• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

Frank Miller's Holy Terror

It really blows my mind that you have such good taste so much of the time, and then you defend Frank Miller's fecal matter comics like they actually have value.

Sorry Mr. theMan-Bat, but I have to mark you down as a hopeless case. We don't need to discuss Miller any further. I will say I have never met anyone as completely dedicated to an artist as you are to him. If any writer I liked ever treated a character that I love as badly as Miller treated Superman, Dick Grayson, Selina Kyle, etc, I would tear them to bits no matter who they are. The characters matter more to me than the writers. If Grant Morrison degraded Superman like Miller did, then I would call him a worthless SOB just as quick as I do Miller or Byrne. No one is above criticism. I don't care about the creators, only the characters. Frank Miller is now a washed up hack, but Superman and Batman endure.


Surprise, there are people who like comics that you don't. I see much value in Frank Miller's Batman comics, as well as John Byrne's Superman comics. No amount of hateful Miller bashing or Byrne bashing you can muster is going to change that.
 
Last edited:
Lol, funny that most of what you said about not liking certain stories and etc. also aplies to Grant Morrison's Action Comics, which is a great comic and i must say that i don't think The Man of Steel is as good a story, i already pointed the reasons why he based the story around the original Siegel/ Shuster comics.

You pointed some minor reasons that contradict that fact, even after Morrison stating himself that he based it around the golden age, yet you use the argument that Miller liked Robin because he said so, but still don't accept that Morrison is basing himself on the golden age even after he said he did.

So, you think Frank Miller only speaks the truth and that Morrison is a lier? From what i see you still like Miller's work, but think Morrison's recent work is not very good.
 
Lol, funny that most of what you said about not liking certain stories and etc. also aplies to Grant Morrison's Action Comics, which is a great comic and i must say that i don't think The Man of Steel is as good a story, i already pointed the reasons why he based the story around the original Siegel/ Shuster comics.

You pointed some minor reasons that contradict that fact, even after Morrison stating himself that he based it around the golden age, yet you use the argument that Miller liked Robin because he said so, but still don't accept that Morrison is basing himself on the golden age even after he said he did.

So, you think Frank Miller only speaks the truth and that Morrison is a lier? From what i see you still like Miller's work, but think Morrison's recent work is not very good.

No, not at all. Neither of them are liers. Grant Morrison admitted that he would "recreate" Superman. "Change some of the basics" and reintroduce familiar characters in some unfamiliar ways.
http://insidepulse.com/2011/06/12/dc-comics-relaunch-grant-morrisons-action-comics-1-paul-cornells-stormwatch-1/
I did not deny that Morrison was influenced by the Golden Age Superman for his version. What I did was point out the many differences between Morrison's Superman and Jerry Siegel's Golden Age version to show that it is not the same version. As I said, I love Grant Morrison's older material. Particularly his Doom Patrol run (1988-1992), Batman: Arkham Asylum (1989) and Batman: Gothic (1990). I just dislike Morrison's recent material, and I still wouldn't stoop to trollishly calling it "fecal matter," or calling him a "washed up hack" just because his more recent material is not to my liking.
 
Last edited:
Calling Miller's **** what it is is hardly trolling, even the vast majority of modern fans feel he's washed up, and almost all Superman fans despise him. As I said, I care about the characters more than the creators, and as soon as a creator portrays a character in a manner that I don't like (unless it's their character), then they I lose respect for them. If Grant Morrison started humiliating Superman the way Miller did, then I would slam him just as hard. I could care less about any of these people, it's only the original creators of the characters who I deem above criticism.
 
