Miller's "Holy Terror Batman!" no more?

[silentflute]

From New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/m...ewanted=2&_r=2&sq=Eisner spirit&st=cse&scp=1#

"Mr. Miller can savor his reversal of fortune in Hollywood. But the rigors of moviemaking can be exhausting. “As a director I feel like I’m on a battleship making its way to a goal,” he said. He sounded ready to return to his art studio, to “get my mind out of the moviemaking madness.”

“I have a bunch of drawing I want to do,” he said. One project, which began as “Holy War, Batman!,” a series with a post-9/11 context, has shifted. “As I worked on it, it became something that was no longer Batman. It’s somewhere past that, and I decided it’s going to be part of a new series that I’m starting.”"

Well..that officially sucks.

I wonder what the will become of 120 pages worth of Batman material already completed.

 

[CrimsonMist]

hmm, that sucks. Is it even finished at least? I'm disapointed.

 

[Nathaniel Essex]

Good, Batman fighting terrorists? Lame.

 

[sclabguy]

yup miller tends to do that to batman

 

[Johann Krauss]

Dammit

 

[Nathaniel Essex]

leave this junk to Captain America

 

[batmaluco]

 

[Jawn]

Haha that is rich.

 

[Quinzel]

UGH!!

Captian america deals with terrorist.

Batman deals with psychopaths!!

And Women!!

UGH!!!

 

[Motown Marvel]

err, whats so wrong with batman dealing with terrorists? im pretty sure he does it on a regular basis already with a little group of terrorists known as the league of shadows and ra's al ghul.

 

[Majic Walrus]

err, whats so wrong with batman dealing with terrorists? im pretty sure he does it on a regular basis already with a little group of terrorists known as the league of shadows and ra's al ghul.

The problem is Batman is designed to be an anti-hero. He's designed to take out street thugs and crazies. he's designed to protect Gotham City. He never intended to go around the world hunting down terrorists. And frankly I don't want to see "post-9/11" terror focused Batman.

I want to see the Batman that cared about fighting crime "pre-9/11". I don't think he's changed his focus since then and I don't think a story that pits Batman against terrorists would be worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[CrimsonMist]

The problem is Batman is designed to be an anti-hero. He's designed to take out street thugs and crazies. he's designed to protect Gotham City. He never intended to go around the world hunting down terrorists. And frankly I don't want to see "post-9/11" terror focused Batman.

I want to see the Batman that cared about fighting crime "pre-9/11". I don't think he's changed his focus since then and I don't think a story that pits Batman against terrorists would be worth the paper it's printed on.

well, the terrorists attack Gotham, if that changes anything for you. The book wasn't about him traveling the world taking down terrorists. The book was him taking on terrorists after they hit Gotham City. And as always in Frank Miller's Batman world, no one tries to destroy "his city" and gets away with it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

well, the terrorists attack Gotham, if that changes anything for you. The book wasn't about him traveling the world taking down terrorists. The book was him taking on terrorists after they hit Gotham City. And as always in Frank Miller's Batman world, no one tries to destroy "his city" and gets away with it.

That makes me a little bit more at ease... Thanks. I almost lost my faith in Miller.

 

[Nepenthes]

He's designed to take out street thugs and crazies. he's designed to protect Gotham City. He never intended to go around the world hunting down terrorists.

this stopped being true in the 1950's and then again in 1971. Batman is unbreakable, it's pointless to go around saying what he is and isn't, writers take him down all sorts of weird directions and he'll still always come out good and the same at the core. What you're talking about is what you would prefer


this is news is a disappointment. I was looking forwards to more Frank Millar Batman if nothing else.

 

[Motown Marvel]

The problem is Batman is designed to be an anti-hero. He's designed to take out street thugs and crazies. he's designed to protect Gotham City. He never intended to go around the world hunting down terrorists. And frankly I don't want to see "post-9/11" terror focused Batman.

I want to see the Batman that cared about fighting crime "pre-9/11". I don't think he's changed his focus since then and I don't think a story that pits Batman against terrorists would be worth the paper it's printed on.

thats a pretty narrow minded view of what batman can be.

 

[Riven]

this news is a disappointment. I was looking forwards to more Frank Miller Batman if nothing else.

