The Dark Knight Frank Miller on TDK

[Bim]

No wonder fanboys get a bad name. I have not once, not ever, seen a generally humble and respectable response to anyone that's criticized or judged fanboy's films in a negative fashion. Even if they were clearly joking (see the damn outcry over a joke RDJ made). I could literally predict every single response in this thread before even reading a single word.

And the very fact that some of you are so quick to dismiss a central figure who's responsible for this character flourishing as the dark character he is, and whose work inspires the character's modern writers today...is almost saddening.

Quoted for truth

 

[hatebox]

It's a curious criticism though, given that Year One basically features Gordon as the central figure.

And on a non related note, The Spirit looks really bad. Beyond self-parody bad.

 

[CRABBAH HUK!]

I've been accused in the past for being a Frank Miller apologist. I enjoy most of his work...including DKSA and ASBAR on their own merits.

He has dedicated much of his career to Batman and is well within his rights to comment on any manifestation of him within our culture, but I don't sense the same reverence for the character that he might have once had...and he is no longer the 'authority' on him that he thinks he is.

Furthermore, he has seemed bitter about his Year One movie project getting shelved to be replaced by Batman Begins.

For those of you who have not read his script, it is disrespectfully and indefensibly unrecognizable from the Year One graphic novel or anything else in the Batman mythos. For example, Alfred was replaced by Little Al...a "jive-talkin'" African American car mechanic. An amnesiac Bruce Wayne, who lives above the auto shop, goes around at night, ski-masked and clad in all black, punching bad guys in the face. On his fist he wears his father's ring, initialed 'TW'...which leaves the mark of a bat sillouhette on each perp's face. Thus, the cops and media dub the assailant 'Batman'.

Here's more:

http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_jett_yearonereview.html

Frank Miller has the right to critique a movie same as the rest of us, but to call Nolan to task for not putting enough Batman in TDK? Maybe he's just taking the piss out of every one, but if he's not, he needs to eat more pills than Marv.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Maybe the Spirit was a piece of crap, and maybe Miller's gotten crazy over the years, but i agree with him.
Even if he isnt so good as he was back in the 80ies, his opinion is worth a lot. He revived batman after all.
Now his movies may be gimmicky, but i agree that Bruce/Batman deserved more screentime and what he says about Heath is also truth.
But i suppose he bursts the bubble for a lot of people who now pray to Heath almighty.

Look, I hate Frank Miller's current work as much as many here, but since when does that discount a man's right to an opinion? He was asked a question about the film. You're all acting like he should have just lied and said he felt that they got everything right, simply because of the fact that he's done some mediocre work in the present. He wasn't asked "Hey, Mr. Miller, how does The Dark Knight stack up against your current work?". He was asked how he felt about TDK, and he delivered an answer. An answer, might I add, that could have been a hell of alot worse.

This as well. Many of us have nitpicked and whined on TDK's elements, why cant Miller do the same? It doesnt mean that we or he didnt like it

 

[The Joker]

After watching The Spirit, I don't take anything Miller says about making a good comic book movie seriously.

 

[hatebox]

Now his movies may be gimmicky, but i agree that Bruce/Batman deserved more screentime and what he says about Heath is also truth.

Batman alone (ie. not even including Bruce scenes) got more screentime than the Joker. I know that's an arbitrary point, but it's worth stating. And 90% of the time Joker was around all he could talk about was batman.

 

[Heretic]

For a long time the concept of Batman has grown beyond one character and is now about an entire city and its inhabitants. I thank Frank Miller for being partially responsible for that.

It seems to me that Miller ha always overstated his importance to comics. Even when i was a huge fan of his and bought everything he touched, his letters column diatribes seemed to be there to cement his opinion as fact (and I had previously thought Byrne's "A Flame About This High" to be high and mighty). Miller has now done more subpar batman work than he has above par Batman work...so he is not the official caretaker of the property as he seems to believe.

The Spirit is...well...I wonder what Will Eisner would think of that film? Of course, Miller probably thinks that he knows the character better than its creator. After that outright piece of garbage, Miller has no room to critique any film, let alone what is arguably the best ever inspired by the comic book medium.

 

[Figs]

I don't get what all the fuss is about??

The only thing that could be remotely seen as negative was that he said that there wasn't enough Batman in the film...which was somewhat true. I don't think that was negative like he hated it, just that well...there could have been a few more scenes with Batman is all.

Don't get me wrong I loved the movie and realized that having all these other characters(like Gordon and Dent especially)get good screen time was what helped make it better than past Batman films. All these characters that had an effect on Bruce/Batman were great but don't deny that there could have been at least a couple more scenes with Batman than just Bruce Wayne.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I don't get what all the fuss is about??

The only thing that could be remotely seen as negative was that he said that there wasn't enough Batman in the film...which was somewhat true. I don't think that was negative like he hated it, just that well...there could have been a few more scenes with Batman is all.

Don't get me wrong I loved the movie and realized that having all these other characters(like Gordon and Dent especially)get good screen time was what helped make it better than past Batman films. All these characters that had an effect on Bruce/Batman were great but don't deny that there could have been at least a couple more scenes with Batman than just Bruce Wayne.

