite Batman supporting character, and to depict her as the broken down ageing ****e, or the young dominatrix seems disturbing and unwarranted.

Rather than a "broken down ****e," in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Selina Kyle is a successful entrepreneur running Kyle Escort Service, Inc. In Batman: Year One Selina was a dominatrix before she became Catwoman. Selina was obviously very jaded and cynical. She was a cynic through disillusionment. We witness Selina saying that she hates men and she's never met a man. Holly said "Batman, Selina--Somebody just said he's alive--Maybe we'll see him--," Selina cynically replied "We'll see his corpse." Until she witnessed Batman actually succeeding in his vigilantism. Batman inspired her. He became a symbol.
Frank Miller explained in Comics Interview #31 (1986): "Comic book writers have largely avoided taking their material so seriously that they show what its social consequences would be, and that particular question is the most fascinating one for me. For instance, Bernard Goetz, in New York, changed the color of New York life for a few weeks. He pulled something up out of what was going on, common to people's emotional states. What he actually did, as far as shooting the four youths, was a crime in itself that would have been very forgettable. But something was implied by it, represented by it."

Mark Borax: "He became a symbol."

Frank Miller: "Yeah. And with Batman we're talking about someone who is the epitome of the symbolic character -- the will to resist. We're seeing this pop up constantly in fiction right now. There are movements in society, spiritual movements, that sort of thing, and widespread forces. I think that, at their best, superheroes can represent these kinds of forces. Batman represents a very powerful specific force that movie makers attempt to represent with Dirty Harry, Paul Kirsey in DEATH WISH. I don't think it's necessarily simply a violent power fantasy. Society has made itself impotent to the point where people do not resist evil on a large level. New Yorkers carry bribe money to buy off muggers. I think there is a desire right now that the intelligentsia aren't aware of and can't relate to - The desire to take back the power that we've given away as human beings, to say no to criminals. Batman represents the ability of people to choose not to be a victim. In response to a feeling of powerlessness, as a statement that we do have power! Batman changes the way people live by his presence!"

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make a woman less respectable that she's a prostitute, but why does he have to make it so ugly all the time ?

There is an ugliness to prostitution, particularly street walking prostitution, pimps. He doesn't sugarcoat it.

6) Which leads me to Miller's violation of Eisner's the Spirit. Again he uses other's characters as if they were his own, but he doesn't seem to get their essense. So he violates them instead. Instead of asking himself: "Can I use Batman or the Spirit to tell my kind of stories", he should ask himself:"Can I tell Batman or Spirit stories"?. If violated for too long, there will be nothing left of therese classic characters, and the damage will be irreversible. For his kind of stories he's got his Sin City. His take on the Spirit will probably be forgotten soon, but he has left a permanent damage to the Batman mythos. For the simple reason that a cynical (and annoying) younger generation of comics creators are taking the lead from him, not only with their own creations, but with their interpretations of Batman as well. Miller is the spiritual father of the Image boys and their ilk.

Howard Mackie's Ghost Rider run, Peter David's Hulk run, Brian Pulido and Steven Hughes' Lady Death, Chris Claremont's X-Men run and the various X-Men spin-offs Claremont launched are the true fathers of the Image boys and their Spawn, Savage Dragon, Angela, Glory, Youngblood, WildC.A.T.s and Gen¹³ characters. Frank Miller is the spiritual father of Daredevil, Elektra and Batman writers and filmmakers that have proceeded him.
Frank Miller's Batman stories hark back to classic Batman stories by Bill Finger. Batman was a very brutal vigilante wanted by the law in the early Batman stories. The police went after Batman a lot. The use of the bat emblem on his chest without the yellow moon. In the Golden Age this was the standard. Batman carrying and using guns, which hadn't been seen since 1940. Frank Miller brought back Robin's sling shot which had not been seen since 1940. The gadgets and bat vehicles which had been toned way down in the '70s. Batman originally was a terror striking creature of the night wanted by the police and fighting the police. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was a return to that concept. Frank Miller made Batman darker - more brutal than he'd been in decades - clearly breaking bones, beating cops. If you actually look at those early Batman stories by Bill Finger and Gardner Fox - Batman's methods were extreme.
And Frank Miller adapted classic Spirit stories by Will Eisner in the film. Frank Miller explained: "The specific stories that made the core of this movie were three. One was 'Sand Saref' (originally published on January 8th, 1950 in The Spirit newspaper strip) the second one was 'Bring In Sand Saref' (originally published on January 15th, 1950 in The Spirit newspaper strip) which is basically a two-parter. And the other one was another story called 'Showdown' (originally published on February 4th, 1951 in The Spirit newspaper strip), which was nothing but a bloody fight between the Spirit and the Octopus where it was demonstrated that both of them could withstand inhuman punishment, which led then to figuring out how to justify that. And that’s where the original part of the screenplay takes shape because the relationship between the Octopus and the Spirit is at the heart of the story. It allowed me to make the Spirit a man who is existentially confused about why he came back from the dead."
http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Film-Review/the-spirit-frank-miller-interview

7) Miller is taking credit for achievements that are not his. When he brags: "I gave Batman back his balls", I wonder where he was in 1970. Despite the decline of O'neill and Adams, they did that, and their work was continued by the likes of Dick Giordano, Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez, Jim Aparo, Len Wein, Steve Englehardt & Marshall Rogers, Don Newton, and those few newer writers already mentioned.

Miller is not taking credit for achievements that are not his. Frank Miller didn't say, "I gave Batman back his balls." Frank Miller said, "It was really up to people of my generation to basically give Batman his balls back." Crediting people of his generation is very different than taking all of the credit himself.
[YT]mtkueo5c7UQ[/YT]

To put Miller in the league of Will Eisner, or even Neal Adams, is like comparing Tarantino to Orson Welles, Don Siegel, or Martin Scorsese. Only Miller is so much worse. DKR and 'Crisis . . ' were the end of the Bronze Age, and marked the beinning of the modern age, or the Iron Age as some call it. There is still basis for good stories, and a development of the characters, but Miller's input should be ignored.