Trolling is posting inflammatory, hostile comments on message boards to provoking an angry response. Name-calling "fecal matter" to a known fan of the material you are harassingly bashing is posting inflammatory, hostile comments with the apparent attempt at provoking an angry response. Criticism is one thing, and I am sure everyone is well aware of your opinion of Frank Miller's comics by now. Repeatedly posting harassingly inflammatory, hostile comments is another. And again, you are acting like your opinions are facts. Frank Miller has always been a controversial, polarizing writer and artist whose comics some like and some do not. You called me a "hopeless case," yet, here you are again, and obviously, as you must already know, I disagree with your opinion. No amount of hostile comments is going to change that, yet you have continued posting inflammatory, hostile comments to me such as "Calling Miller's **** what it is" with the apparent goal of provoking an angry response out of me.
 
Last edited:
Trolling is posting inflammatory, hostel comments on message boards to provoking an angry response. Name-calling "fecal matter" to a known fan of the material you are harassingly bashing is posting inflammatory, hostel comments with the apparent attempt at provoking an angry response. Criticism is one thing, and I am sure everyone is well aware of your opinion of Frank Miller's comics by now. Repeatedly posting harassingly inflammatory, hostel comments is another. And again, you are acting like your opinions are facts. Frank Miller has always been a controversial, polarizing writer and artist whose comics some like and some do not. You called me a "hopeless case," yet, here you are again, and obviously, as you must already know, I disagree with your opinion. No amount of hostel comments is going to change that, yet you have continued posting inflammatory, hostel comments to me such as "Calling Miller's **** what it is" with the apparent goal of provoking an angry response out of me.

You mean hostile?

What, you expect me to say the guy who started the trope of my favorite comic book character being a government toad and Batman's personal ***** is some kind of god? **** Frank Miller.

"Frank Miller hates superheroes."-Denny O'Neil.

Offering a contrary opinion is not trolling. I have not said anything about you personally, all I have said is it puzzles me how you can like great comics then turn around and like Miller's comics, but to each his own. I can't get through to you how harmful Miller's comics have been to Superman, and it's a hopeless case to try. For whatever reason, the guy has you fooled.

wonder-woman-frank-miller.jpg


Anyway, I'm gonna stop posting in your thread, we will never agree and I don't like even thinking about Miller's crap. Unfortunately, just as Morrison is trying to break the image of Superman as an ass-kisser and Batman's personal *****. DKR will be coming out as a DTV movie.

As I have said, I care about the characters, not the writers and artists. As soon as any writer or any artist disrespects a character I like, I will tear them to bits, and I don't care who they are and how famous or popular their work is. Morrison has said some stuff about Superman and Batman that I don't like, and I've torn him apart for that too. **** all of these guys if it comes down to it.
 
Last edited:
You mean hostile?

Easily made typo.

What, you expect me to say the guy who started the trope of my favorite comic book character being a government toad and Batman's personal ***** is some kind of god? **** Frank Miller.

I expect you to be able to discuss Miller civilly and politely.

"Frank Miller hates superheroes."-Denny O'Neil.

CHISTOPHER IRVING: "What sparked that love to return to superheroes?"
FRANK MILLER: "I loved them."
CHISTOPHER IRVING: "Was it an inciting incident that made you realize that?"
FRANK MILLER: "I wish I could give you some good copy here, but I can’t. I simply love superheroes, and have my entire life."
http://www.nycgraphicnovelists.com/2010/12/frank-miller-part-2-on-pastiche.html

Offering a contrary opinion is not trolling. I have not said anything about you personally, all I have said is it puzzles me how you can like great comics then turn around and like Miller's comics, but to each his own. I can't get through to you how harmful Miller's comics have been to Superman, and it's a hopeless case to try. For whatever reason, the guy has you fooled.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop posting in your thread, we will never agree and I don't like even thinking about Miller's crap. Unfortunately, just as Morrison is trying to break the image of Superman as an ass-kisser and Batman's personal *****. DKR will be coming out as a DTV movie.

As I have said, I care about the characters, not the writers and artists. As soon as any writer or any artist disrespects a character I like, I will tear them to bits, and I don't care who they are and how famous or popular their work is.