I agree with you. The fact that core batman characters got enough screentime contributed to the quality of the film. But the only problem wasnt that Bruce didnt have enough scenes, it was that they were too short and they seemed like something that had to get out of the way so that Nolan could get back to showing us what was going on in the city. I liked how the story was about the city, but Nolan didnt give Bruce enough time for us to see that the film was really about him. It was, i knew it was when i was watching it, but every time Bruce was talking with Alfred, i felt that Nolan was in a hurry to get back to the city. Something like that.


Anyway, i dont think that Miller buried the TDK. He just stated his opinion which was good for the film i suppose. So no biggy just like Figs says. Why do people get so worked up over this?

 

[DarkKnight88]

To be fair, Frank Miller was VERY complementary of Batman Begins.

Frank Miller: (on "Batman Begins") I totally thought they did a damned good job. It was the first 'Batman' movie I've genuinely liked. I sat there, I watched it, and I came out of there going, 'Well done, man.' Sure, they used my stuff - they used everybody's stuff, but they used my stuff a lot - but they did it well, and that's all I care about. It was Batman. What I mean by that is, I thought the character was true. You understand, when I work on a character, I have a very, very hard time seeing anybody else's interpretation. I get very possessive. But when I went out to see this thing, I said, 'This is a pretty cool Batman.' I wasn't sitting there going, 'This is a merchandising tool.' I felt like it really had heart and substance, and Christian Bale with no doubt performed the best Batman I have ever seen.

http://www.movietome.com/people/49201/frank-miller/trivia.html

 

[CRABBAH HUK!]

To be fair, Frank Miller was VERY complementary of Batman Begins.

Frank Miller: (on "Batman Begins") I totally thought they did a damned good job. It was the first 'Batman' movie I've genuinely liked. I sat there, I watched it, and I came out of there going, 'Well done, man.' Sure, they used my stuff - they used everybody's stuff, but they used my stuff a lot - but they did it well, and that's all I care about. It was Batman. What I mean by that is, I thought the character was true. You understand, when I work on a character, I have a very, very hard time seeing anybody else's interpretation. I get very possessive. But when I went out to see this thing, I said, 'This is a pretty cool Batman.' I wasn't sitting there going, 'This is a merchandising tool.' I felt like it really had heart and substance, and Christian Bale with no doubt performed the best Batman I have ever seen.

http://www.movietome.com/people/49201/frank-miller/trivia.html

First I've ever seen of that interview. It seems sincere and honest. The last one I saw where he refered to BB he said something along the lines of, "That was Year One...they're not foolin anybody!" He seemed bitter to me, but he may have been jokin a bit.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Mother of God, this thread is still open?

Opinion. Opinion. Or just read it again.

 

[Bubastis]

I just read that quote from Miller for the first time. The guy who wrote Batman: Year One is complaining about Batman not being prominent?

What the **** ever.

 

[Mr. Earle]

To be fair, Frank Miller was VERY complementary of Batman Begins.

Frank Miller: (on "Batman Begins") I totally thought they did a damned good job. It was the first 'Batman' movie I've genuinely liked. I sat there, I watched it, and I came out of there going, 'Well done, man.' Sure, they used my stuff - they used everybody's stuff, but they used my stuff a lot - but they did it well, and that's all I care about. It was Batman. What I mean by that is, I thought the character was true. You understand, when I work on a character, I have a very, very hard time seeing anybody else's interpretation. I get very possessive. But when I went out to see this thing, I said, 'This is a pretty cool Batman.' I wasn't sitting there going, 'This is a merchandising tool.' I felt like it really had heart and substance, and Christian Bale with no doubt performed the best Batman I have ever seen.

http://www.movietome.com/people/49201/frank-miller/trivia.html

Apart from being a bit arrogant for his work, i can understand where he is coming from. Indeed, BB had a lot of soul and it was a true Batman film. When Miller himself has no problem that for example Flass (Miller's creation if i am not mistaken) was changed a bit, why would we whine about it? Besides, Year One was 50% about Gordon, and thank god Nolan made BB 90% about Batman.
Also, i understand why he feels possessive. When we whine and nitpick in here, arent we asking for our version of the character, story, etc?

Miller has some sanity in him left. If only he concentrated, he could get ahead of the times again, like he did in the 80ies, and stop relying on gimmicks to act sophisticated.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Miller: What? No hookers? *walks out the theater*

Or Nazis?

 

[calibud]

Miller's opinion is his own, but I really have to disagree with the fact that "he's barely in it." Batman is in every single shot of that film. Not literally, of course, but he's the reason for the insanity that's plaguing Gotham.

I like Miller as an artist. He's creative, gritty, plays by his own rules. His style of artwork is like a degrading print of a black and white film and it's beautiful. I'm not sure of his skills as a director (90% of everything I've heard about The Spirit has been negative but I can't judge for myself).

"...he's barely in it" is ignorant.
It's a testament to Miller's own style that everything has to be completely over the top and/or violent and obscene in order to ride that edge which he presumes to turn people on. If Miller had it his way, Batman would be in every frame, beating the hell from someone, which surely works in a comic book. Not in film, which tends to be more complicated.
Like I said, I like the guy, but he's not known for his subtlety, is he? I'm personally glad they didn't, and will never, adapt DKR directly to film.