If Frank Miller's Batman: Year One and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns were ignored then the many comics and films that followed their leads would not exist.
In Batman Begins when he fell into the hole when he was a kid and was frightened by the bats: That comes from Dark Knight Returns, which Denny O'Neil was influenced by to write The Man Who Falls story. Carmine Falcone was created by Frank Miller in Batman: Year One, Gordon's corrupt partner Detective Arnold Flass was created by Frank Miller in Batman: Year One, Police Commissioner Gillian B. Loeb was created by Frank Miller in Batman: Year One. Batman Begins used Frank Miller's Year One plot device, which was about a corrupt city with a corrupt police force that led Gotham City's need for Batman. The device on his boot to attract the bats of his cave to him was created by Frank Miller in Batman: Year One. The Batmobile as a tank concept originates in Dark Knight Returns. Batman using a spear gun originates in Dark Knight Returns.
Jeph Loeb is an obvious Frank Miller imitator. Long Halloween/Dark Victory are obviously influenced by Miller's Batman: Year One with Miller's creation The Roman and his mafia family, Harvey Dent prior to becoming Two-Face, Captain James Gordon, Selina Kyle showing up. And in Hush -- a trenchcoat-wearing face-bandaged Harvey Dent, a kiss with Selena, a fight with Superman, almost-killing of the Joker . . . sound familiar? That's all from Miller's Dark Knight Returns.
Catwoman: Her Sisters Keeper was obviously influenced by Frank Miller's Batman: Year One.
Batman: The Cult was obviously influenced by Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, with Batman fighting the leader of a huge gang that's attempting to take over Gotham, being defeated and ultimately beating the leader, thereby disbanding the gang. The many appearances of television reporters, the giant Bat-tank-like monster truck.
The votes to kill Jason Todd in A Death in the Family were obviously influenced by Jason Todd being dead in Dark Knight Returns.
Grant Morrison said that Arkham Asylum "was intended as a critique of the '80s interpretation of Batman as violent, driven and borderline psychopathic." That '80s interpretation of Batman comes from Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. So if Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was ignored then there would be no Batman: Arkham Asylum.
The Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight series was clearly influenced by Frank Miller's Batman: Year One.
Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns influenced and paved the way for Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Returns films. Sam Hamm said in the Comics Interview Super Special: Batman (1989), "The first issue of Dark Knight had just come out when I was first discussing the possibility of doing the screenplay. I went into the comics store to see what was going on in the field and I was pretty staggered! There was every reason to get excited. There is a bit of Dark Knight in the tone. There are a couple of literal swipes from Dark Knight -- the notion that he wears the emblem on his chest as a target, essentially, because he's trying to draw fire away from his head. There are a couple of other bits like that. The body armor stuff is one of the snatches from Dark Knight. When you sit down and try to work out the grit, the nuts and bolts of how the guy does what he does, you have to ask questions -- why doesn't he get shot. Frank Miller's solution seemed like the most logical one."
Batman's use of guns, particularly the spear gun is obviously influenced by Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Even Catwoman's costume in Batman Returns, which is a full bodysuit with cat-cowl and gloves with claws on them, is essentially a black rubber version of the Catwoman costume in Frank Miller's Year One, just without the tail (the whip represented the tail in Batman Returns. It was a euphemism for her tail.)
Michael Keaton said on a 2004 Catwoman A&E Biography, "Tim was really into the Frank Miller thing and knew it and understood it far more than I did." Danny Elfman said on the Batman DVD special feature Nocturnal Overtures: The Music of Batman, "After Beetlejuice I got a call from Tim saying 'I'm doing this thing you might be interested in it.' He sent me the Dark Knight comics and that was much more up my alley than what I had known of the original Batman comics as a kid."
[YT]dIWtNpejIas[/YT]

However, while I share many of Kurosawa's sentiments, I do not share Kurosawa's views that (superhero-)comics should not adress current political issues. On the contrary, art should always reflect the time it is made in. Only it should be done in a more refined and elegant way than the guy who is the topic for this thread does.

Political satire is not nice and polite, refined and elegant. Political satire ridicules politicians and other public figures. Writers should have the creative freedom to include political satire in comics.

PS: I see Byrne's 1986 Superman as a great tribute to the character, filled with affection. And as for his godly traits, the angelic figure who watch over mankinkind, despairs over evil, and is pure at heart, Superman also has an (all too) human side. He likes humans, and what's more imortant, he thinks of himself as a human being. He has doubts, and he can be hessitant, indecisive, or even mislead, but the essense of him is that he believes in the good in the human race, even if he sometimes is dissapointed.

Agreed here. In fact, in was revealed in Amazing Heroes #96, June 1986, that Miller talked to Byrne so that the Superman in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns could be based on his version. And Byrne talked to Miller about Batman so that in The Man of Steel "I could suggest the kind of Batman he was going to do."
http://superman.kinlok.nu/theages/History/end.php

His humanism is a luxury Batman cannot afford, but yet, if Batman did not share some of that view, he would have given up. Batman is not about revenge, he is not The Punisher. He is about defending what's left of good, he protects others. The main difference between them is that Superman does not allow himself to be bitter for long. He still believes in hope, while Batman is trying not to give up on hope. If not for himself, then at least for others. Something like that.

Batman is about avenging his parents by warring on crime for the rest of his life.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Miller dedicated this book to Theo van Gogh, which makes me wonder if Miller has received any sort of threats, etc, from extremists due to Holy Terror. Not that I would wish that on Miller or anyone, no matter how much I dislike their work.

Frank Miller has made public appearances promoting and signing Holy Terror at the Midtown Comics booth and the Legendary Comics booth at Comic-Con International in New York, and at Barnes & Noble in New York, without any threats or attempts to attack him, just smiling fans happy to meet him and for him, along with Bob Schreck, Editor-in-Chief of Legendary Comics, to sign their Miller items.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Red Dot Diva: "'Holy Terror' took a really long time in the making. What were the good parts and bad parts of such a long-drawn creative process?"

Frank Miller: "The best of it was what it did for the book itself. As my emotions got to be more calm, I was able to see it from a distance and decide on how to effectively do this story. That is, the subject is so emotionally charged and so grisly, and for all that carnage, one of the things was not to show anybody the image of a victim. Essentially, if that happened and if I was a reader, I'd close the book and toss it away. And the other thing was to add just a touch of humour, just to lighten things up.

The bad part was that I loved the project, and as much as I loved the movies I did that interrupted it (Sin City, The Spirit), it was never far from my thoughts and I was always eager to get to it."

