All I’m going to say is that when someone feels compelled to post a poll called Is All Star Batman for real or a parody?, What do YOU think?, then things may not be as clearcut as DC would want them to be. Millarworld? You have the floor:
“Um… where’s the option that it’s a parody that’s about a fifth as funny as Miller thinks it is?”
“In a sense, I think Miller is attempting to channel Jack Kirby in that it’s deliberately over the top – bombastic to the point of parody – but he’s failing miserably. Whereas Kirby did almost everything with a sense of wide-eyed innocence and total conviction, Miller’s stuff has a kind of snide cynicism to it that makes it feel like there’s some inside joke that we’re not privy to. It’s deliberately simple-minded – there’s no depth whatsoever beyond the sheer spectacle of it. And therefore it feels like we’re being ripped off. We all know the heights Miller can reach when he really tries, but he seems content to just coast along using a tenth of his talent. I mean seriously… how many man-hours do you think went into the script for #5? It’s 22 pages, more than a quarter of which are splash-pages!”
“One thing I have found interesting about reaction to this book is the number of people who have expressed reservations about the infamous ‘Supergirl’ or ‘Mary Jane’ statues, but think the portrayals of Black Canary or Wonder Woman in this book are just aces. Frankly, if I thought Miller was taking any of this seriously, I would find Wonder Woman’s ‘treat me bad and I’ll get wet for you’ hookup with Superman far more offensive than MJ and her laundry basket. And I’m not sure I don’t, anyway.”
“I don’t want to say it’s a parody, because I think it’s more than that. But I’m past considering the book as a great writer going bad. I think to say it’s a parody kind of belittles the sort of intertextual moments you get when comparing what Miller’s written, vs who the characters normally are. Hmm…I think I’m going to just play it safe and go with ‘I don’t care whether it’s intentional or not, because it’s one of the greatest things I’ve read in the medium in awhile’. The amount of joy this book currently brings me is really all that matters. I gave one of my friends the last issue, and now we quote lines from it as much as possible. Can you guys really find fault with a book that has given us both ‘I’m the GODDAMN Batman’ and ‘Out of my way, Spermbank’ in the same arc? This book is really bringing to light all the absurdities of the character and then turning them up to 11. If you haven’t made this book your own personal bible, then you haven’t read it enough times.”
May 25th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I’m sad to say I know people who would agree with the last comment. I think I’m more in the category of Miller’s work becoming a parody of itself. If intentional he should hurry up with the wink and nod and save some face, otherwise it means it’s unintentional and he is simply getting a paycheck and couldn’t care less about the work or what people think of it.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:33 am
To say Miller doesn’t care about the work is stupid. He loves these characters. He loves Batman, and you can deffinately see that he loves Plasticman. You can personally feel his glee sweating off the page. His laugh as he scribbles Batman’s. The dirty smirk as he writes Hal Jordan as he really is.
You may not like the book, that’s fine. Its not your cup of tea. Not everyone likes the same things, but to say that your sad for someone because they like a book you don’t, well, buddy, that makes you a dick.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
So I’m guessing that last quote was yours, Ubershep? Because you seemed to take that personally. It’s okay, man. No one was harmed in the making of my comment.
“If you haven’t made this book your own personal bible, then you haven’t read it enough times.”
This is the part of the above quote I found regrettable, so please reconsider your harsh condemnation of me because I believe it to be ill-conceived. This attitude reflects a portion of the Miller audience that goes beyond the enjoyment of the work to blind devotion and incomprehension to others who don’t also make it their “bible”. As a long-time Miller fan, since his original Daredevil run, I’ve noticed a very marked change in the level of craftmanship and impact of the finished work itself, as have a lot of fans.
“As much as I love doing my comics — that really satisfies the solitary part of my job — having another world that’s populated by people that I can yell at is wonderful. I can’t wait to be working with actors again. It’s my favorite part of the job.”
When given a quote like this by Miller it’s become apparent where his heart really is these days. Huge congrats to him on his Hollywood success, but again, his comic book work for DC simply isn’t nearly as satisfying as it once was.
May 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
@Ubership
Please cut out the fanwanky description of what Miller looks like when writing the book. Unless you share his studio or something that just plain nonsense, most importantly nonsense that can’t and couldn’t be supported by the text.
Second, the book is objectively bad. As a story with characters it fails on every level, lacking story and characterisation beyond the worst sort of stereotyping. As a metatextual exercise, cranking it all up to eleven, commenting on the superhero genre or somesuch it fails because (a) that’s been done before, up, down and sideways and it isn’t so much bold as very, very dated and (b) what laughable little it has to say about these characters is said at such an incredibly slow pace it’s like a demented old man taking five issues to say that yes, the Batman is a bit crazy. FFS, that’s the starting point of lots of fairly pedestrian Batman storries in regular continuity.
That said, one certainly can enjoy a bad book, almost everyone has a few of those. Doesn’t make the book any better.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“Second, the book is objectively bad.”
Someone apprently doesn’t know what objectively means. You cannot possibly state a work of art is objectively anything. The term “bad” is incredibly subjective in itself.