Comments on: Frank Miller: 4 Real. Unless he’s not.

By: Erik Scott

Erik Scott — Wed, 30 May 2007 19:48:01 +0000

“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.

By: markus

markus — Sun, 27 May 2007 18:48:51 +0000

@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.

By: Fanboy Menace

Fanboy Menace — Sat, 26 May 2007 01:13:47 +0000

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.

By: Ubershep

Ubershep — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:33:33 +0000

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.

By: Fanboy Menace

Fanboy Menace — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:27:02 +0000

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.