Red Dot Diva: "And how much has it changed since you were first inspired about the project? I know that it was originally a Batman project and then it evolved and became The Fixer."

Frank affirmed: "Yes."

Red Dot Diva: "At what point did you realize that it was no longer Batman, and what made The Fixer, The Fixer?"

Frank Miller: "Good question. I've done a lot of Batman work and love the character. And I realized that the character had to behave in a way that Batman was not. This character kills people right and left. And it is generally a much harsher personality. So I talked to DC Comics and said you have a multi-billion franchise with Batman and you'd want to protect it. And logically, I would want to protect it. So let me take this away. This isn't a Batman story. The change to it being The Fixer was a very amicable one. And so I was then free to create a brand new character whom I ended up really falling in love with."

Red Dot Diva: "It has been 10 years since 9/11, and much information has been gathered since then and emotions have also now been calmer. How relevant do you think this book is at this time when people are more reflective?"

Frank Miller: "It's meant to be a work of propaganda and not a reportage or an instruction manual for anybody. (Laughs) I use the word propaganda because I think it's a very misused word. If there's a story where someone is trying to persuade anybody, it is propaganda. The way people use English - if they don't like the opinion, they call it propaganda. If they do like the opinion, they call it relevance. But it's exactly the same thing.

Mainly, I feel that in the American homefront has become complacent and has absorbed the impact the atrocity with a little too much ease. I want to remind people of how horrible the enemy we are up against is and the essential threat that al-Qaeda remains."

Red Dot Diva: "I notice the parts where there were bits of romance."

Frank smiled: "Yes, yes."

Red Dot Diva: "Was it thought of at the beginning.. or..? I liked those parts!"

Frank Miller: "Well actually, it was one of the first things I thought of because I wanted to begin with the romantic sequence so that people would see what we are fighting for... what we could lose in a repressive, totalitarian sort of existence. This is not in any way meant to be a religious piece. I was raised Catholic but I know a great deal about the Spanish Inquisition, and I don't know anything about Islam but I know a great deal about al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda I want to see slaughtered. I despise them."

Red Dot Diva: "Was there any scene in this book that you found particularly difficult to draw?"

Frank Miller: "Yes. The sequence after the initial attacks where you see the political figures and everything leading up to this (Red Dot Diva began flipping the pages of 'Holy Terror' to the part that Frank was referring to.) ... through here, was very difficult emotionally."

Red Dot Diva: "I noticed that. It was very sad."

Frank Miller: "I was breaking my own heart. The reason that I had the characters fade up into empty panels was to make you think of tombstones, and to show lives that have been annihilated. But to depict it in a way that doesn't show bloody corpses."

Red Dot Diva: "I thought it was very meaningful. In a very poetic way."

Frank acknowledged with a wistful smile: "Thank you."
http://reddotdiva.blogspot.com/2011/10/nycc-2011-holy-terror-diva-had-chat.html

 

[Holmberg]

@Man-bat:

Some of what you write is quite interesting, but at several points you're putting words into my mouth. I never said that comics or movies have created any violence in the world. On the contrary, I've always found such claims preposterous. It is Miller's take on various things I have a problem with.
I have the same issue of The comics Journal from 1982, and I should have used the exact quotes, but I can see that you have found it. I'll write back when I've read everything you wrote and reflected upon it. I will start by pointing out where I think you have put words in my mouth, and try to explain the difference between that and what I actually mean.

Let me for now just point out that I'm not talking about Ronin, Sin City, Martha Washington, Hard Boiled, Big Guy and ... etc. Only his take on the classic characters.


Where to start?

* I stated to begin with that comics, as any other art form, should have the possibility of being critical, satirical, and political. Never had a problem with that. You did poste that qoute also. Just have a problem with Miller's way of doing it. The use of Reagan, Khomeni, and other contemporary real life people, not just in Miller's stories but in many 1980's superhero comics, just make these stories seem unwillingly comical, even silly.

* As for the violence, it was from the comics journal # 71 I paraphrased the quote you found:"The book (Daredevil by Frank Miller) isn't about violence at all, it's just violent." Actually I liked his Daredevil, and I should have kept my criticism to his to Batman books. However, when I look through his early works now (Daredevil, Spiderman, Wolverine, and, yes, that 1979 Batman story) it my enjoyment of these are dampened by the anger I have for DKR.

* I am fully aware that "Her sister's keeper" is essentially just Year One told from Selina's perspective, but I liked that take better, because it did had more "heart" and gave more depth and understanding to this representation of Selina. Again, the Catwoman character means something to me, and I think Miller's way of handling it was horrible.

* I stopped reading things by Miller BECAUSE of Dark Knight Returns. DKR appealed to me as a little teenager, probably because kids at that age are confused and attracted to violence and noise, which is what I consider it to be now. I think younger kids can appreciate quality, but 14 year old. As a young man I started to remember what initially attracted me to the Batman universe, the mystique, the darkness, and the elegance in the style, and I realized that Miller's work is the exact opposite.
Because I'm so disgusted with DKR I have had no desire to go in depth with any of his following works. I browsed throgh DKSA, and it just confirmed what I had meant about for a long time.

* Miller's own motivation for telling his stories, doesn't really interest me as I do not like the result. These characters can and should evolve, and be used to tell stories of substance. What I think Miller is doing, however, is not evolving or adding anything, but simply deconstructing the Gotham and Metropolis characters. We will never agree on this, but I hope that I at least made my point clear that I really don't see Miller having contributed anything of value to Batman. All right, he has given some to Chris Nolan's Batman films, and they are, by far, the best, most coherent film interpretations I've seen of the Batman myth so far, and am likely to see.

* I also know the background story, I have dug into it many years. You don't have to tell me that Batman started out as a grim figure of the night, and that he was lightened up after the first year, and then progressively until he had became a pale shadow of his former self. I also know about his reinvention in 1964, after Sprang, Moldoff, and others had taken out all the darkness of it. Carmine Infantino took him in a new direction, added the oval around the bat (which you talk about). Then Neal Adams and Denny O'neil took him back to his roots, and he more or less stayed that way for the next couple of decades.

* Yes Miller DID say in a tv-special that HE gave Batman back his balls. I did not make it up. Those were his very words. I just wonder how he could claim that, considering that O'Neil & Adams had done that more than 15 years earlier.