Criticism is one thing, and I am sure everyone is well aware of your opinion of Frank Miller's comics by now. Repeatedly posting inflammatory, hostile comments is another. I've already responded to your allegations and opinions throughout this thread. Again, we will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
CHISTOPHER RVING: "What sparked that love to return to superheroes?"
FRANK MILLER: "I loved them."
CHISTOPHER IRVING: "Was it an inciting incident that made you realize that?"
FRANK MILLER: "I wish I could give you some good copy here, but I can’t. I simply love superheroes, and have my entire life."
http://www.nycgraphicnovelists.com/2010/12/frank-miller-part-2-on-pastiche.html


You know, people often do not say what they really mean. Now we have this quote by O'Neil and the quote by Miller - but judging from the comics Miller has done I believe Denny O'Neil...
 
You know, people often do not say what they really mean. Now we have this quote by O'Neil and the quote by Miller - but judging from the comics Miller has done I believe Denny O'Neil...

Miller talks out both sides of his mouth to cover his ass.

“I wanted to recapture the feeling of DC Comics from when I was growing up. I deliberately did a very crude line and did my best to capture that,”-Frank Miller

What the **** is he talking about here? Whose art is "very crude" that he is referring to? Talk about a back-handed compliment.
 
You know, people often do not say what they really mean. Now we have this quote by O'Neil and the quote by Miller - but judging from the comics Miller has done I believe Denny O'Neil...

I believe the actual quote by Frank Miller himself with a link to the actual interview, rather than an alleged O'Neil quote without any evidence, link or scan, to back it up or context.
 
“I wanted to recapture the feeling of DC Comics from when I was growing up. I deliberately did a very crude line and did my best to capture that,”-Frank Miller

What the **** is he talking about here? Whose art is "very crude" that he is referring to? Talk about a back-handed compliment.

He doesn't call anybody's art very crude there except for his own art on that series. "I deliberately did a very crude line." He doesn't say "The art at DC Comics from when I was growing up had a very crude line." He doesn't say "I wanted to recapture the look of DC Comics from when I was growing up." He says "I wanted to recapture the feeling of DC Comics from when I was growing up."
Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again brought back Barry Allen as the Flash and Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, along with the Adam, Elongated Man, Plastic Man. He also said "I'm not out to simply do a reprint of stuff from the sixties." Also "At the very least, it's not a repetition of the first Dark Knight."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=192
"I felt that in the midst of all of this sturm und drang, we’d lost some of the central joy of the heroes. I wanted to get right back to the bone and break it all down, and show you that the Flash was cool because he’s really quick, and I don’t give a damn about his marriage. The Atom’s cool because he gets really little. The way I chose to make that cooler was instead of showing him getting smaller; I showed everything else around him getting bigger. But again, I don’t care about the Atom’s love life. One after the other, I was looking at the characters and getting back to what made them so cool at their core."
http://convergingtoacenter.blogspot.com/2006/02/manga-artists-part-5-american-artist.html
"When doing a character like the Atom, for instance, you find there's a million things that have never been done with him. For instance, nobody's ever actually told a story from his perspective; where, from the viewer's eye, rather than him getting tiny, the world gets bigger. When you do that, you start seeing all the surreal details that exist in something as simple as the bottom of a shoe. That's just one example. I've been playing around with a number of them and ways I can portray them."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=192
As for the very abstract cartoony art style he chose, Frank Miller was interviewed in The Comics Journal Library: Frank Miller (2003) and Gary Groth asked "How did you come up with the visual stylization? It’s somewhere between Big Foot and your Sin City style, but it’s–"
Frank Miller explained: "By the way of Alley Oop. Again, I was trying to make the stuff less formal. I wanted the superheroes to build up the parts of them that I thought would make them look the most heroic. In the case of Batman, I didn’t want barrel-chested. I went big shouldered and big formed and obviously gigantic hands and feet. It was a variation on what I do, for instance, with the women in Sin City, where they break down to a few curves to evoke. It was an attempt at something, because I thought everything had gotten too damn realistic. I like to enjoy what comic books can do that film can’t. There seems to be a bit of a hang-up now for people to make their fantasies real. I’d rather be doing Calvin & Hobbes than Rex Morgan."
http://www.4thletter.net/2009/04/sons-of-dkr-frank-miller-x-tcj/
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I am new on this board (joined today), and not well versen in internet forums, but this discussion is very interesting - and complex. I do have some views on the matter of these characters, which I cannot express to anyone else. The majority of people I know are not comics fanatics.