His output over the last decade (especially Batman related) has been less than stellar though, with art and writing continuously fighting over which is the worst.

Sin City: Hell and Back, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, All Star Batman & Robin... All terrible books. Some of them are sublimely fascinating, like a trainwreck, but other than that they're just garbage.

So the news that Miller's most recent work, which he himself dubbed "a piece of propaganda bound to offend just about everybody", probably isn't going to come out anytime soon and isn't gonna be a Batman project anymore, is GREAT news...

 

[Nepenthes]

^ see I love DKSA and All-Star though

Mostly I was looking to see a new Miller Batman along side ASBR and how they would compare. How Frank would be using Batman to tell two very different stories at the same time. Along with all the War on Terror context which would've been VERY interesting, considering what Miller did with pop-politics in DKR and Strikes Again.

 

[Johann Krauss]

I agree with Nepenthes

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Batman is NOT an anti-hero.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

Im kind of glad cause while TDKSA is ok story-wise, the art turned me off terribly. Especially near the end where things just go insane, especially with Grayson-Joker, the art nearly kills itself about there.

 

[CrimsonMist]

^ see I love DKSA and All-Star though

Mostly I was looking to see a new Miller Batman along side ASBR and how they would compare. How Frank would be using Batman to tell two very different stories at the same time. Along with all the War on Terror context which would've been VERY interesting, considering what Miller did with pop-politics in DKR and Strikes Again.

what's interesting to me is, is Miller saying this project went beyond Batman simply because it's not in tune with what Miller's currently writing? Because the fact that it goes beyond Batman makes me want to read it even more. Perhaps this could have been Miller's big comeback.

But we'll never know, it seems.

 

[Cain]

err, whats so wrong with batman dealing with terrorists? im pretty sure he does it on a regular basis already with a little group of terrorists known as the league of shadows and ra's al ghul.

Aside from that he has faced other terrorists before.

 

[Majic Walrus]

thats a pretty narrow minded view of what batman can be.

So? I like to think of characters as being pretty narrow to a certain degree. When there is a broad range of what characters can be then there also has to be a broad range of a characters traits. Then you have a character who becomes unimportant. When Batman "is what he is" and leaves no room for debate then the individual aspects of the character can really shine.

You would agree that it's important to have a narrow view of what characters like Rorshach and Mr. Terrific can be? Why not Batman too?

Batman is NOT an anti-hero.

In fiction, an anti-hero is a protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities, and instead possesses character traits that are antithetical to heroism. Typically, the anti-hero acts heroically, in scale and daring, but by methods, manners, and intentions both fair and foul, even underhanded and deceitful.

I think in this way Batman is an anti-hero. He is not above doing creating a vast network of satellite surveillance to monitor other heroes. He is sometimes untrusting. He works in the night using fear as a weapon.

I don't mean to say that Batman is in any way immoral or weak but those aren't necessarily traits of an anti-hero. The model I use for the traditional "hero" is Superman.

Superman is bold, wears bold bright colors. Superman protects Metropolis in the daytime. Superman would not use deceit as a tactic, Batman would.

Would you not agree?

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I think in this way Batman is an anti-hero. He is not above doing creating a vast network of satellite surveillance to monitor other heroes. He is sometimes untrusting. He works in the night using fear as a weapon.

I don't mean to say that Batman is in any way immoral or weak but those aren't necessarily traits of an anti-hero. The model I use for the traditional "hero" is Superman.

He does the right thing for the right reason = hero. He wants to prevent others from suffering. The victim who refused to stay a victim. that's Batman and that's heroic.

Superman is bold, wears bold bright colors. Superman protects Metropolis in the daytime. Superman would not use deceit as a tactic, Batman would.

Would you not agree?

Batman uses deceit as a tactic BECAUSE HE MUST. Superman doesn't have to. That's the reason Superman can play nice, but Batman cannot. Deep inside Batman IS a good guy.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

Batman is more an anti-hero than a deputized hero. The definition of anti-hero describes Batman. He's a proactive character as opposed to most heroes who are reactionary. He uses methods that aren't always considered fair or noble. He's brutal sometimes to the point of excess. He's very much an anti-hero.