* I did not say that Miller could be ignored. I only expressed the wish that he was. Both for DKR and his The Spirit interpretation. I am sick of the praise he gets, which I - and this is a very personal subjective opinion I want to add - think is vastly undeserved.

* Finally: I - and everyone else does too - that Batman is about avenging his parents' murder. What I said was that he was not about violence the way a character such as The Punisher is. Batman still has something he believes in.

It's midnight here, and I'm tired. Just needed to answer you, and let you know that I had read what you wrote. Will return with a more eloquent reply after I've had some sleep.

 

[theMan-Bat]

@Man-bat:

Some of what you write is quite interesting, but at several points you're putting words into my mouth. I never said that comics or movies have created any violence in the world. On the contrary, I've always found such claims preposterous.

That was Gary Groth, Dwight Decker, Ted White and Stanley Kauffman's claims and views about the violence that I was responding to there.

* I stated to begin with that comics, as any other art form, should have the possibility of being critical, satirical, and political. Never had a problem with that. You did poste that qoute also. Just have a problem with Miller's way of doing it. The use of Reagan, Khomeni, and other contemporary real life people, not just in Miller's stories but in many 1980's superhero comics, just make these stories seem unwillingly comical, even silly.

Political satire is willingly comical.

* As for the violence, it was from the comics journal # 71 I paraphrased the quote you found:"The book (Daredevil by Frank Miller) isn't about violence at all, it's just violent." Actually I liked his Daredevil, and I should have kept my criticism to his to Batman books. However, when I look through his early works now (Daredevil, Spiderman, Wolverine, and, yes, that 1979 Batman story) it my enjoyment of these are dampened by the anger I have for DKR.

Frank Miller's Daredevil has just as much violence and it's just as brutal as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. If you don't have a problem with it in Frank Miller's Daredevil then you shouldn't have a problem with it in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

* I am fully aware that "Her sister's keeper" is essentially just Year One told from Selina's perspective, but I liked that take better, because it did had more "heart" and gave more depth and understanding to this representation of Selina. Again, the Catwoman character means something to me, and I think Miller's way of handling it was horrible.

The Catwoman character means something to me, too, which is why I didn't like Mindy Newell's Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper because it went overboard in grim and grittiness and portrayed Selina Kyle as a submissive victim of male dominance and abuse and missed the strength, fun and humor of Selina Kyle in Frank Miller's Batman: Year One. In Batman: Year One Selina Kyle is a strong, tough, streetwise dominatrix who thinks for herself and punches out the pimp Stan and bought herself the cat costume. In Mindy Newell's Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper Selina Kyle is victimized, dominated and brutally beaten by the pimp Stan, left unconscious and ends up in the hospital, Selina refused to give up the name of the man who beat her and when she was released, she submissively went right back to the pimp Stan, the man who beat her, and he gave her the cat costume. I don't like Selina Kyle portrayed as weak and submissive like Mindy Newell wrote her at all. It's surprising that a woman wrote her like that, and I hate the idea that the Catwoman costume was a gift from Stan. Holly is also beaten in the story.

* I stopped reading things by Miller BECAUSE of Dark Knight Returns. DKR appealed to me as a little teenager, probably because kids at that age are confused and attracted to violence and noise, which is what I consider it to be now. I think younger kids can appreciate quality, but 14 year old. As a young man I started to remember what initially attracted me to the Batman universe, the mystique, the darkness, and the elegance in the style, and I realized that Miller's work is the exact opposite.
Because I'm so disgusted with DKR I have had no desire to go in depth with any of his following works. I browsed throgh DKSA, and it just confirmed what I had meant about for a long time.

I was 19 in 1986 and read Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and I loved it and still do. I had been reading Batman comics since 1975. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is not just fight scenes. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns has plenty of mystique and darkness. It's not illustrated in the same artistic style as Neal Adams and his many imitators. I enjoy both Miller and Adams artistic styles.

* Miller's own motivation for telling his stories, doesn't really interest me as I do not like the result. These characters can and should evolve, and be used to tell stories of substance. What I think Miller is doing, however, is not evolving or adding anything, but simply deconstructing the Gotham and Metropolis characters. We will never agree on this, but I hope that I at least made my point clear that I really don't see Miller having contributed anything of value to Batman. All right, he has given some to Chris Nolan's Batman films, and they are, by far, the best, most coherent film interpretations I've seen of the Batman myth so far, and am likely to see.

He has contributed much of value to Batman, as I pointed out, much more than just to Chris Nolan's Batman, whether you appreciate it or not.

* I also know the background story, I have dug into it many years. You don't have to tell me that Batman started out as a grim figure of the night, and that he was lightened up after the first year, and then progressively until he had became a pale shadow of his former self. I also know about his reinvention in 1964, after Sprang, Moldoff, and others had taken out all the darkness of it. Carmine Infantino took him in a new direction, added the oval around the bat (which you talk about). Then Neal Adams and Denny O'neil took him back to his roots, and he more or less stayed that way for the next couple of decades.

You left out Frank Miller's contributions. As Denny O'Neil said, in the documentary Heart of Vengeance: Returning Batman to His Roots, which is on the Batman: Year One DVD special edition and Blu-ray, "Neal, Julie Schwartz and I darkened the character and gave him some psychological realism, some psychological validity, and Frank (Miller) took Batman several shades darker."
Bronze Age Batman writer Len Wein said on the documentary, "When Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams took over the books they were actually looking for what made it work to begin with. The first thing you do when a book isn't working is - 'well, it worked for years, why?' And they sat down and they studied the original stories and went back to the creature of the night, they went back from being Batman - Mister Average Joe's pal, to The Batman - you don't want to be in the same room with him. Frank (Miller) took what Denny and Neal did and just expanded on it. He took it to it's extremes."

* Yes Miller DID say in a tv-special that HE gave Batman back his balls. I did not make it up. Those were his very words. I just wonder how he could claim that, considering that O'Neil & Adams had done that more than 15 years earlier.

No, like you misquoted Gary Groth, you are misquoting Frank Miller. I have seen every TV-special Frank Miller has appeared on. On the TV-special Comic Book Superheroes Unmasked Frank Miller said, "It was really up to people of my generation to basically give Batman his balls back." Crediting people of his generation is very different than taking all of the credit himself. Again, here is the TV-special where he said that.
[YT]mtkueo5c7UQ[/YT]

* I did not say that Miller could be ignored. I only expressed the wish that he was. Both for DKR and his The Spirit interpretation. I am sick of the praise he gets, which I - and this is a very personal subjective opinion I want to add - think is vastly undeserved.

