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.
, but Boll doesn't have a high profile. I have never seen anything by the guy, and I just looked him up on IMDB.