Let me start by saying that my interest and taste in comics is not restricted to superheroes. I am equally fond of the classic newspaper strips and the Franco-Belgian "La bande dessine"-tradition which more or less is the mother of the continental European comics. The British comics tradtion is more American in many ways. I am from Denmark, and the Franco-Belgian influence here was as strong as the American, so I grew up with all of it, including various American Underground comics.

On the topic: I have been a Batman fan since 1981, when at the age of six I was introduced to the character. It was also the year when I discovered Superman, Teen Titans, The Phantom, Spiderman, and Beetle Bailey. Before that my comics were Carl Barks' Donald Duck and the French Rene Goscinny's twin titans Asterix and Lucky Luke. All of these are still close to my heart to this day.

Now the Batman tales, and indeed superhero stories in general, that I prefer are from the Bronze era. There was a dark mystique as well as elegance to the Bat-universe in those years, which almost disappeared with Frank Miller.That is not to say that there are no good Batman stories after DKR, but the Miller influence is strong. Too strong I might add.

Beacuse my head is spinning with observations made over two decades I have had to put them in order, so bear with me.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.
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.

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. 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 ? I think that Newell & Birch's 'Her sister's keeper', while based on Year One managed to undo some of the damage done by Miller, by giving Selina's harsh background story some human heart.
Catwoman is the most important love interest for Batman, and his feline counter part. The only that should be, in my opinion. I think all the other love interests Julie Maddison, Vicki Vale, Silver St. Cloud, and especially Talia Al G'ghul have been weak characters.
The attraction with her is that, besides her physical presence, there is more depth to her. Many attempts have been made to tell a good love story (like 'The last angel' or 'Never scratch a cat'), but some writers have been to eager to return things to zero.
Catwoman is comics greates femme fatale, the nearest rival being Eisner's P'Gell.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

PS: I see Byrne's 1986 Superman as a great tribute to the character, filled with affection.
I don't want to go off-topic, but Tarantino sure is in their leagues :o
If you said Michael Bay i would understand, but not Tarantino! :cmad:
 
I respectfully disagree, but the reason I mentioned Tarantino was that he collaborated with Miller on the Sin City movie.

Michael Bay is the worst of the worst of directors. His comics opposite number would be Rob Liefeld. In my book.
 
Nah, Rob Liefeld is Uwe Boll.
In least Michael Bay still sells.
 
:yay:, but Boll doesn't have a high profile. I have never seen anything by the guy, and I just looked him up on IMDB.
 
I don't agree with all of your post (disagree completely about Byrne), but i do agree about Miller.

But I also do want superhero comics to address modern political issues, and that is why I thought Miller and Byrne got Superman so wrong. Superman would never be a toad to the US Government or any other government.
 
Glad that we agree on Miller, but I think the views on Byrne are too harsh. He's an idiot now, and hasn't done anything good since Next Men, but I think he was a good traditionalist back then. I don't see any violation of the Superman mythos in his 1986 - 1988 run.

I agree though, that Superman should neever be a stooge for any government, and he would have a will of his own. He would be more like Christopher Reeve's portrayal of him.