Frank Miller is vastly underrated by people such as yourself.

* Finally: I - and everyone else does too - that Batman is about avenging his parents' murder. What I said was that he was not about violence the way a character such as The Punisher is. Batman still has something he believes in.

No, now you are misquoting yourself. What you said was that Batman is not about revenge, he is not the Punisher. And I quote:

Batman is not about revenge, he is not The Punisher.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22558927&postcount=313
And I responded that Batman is about avenging his parents by warring on crime for the rest of his life. And I posted this scan from Batman's origin by Bill Finger and Bob Kane.

It's midnight here, and I'm tired. Just needed to answer you, and let you know that I had read what you wrote. Will return with a more eloquent reply after I've had some sleep.

Nighty night.

 

[Holmberg]

First I have to say that I can see from my last post that I was tired, and should have waited to write. There are words missing here and there.

To the matter:

Frank Miller's Daredevil has just as much violence and it's just as brutal as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. If you don't have a problem with it in Frank Miller's Daredevil then you shouldn't have a problem with it in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

When he did those Daredevil (and a few Spiderman + the Batman "Santa" story) stories, he hadn't fully developed his style, and I don't think he had gone that far yet into "dark n' gritty"-land. Of course it's was a gradual evolution or progress, and one that doesn't appeal to me. You claim that those Darevil tales are just as brutal. Well, if they are, they do not strike me as so. When I look through DKR, and what I've seen of his works following that, I see an artistic evolution I cannot appreciate. The traits are there in his early works too, that much I can agree with you on, but they are not as extreme as they became. I don't know how else to put it, but his output has become progressively ugly since his early years. You can state that you think the opposite, and we won't get any further on the matter.
Also I didn't have the same kind of attachment to Daredevil as I had to Batman and related characters. I liked DD's visual design, and had read a few stories before Miller's run on it, but DD was a much more free canvas to paint on, as far as I'm concerned.

The Catwoman character means something to me, too, which is why I didn't like Mindy Newell's Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper because it went overboard in grim and grittiness and portrayed Selina Kyle as a submissive victim of male dominance and abuse and missed the strength, fun and humor of Selina Kyle in Frank Miller's Batman: Year One. In Batman: Year One Selina Kyle is a strong, tough, streetwise dominatrix who thinks for herself and punches out the pimp Stan and bought herself the cat costume. In Mindy Newell's Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper Selina Kyle is victimized, dominated and brutally beaten by the pimp Stan, left unconscious and ends up in the hospital, Selina refused to give up the name of the man who beat her and when she was released, she submissively went right back to the pimp Stan, the man who beat her, and he gave her the cat costume. I don't like Selina Kyle portrayed as weak and submissive like Mindy Newell wrote her at all. It's surprising that a woman wrote her like that, and I hate the idea that the Catwoman costume was a gift from Stan. Holly is also beaten in the story.

This part is really interesting -and confusing - to me. You think that Birch went overboard is grim and grittiness, which is exactly how I feel about the two Miller books. I really don't like the dominatrix part, or the origin of that costume. We agree on the latter half. Just want to mention that the silver age origin with the stewardess suffering from amnesia was very silly, but this to me is too big a step in the opposite direction. What I did think about Catwoman: Her sister's keeper was that it also showed a softer side of Selina. The submissive and abused part we agree on. I saw Her sister's keeper as an attempt of "damage control" in regard to Miller's unremittingly bleak vision, and from what I've been to gather about the Catwoman in stories from the last two decades, they retconned her background story.
Miller has shaped people's perception of the world of Gotham since then, which I think is a shame. Many better stories have been written, and could be written still, about these characters. Miller's Batman is not the "real" Batman to me, or the one I want, but I know I'm in the minority group.

I was 19 in 1986 and read Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and I loved it and still do. I had been reading Batman comics since 1975. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns is not just fight scenes. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns has plenty of mystique and darkness. It's not illustrated in the same artistic style as Neal Adams and his many imitators. I enjoy both Miller and Adams artistic styles.

I was 11 in 1986, but was by then deeply into Batman (and many other comics). Batman I started reading in 1981, at the age of six, and the style I fell in love with is the one associated with the Bronze Age. After reading the Miller stuff for the remainder of my teens, I went back to the Batman, and other heroes, from that time. I like some of the newer stories, but those I do prefer are probably more of the "loyal" type. As an adult I found Marvel and DC to confusing to keep up to date with, because they constantly changed - or even killed off- characters I had known for many years.

You left out Frank Miller's contributions. As Denny O'Neil said, in the documentary Heart of Vengeance: Returning Batman to His Roots, which is on the Batman: Year One DVD and Blu-ray, "Neal, Julie Schwartz and I darkened the character and gave him some psychological realism, some psychological validity, and Frank (Miller) took Batman several shades darker."
Bronze Age Batman writer Len Wein said on the documentary, "When Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams took over the books they were actually looking for what made it work to begin with. The first thing you do when a book isn't working is - 'well, it worked for years, why?' And they sat down and they studied the original stories and went back to the creature of the night, they went back from being Batman - Mister Average Joe's pal, to The Batman - you don't want to be in the same room with him. Frank (Miller) took what Denny and Neal did and just expanded on it. He took it to it's extremes."

Yes, that's what I have been trying to say: he took it to extremes. Unnecessary extremes. When Adams and O'Neil took over the character, Batman was ailing, saleswise and in all other ways. They took him back to his roots, back to when it worked. They fixed it because it needed it. As the saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They had fixed it because it needed it, Miller didn't fix anything that needed fixing. If anything was wrong with Batman between Adams and Miller, I would say the Gene Colan stuff was awful, but apart from that I think the Bronze Age Batman was doing fine. It also a continuation of that line I see in the Bane related stories.

Frank Miller is vastly underrated by people such as yourself.

Considering that many people consider him a near-genius I don't think he is underrated. "People such as myself" are the minority among readers of this type of comics. Again, we're back to square one. I find him as vastly overrated as you do the opposite. I don't try to disguise subjectivity as objectivity. It would be foolish to do so.

No, now you are misquoting yourself. What you said was that Batman is not about revenge, he is not the Punisher. And I quote:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22558927&postcount=313
And I responded that Batman is about avenging his parents by warring on crime for the rest of his life. And I posted this scan from Batman's origin by Bill Finger and Bob Kane.

I should have written that he is not just about revenge, or that he is about more than revenge. His parent's murder is the thing that drives him, but he also wishes to protect other innocents from what happened to his parents. Tons of stories have been written about his humanistic sentiments, but at the same time he is obsessive in his war on crime. His obsession also affects his relationship with people such as Catwoman and Nightwing, with whom he has one of the best portrayed troubled "father and son" relationships seen in comics. I think Marv Wolfman was the first to delve deeper into that. The reason I mentioned The Punisher, is that unlike him Batman is not violent by nature, he has been driven to violence, and still believes in the value of a human life.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Frank Miller looks old and sick in those pictures.

 

[Cain]

Frank Miller looks old and sick in those pictures.

It looks like all that pent-up negative energy he's carried since the mid 90's physically aged him by another 20 years

 

[Drz]

Frank Miller looks old and sick in those pictures.

He smokes.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Frank Miller looks old and sick in those pictures.

A 55 year old showing signs of ageing without Botox, face lifts, plastic surgery. Frank Miller's not a spring chicken, he's 55 years old now, and he's always been lanky framed. Tom Hanks is the same age as Frank Miller and people have commented that he's looking older now as well. You can't expect everyone to look 25 forever. Everyone ages, it's part of life and not everyone wants plastic surgery.

It looks like all that pent-up negative energy he's carried since the mid 90's physically aged him by another 20 years

Frank Miller doesn't have pent-up negative energy, he's always been outspoken about anything that's bothered him.

 

[theMan-Bat]

First I have to say that I can see from my last post that I was tired, and should have waited to write. There are words missing here and there.

To the matter:


When he did those Daredevil (and a few Spiderman + the Batman "Santa" story) stories, he hadn't fully developed his style, and I don't think he had gone that far yet into "dark n' gritty"-land. Of course it's was a gradual evolution or progress, and one that doesn't appeal to me. You claim that those Darevil tales are just as brutal. Well, if they are, they do not strike me as so. When I look through DKR, and what I've seen of his works following that, I see an artistic evolution I cannot appreciate. The traits are there in his early works too, that much I can agree with you on, but they are not as extreme as they became. I don't know how else to put it, but his output has become progressively ugly since his early years. You can state that you think the opposite, and we won't get any further on the matter.
Also I didn't have the same kind of attachment to Daredevil as I had to Batman and related characters. I liked DD's visual design, and had read a few stories before Miller's run on it, but DD was a much more free canvas to paint on, as far as I'm concerned.

Frank Miller didn't write the Batman story "Wanted: Santa Claus-Dead or Alive" (1979), Denny O'Neil wrote that one. Frank Miller didn't write the Spider-Man stories he penciled from 1979 to 1981, either, Bill Mantlo, Peter Gillis, Denny O'Neil, Chris Claremont and Herb Trimpe wrote those. Frank Miller wrote Daredevil, first co-writing Daredevil with Roger McKenzie in 1980 and Miller began writing Daredevil on his own beginning in 1981. Frank Miller's Daredevil was very dark and gritty and brutally violent, which is what some people were complaining about. Frank Miller's Daredevil was just as dark and gritty and brutally violent as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Frank Miller's Daredevil comics were very dark, no lighter than Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Because Batman is such a widely known iconic character, Frank Miller's Daredevil material is largely overlooked and overshadowed today and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns gets the credit for starting the dark and gritty Modern Age of comic books. Frank Miller's Daredevil writing from 1980 to 1983 is where it really started, before Alan Moore's Marvelman 1982-1984 run, before Marv Wolfman's Vigilante (1983), before Howard Chaykin's American Flagg! (1983), before Frank Miller's Ronin (1983-1984), before Alan Moore's Swamp Thing 1984-1987 run, before Steven Grant's The Punisher (1986), before Howard Chaykin's The Shadow: Blood and Judgement (1986), before Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (1986) and before Alan Moore's Watchmen (1986-1987), there was Frank Miller's Daredevil run. Frank Miller's Daredevil run was a major departure from the Bronze Age law-abiding lawyer superhero to a dark gritty vigilante. Frank Miller's transformation of Daredevil symbolizes the change of an era from the lighter Bronze Age lead by Denny O'Neil's relevance drama and Neal Adams' grounded rendering to the Modern Age lead by Frank Miller's dark noir and Alan Moore's horror comics.
And long before Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Sin City, Frank Miller had already developed his signature dark noir visual artistic style in 1981 and 1982 on Daredevil with silhouetted figures, low-key lighting, heavy shadows, Miller illustrated Bullseye in darkness behind prison bars in a big cell long before he created Sin City.

This part is really interesting -and confusing - to me. You think that Birch went overboard is grim and grittiness, which is exactly how I feel about the two Miller books. I really don't like the dominatrix part, or the origin of that costume. We agree on the latter half. Just want to mention that the silver age origin with the stewardess suffering from amnesia was very silly, but this to me is too big a step in the opposite direction. What I did think about Catwoman: Her sister's keeper was that it also showed a softer side of Selina. The submissive and abused part we agree on. I saw Her sister's keeper as an attempt of "damage control" in regard to Miller's unremittingly bleak vision, and from what I've been to gather about the Catwoman in stories from the last two decades, they retconned her background story.

Instead of softening Frank Miller's version of Selina Kyle, Mindy Newell went much further into grim and grittiness. I view Mindy Newell's Catwoman: Her Sister's Keeper as a very poor attempt at imitating Frank Miller's Batman: Year One.

Miller has shaped people's perception of the world of Gotham since then, which I think is a shame. Many better stories have been written, and could be written still, about these characters. Miller's Batman is not the "real" Batman to me, or the one I want, but I know I'm in the minority group.

Gotham as a dark, dangerous and corrupt place with crime bosses, etc., goes back to Bill Finger and Bob Kane's early Batman stories. Denny O'Neil brought that back and Denny O'Neil added to that in the Bronze Age when Denny O'Neil created Gotham's Crime Alley in 1976, Steve Englehart created Boss Thorne in 1977, and Frank Miller further re-popularized Gotham as a dark, dangerous and corrupt place with Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One for contemporary audiences.