My introduction to Superman was a Curt Swan story with a Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez cover, so those two boys will always share the title of Definitive Superman Artist for me. Neal Adams and Rick Buckler also had some good moments. The weakest link in the Superman creative teams have most often been the writers. I think Moore & Gibbon's "to the man who has everything" took the "lonely Superman" to his conclusion. It was a great story on both art and writing. Although I think Moore went completely overboard with sickening violence by having The Joker cripple Barbara Gordon in "The Killing Joke", it was too much. The reason I would have to defend the 70's/80's-era Byrne, is that Superman had lost something essential to his origin by Siegel & Shuster. He is supposed to be the sole survivor of Krypton, but he was joined by Supergirl, Krypto the Superdog, the villains of the Phantom Zone, and the bottle City of Kandor. In fact, there were lots of Kryptonians, and no reason for him to feel lonely at all. Something had to fixed if Superman was to be believeable as the last son of Kryton. So all the surplus Kryptonians had to go. The only character I missed a little bit was Curt Swan's Faora, although she seems to be back somehow in a manner I don't know about.

I haven't followed Superhero comics since 1995, simply because I could not stand to watch what Miller and his bastard sons (or stupid younger brothers, they're are not that much younger than him), who founded Image Comics, did to the characters I was so fond of.
 
Last edited:
You know what would be nice? People actually talking about Holy Terror, sheesh.
 
I believe I did adress this Holy Terror at the beginning and at the end of my first post. I said that I felt it was in bad taste, and that Miller has been on a negative course for the better part of 30 years. All I've seen from this project, and all I've read about, and compared with what else he's been up to, tells me that this is better avoided.

This is not just about fanboy loyalty, but about a political nationalistic tendency which is growing in both both Europe and America, which I don't believe can lead to anything constructive. Nationalism is often defended as patriotism, but as Samuel Johnson so aptly put it: "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

Or to put it in another way, I think it would be wiser to seek dialogue than to seek confrontation in these troubled times.
 
I haven't followed Superhero comics since 1995, simply because I could not stand to watch what Miller and his bastard sons (or stupid younger brothers, they're are not that much younger than him), who founded Image Comics, did to the characters I was so fond of.

Image Comics wasn't that bad, well, Youngblood was terrible, but Spawn was cool, i never really read Savage Dragon but it seems to still be popular so it can't be that bad, and Wild Cats wasn't bad either
 
Erik Larsen and McFarlane were better than Liefeld and Portacio, but that doesn't say much. What those Image boys had in common was that they mostly created noise, and that they - in my humble opinion - pulled Superhero comics from Marvel/DC in a wrong direction, as writers, pencilers, and creators. They should have formed Image before that happened. Had they done so, it would have been easier to ignore them.
 
Erik Larsen and McFarlane were better than Liefeld and Portacio, but that doesn't say much. What those Image boys had in common was that they mostly created noise, and that they - in my humble opinion - pulled Superhero comics from Marvel/DC in a wrong direction, as writers, pencilers, and creators. They should have formed Image before that happened. Had they done so, it would have been easier to ignore them.

Larsen is the only Image guy that has any real understanding of comics and talent as a writer. Lee is shallow, McFarlane is one of those guys who is good with a good writer, Liefeld is of course terrible.
 
I believe I did adress this Holy Terror at the beginning and at the end of my first post. I said that I felt it was in bad taste, and that Miller has been on a negative course for the better part of 30 years. All I've seen from this project, and all I've read about, and compared with what else he's been up to, tells me that this is better avoided.

Bleh, thats still an assumption but considering you've never really liked majority of Miller's stuff, perhaps it's still best for you.

Still man, i just feel people ignore Holy Terror too much because of Miler's blog post about Anarchy (or well the Occupy Wallstreet Movement to be precise). Fixer is just as insane as the villain terrorists, people who say they've been fans of Miller say he's gone too far, but why we're they to begin with tolerable to Miller's attacks on Christianity? Why was it that Islam was too much for them? And noone really even talks about the Political and social points Miller draws in his comic, like people caring more about Bayformers then whats happening out there.

I enjoyed Holy Terror for what it was. Batman in his 1st & half year having gone looney for being Batman and paranoid because of his "Ally" David. Catwoman was the voice of reason and the star of the book more or less.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"