I was 11 in 1986, but was by then deeply into Batman (and many other comics). Batman I started reading in 1981, at the age of six, and the style I fell in love with is the one associated with the Bronze Age. After reading the Miller stuff for the remainder of my teens, I went back to the Batman, and other heroes, from that time. I like some of the newer stories, but those I do prefer are probably more of the "loyal" type. As an adult I found Marvel and DC to confusing to keep up to date with, because they constantly changed - or even killed off- characters I had known for many years.

While I loved the Bronze Age Batman comics of my childhood, I also loved the Golden Age Batman I'd first seen in the book The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes: Batman, and I loved Frank Miller's Batman comics of my late teens and twenties onward and many others.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Yes, that's what I have been trying to say: he took it to extremes. Unnecessary extremes. When Adams and O'Neil took over the character, Batman was ailing, saleswise and in all other ways. They took him back to his roots, back to when it worked. They fixed it because it needed it. As the saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They had fixed it because it needed it, Miller didn't fix anything that needed fixing. If anything was wrong with Batman between Adams and Miller, I would say the Gene Colan stuff was awful, but apart from that I think the Bronze Age Batman was doing fine. It also a continuation of that line I see in the Bane related stories.

I love Gene Colan's Batman stuff. Frank Miller took Batman and Joker closer to Bill Finger and Bob Kane's original extreme version of them than Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, and Dick Giordano had. O'Neil, Adams and Giordano were restricted by the Comics Code Authority.
About Batman #251 (1973) "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge!", Denny O'Neil said, "I wondered if the Comics Code would let us get away with that many murders in a story, but again, you could never predict the Comics Code, but we didn't hear a peep from them. But there's no point in doing a maniacal clown who isn't maniacal. Then you've just got a clown. Big deal. And the Joker had started out, no matter who had created him; three people have claimed him (chuckle), but it was a great idea for a villain. I think in all of the trickster characters, in all of the literature of the world there is no better one than The Joker, but he had to be homicidal and insane for it to work as a story. So that's what we did. But at the time, 'Okay, you've got a homicidal maniac and he has to be the protagonist 12 times a year.' I was never satisfied with the work I did for Joker. Given the Comics Code there was just no way to make it work. He had to be Hannibal Lecter in order to be consistent and logical and be The Joker, and he couldn't be that back then. Now with the freedom comics guys have they could probably make it work."
http://www.wtv-zone.com/silverager/interviews/oneil_2.shtml
Neal Adams trained Frank Miller as an artist and got Frank Miller his first job the comic book industry, and Denny O'Neil and Dick Giordano asked and encouraged Frank Miller to make Batman: Year One and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Frank Miller said in his introduction to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns the tenth anniversary edition, "Dick Giordano was editor-in-chief of DC Comics at the time, and he'd been pushing this Batman thing for many a month. He was relentless. He was fixated. 1984. In any number of restaurants and hotel bars. Many times. Dick Giordano says sure, Batman's sales are flat. But look at what happens any time somebody conducts one of those reader surveys in the fanzines, Batman's just about everybody's favorite character. The time is more than ripe for a high-profile, all-out relaunch of the old war horse. 1985. On board an airplane headed for Texas. Dick Giordano and I sip white wine and talk. Enthusiastically, if clumsily, I lay out to him the collection of ideas I've got for this Batman thing he's wanted me to do. I fire a barrage of scenes at Dick. He urges me on."
Dick Giordano was also the editor of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Dick Giordano said in the May, 1986, Meanwhile... column, "It's definitely the Batman story I always wanted to read! Frank Miller has outdone himself on this one. Quite simply, it's the best work of his career. And for very good reasons: 1) It's clearly a labor of love. We all always knew that Frank Miller and Batman were meant for each other, didn't we? 2) Frank has evolved a new method of working in which he continually edits, improves, rewrites, and/or redraws each sequence, each page, until it satisfies him. When the first issue was turned in completed, the story bore only a surface resemblance to the script we started with and fully half the pages had new panels cut and taped into them as Frank moved things around when new ideas came to him. The book was so much better than the script we started from. In a letter from Frank dated August 4, 1985, the opening paragraph read: 'Dear Dick, Please...take these pages away before I rework them again!'"
Denny O'Neil asked Frank Miller to make Batman: Year One and Denny O'Neil was the editor of Batman: Year One. In Amazing Heroes #102 Frank Miller said "Denny O'Neil wanted to revitalize Batman in the regular DC books after Dark Knight and approached me to use my notes to construct a new beginning for Batman. The 'Batman: Year One' issues are based on those notes."
In Comics Journal #106 (1986) Denny O'Neil talked about wanting to rejuvenate Batman in the regular Batman title with Frank Miller.

Considering that many people consider him a near-genius I don't think he is underrated. "People such as myself" are the minority among readers of this type of comics. Again, we're back to square one. I find him as vastly overrated as you do the opposite. I don't try to disguise subjectivity as objectivity. It would be foolish to do so.

Frank Miller is very polarizing. People tend to either love or hate his material. Few consider his material just so-so.

I should have written that he is not just about revenge, or that he is about more than revenge. His parent's murder is the thing that drives him, but he also wishes to protect other innocents from what happened to his parents. Tons of stories have been written about his humanistic sentiments, but at the same time he is obsessive in his war on crime. His obsession also affects his relationship with people such as Catwoman and Nightwing, with whom he has one of the best portrayed troubled "father and son" relationships seen in comics. I think Marv Wolfman was the first to delve deeper into that. The reason I mentioned The Punisher, is that unlike him Batman is not violent by nature, he has been driven to violence, and still believes in the value of a human life.

Right, and Frank Miller also said in Amazing Heroes #102 (1986), "He's not out to just punish the Joe Chills of the world for killing his parents. He's much bigger than that; he's much more noble than that. He wants the world to be a better place, where a young Bruce Wayne would not be a victim, where his parents would not be murdered. In a way, he's out to make himself unnecessary. Batman is a hero who wishes he didn't have to exist. To Batman every single victim is a young Bruce Wayne." But the man who shot the Wayne's parents, "is no one special to Batman," Miller contends. "He's simply the member of the enemy army who happened to pull the trigger on his parents."

 

[Kurosawa]

Frank Miller looks old and sick in those pictures.

I don't think he was ever young, tbh. He seems to be what he writes-not that he's a heavy drinking noir guy, but you know what I mean. I think that's why he's magic for gritty crime books and bad for anything lighter-it's just not who he is.

I wonder if DC ran away from this project due to the possible negative publicity/reactions from the Islamic community. Regardless, I'm glad he took it on his own and I hope he just sticks with his faux Batman instead of doing more damage to the real thing, and worse yet, Superman, who has never fully recovered from the damage DKR did to his reputation and standing.

 

[Drz]

Paul Levitz just doesn't like very graphic books and things that he finds repulsive is the right bet.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

A 55 year old showing signs of ageing without Botox, face lifts, plastic surgery. Frank Miller's not a spring chicken, he's 55 years old now, and he's always been lanky framed. Tom Hanks is the same age as Frank Miller and people have commented that he's looking older now as well. You can't expect everyone to look 25 forever. Everyone ages, it's part of life and not everyone wants plastic surgery.

Was not meant to be a negative comment. He should add a few pounds.

 

[Kurosawa]

I really see Miller as the inheritor to the tradition of Lev Gleason and Bil Gaines, even though I'm sure he'd be disgusted by that, as they were both leftists and Gleason was supposedly even a communist. But for hard-hitting, gritty, sleazy crime-he is the man. I just don't like his approach to superheroes.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Frank Miller particularly admires EC Comics publisher Bill Gaines, especially for being the one Golden Age publisher to defend dark gritty comic books in front of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee in 1954. Miller said in Batman: Comics Interview Super Special, "I don't want our rights lost over some person's hang-ups. The comics industry did not exactly act courageously the last time there was a threat. You know, Bill Gaines was left standing out there alone."
Miller had young Denny Colt reading Crime SuspenStories #20 (1953) in The Spirit movie.

I don't think he was ever young, tbh. He seems to be what he writes-not that he's a heavy drinking noir guy, but you know what I mean. I think that's why he's magic for gritty crime books and bad for anything lighter-it's just not who he is.

"If I allowed characters to express only my own attitudes and beliefs, my work would be pretty darn boring." - Frank Miller's reply to a reader in the 300 comics letter column. He can write lighter comics, The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot for example. Because of his love for gritty noir, he usually prefers to write gritty noir stories.

I wonder if DC ran away from this project due to the possible negative publicity/reactions from the Islamic community. Regardless, I'm glad he took it on his own and I hope he just sticks with his faux Batman instead of doing more damage to the real thing, and worse yet, Superman, who has never fully recovered from the damage DKR did to his reputation and standing.

I hope Frank Miller keeps on writing Batman and Superman. Superman's reputation and standing has not been damaged by Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Superman had his patriotic, wholesome scout image long before Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Batman had fought Superman with Kryptonite in issues of World's Finest Comics long before Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. The Superman franchise has had success since Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was released in 1986. The Man of Steel (1986) was a hit. John Byrne's 1986-1988 Superman run was a hit. Superman: The Earth Stealers (1988) was a hit. World's Finest (1990) was a hit. The Death of Superman, Funeral for a Friend and Reign of the Supermen/Return of Superman (1992-1993) was a huge hit. Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993-1997) was a hit. Superman vs. Aliens (1995) was a hit. Superman: The Animated Series was a hit (1996-2000). Kingdom Come (1996) was a hit. Superman: The Wedding Album (1996) was a huge hit. Superman for All Seasons (1998) was a hit. Superman: Peace on Earth (1998) was a hit. The Incredible Hulk vs. Superman (1999) was a hit. Smallville (2001-2011) was a hit. Superman: Birthright (2003-2004) was a hit. Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (2003) was a hit. Superman: Red Sun (2003) was a hit. Superman: For Tomorrow (2004-2005) was a hit. Superman/Batman: Supergirl (2004) was a hit. Superman: Secret Identity (2004) was a hit. All-Star Superman (2005-2008) was a hit. Superman Returns (2006) was a hit (a moderate hit compared to Batman Begins, but still a hit). Superman: Doomsday (2007) was a hit. Superman: Earth One (2010) was a hit. Superman: Secret Origin (2010) was a hit. Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (2010) was a hit. Superman: Grounded (2010) was a hit. The All-Star Superman (2012) movie was a hit. Grant Morrison's rebooted Superman (2011-current) is a hit currently. You might not like all of these Superman comics and TV series and films, I don't like them all, either, but they are successful Superman material.

 

[Cain]

Frank Miller doesn't have pent-up negative energy, he's always been outspoken about anything that's bothered him.

It was a joke; just like the book this thread was named after t:

 

[theMan-Bat]

Sarcastic humor is difficult to deduce in text since sarcasm is often so dependent on tone of voice and body language. Holy Terror is no joke. It's about an al-Qaeda terrorist attack. It's inspired by the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. Frank Miller had moved back to New York and was just blocks from the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. "Everything is material." - Frank Miller.
http://convergingtoacenter.blogspot.com/2006/02/manga-artists-part-5-american-artist.html

 

[Cain]

I read the book Man-Bat and the writing was just completely laughable to me. I'm aware that the concept itself is inspired by something that isn't a laughing matter (I'm a native NYC resident who was around and lost people during 9/11) but this book read so awful to me that it just made me laugh.

I actually don't mind a lot of old Frank's current unpopular writing too (I love ASB&R and I'm mad that Dark Knight: Boy Wonder has yet to come out) but this Holy Terror business did nothing for me at all but make me laugh at how unbelievably mad it was at times but not in the same charming way that Miller's recent Batman works have.

 

[Ponyboy]

damn! I keep meaning to pick this book up finally. I wouldn't call myself a Miller fanboy, though I can't really think of anything he's done that I didn't enjoy on some level.

 

[Drz]

The art and storytelling is absolutely fantastic, but i really don't see why people are so bothered how "Islamphobic" the book is, considering pretty much the same fans approve of stuff like Sin City or Batman where Miller has put the church or christian people in bad light as well.

It's a fun action story thats clearly also a Batman story with "not Batman" fightning againts an organization compared to KOBRA/AIM/HYDRA but here it simply is the Al Quada.

 

[Octoberist]

Think of bands that you like. You buy their albums, and one album sucked or just lacked the creative spark that the previous albums had. But you try to convince yourself that one bad album was as good as the others, but in reality, it was just wasn't up to snuff.