The Dark Knight Rises Should WB bring in Frank Miller?

[KalMart]

At the same time, I'd say the same for any comic writer. Granted, Miller has recently done a film....but how'd that turn out? If someone is primarily a comic writer, then by all means, they're a valuable resource as far as source material and consultation on storyline. But unless they've already got a track record of being the main screenwriter or what have you, that's as far as it should go. Even if you look at the script/directing stuff that Miller has done, it doesn't speak very well for him in that capacity.

As others have brought up, Miller's more notable Batman stories have been a big influence on BB/TDK already, and that's more than enough. I don't think Nolan's Batman movies need more 'comic-ness' from anyone or anything, he should just keep making the movies the way he knows how.

 

[Pksoze]

Frank Miller is not a good writer anymore. The man's stories are almost laughably bad. ASBAR is a trainwreck. In some ways his work is so over the top its campy...see the lemonade scene in ASBAR.

One thing I will argue...its pretty arrogant to say the Dark Knight wouldn't exist without Miller. The influences I saw in the first Nolan Batman were definitely more Denny Oneil and Mike W Barr than Miller.

And the Dark Knight seems influenced by the Long Halloween, the Killing Joke, and even Bob Kane and Bill Finger's versions of the story.

This Batman is nowhere near as violent as Miller's...Bruce is a far saner and more compassionate man than Millers. And the Joker is nothing like Miller's version.


The Joker in the Dark Knight is very much modeled on Moore's and Kane's version. A man who thinks society is a joke...trying to prove nobody is better or purer than he is.


Miller's Joker rarely talked...he was a death god with a sexual fetish for Batman. He was about the killing. He was more evil than crazy.

I don't see Miller's Joker even pretending to deal with the mob. He'd just start killing.

 

[04nbod]

Frank Miller is not a good writer anymore. The man's stories are almost laughably bad. ASBAR is a trainwreck. In some ways his work is so over the top its campy...see the lemonade scene in ASBAR.

The Lemonade scene is a classic. Its so over the top, but everything is, only Robin is normal is ASB&R. Wonder woman goes from feminist to man hating, superman goes from the american way to useless servitude, Green Lantern goes from dumbass to dumber-ass. Miller is having a good laugh at fans who think Batman should be serious and dark all the time and the fans that think Robin is campy and unworkable. He probably watches Adam West every time an issue comes out.

 

[returntovoid]

One thing I will argue...its pretty arrogant to say the Dark Knight wouldn't exist without Miller. The influences I saw in the first Nolan Batman were definitely more Denny Oneil and Mike W Barr than Miller.

And the Dark Knight seems influenced by the Long Halloween, the Killing Joke, and even Bob Kane and Bill Finger's versions of the story.

This Batman is nowhere near as violent as Miller's...Bruce is a far saner and more compassionate man than Millers. And the Joker is nothing like Miller's version.


The Joker in the Dark Knight is very much modeled on Moore's and Kane's version. A man who thinks society is a joke...trying to prove nobody is better or purer than he is.

I totally agree, I don't think the Nolan-verse Batman films should be compared to Frank Miller's vision of Batman

 

[Fresh Prince]

Although I personally love to see a Rated R Batman movie similar to Frank Miller. But thats just me.

 

[david icke]

The influences I saw in the first Nolan Batman were definitely more Denny Oneil and Mike W Barr than Miller.

There is just as much Miller's Year One in there as any Batman comic writer, if not more of.

- Miller introduced the concept that most of the cops and higher ups, like Judge Fayden in BB, were corrupt, thereby creating more of a need for Batman.

- Gordon. The Gordon of BB is the Gordon on Year One, the one who watches his corrupt partner Flass go about his business while he has to take a back seat for the time being as there is no-one for his to go to to help curb this corruption.
He's the one guy Batman can go to in both versions, their partnership begins in the same way.

- Batman escaping from the cops, the escape within the cloud of bats, the little device that summons them, all straight out of Year One.

- Batman's arrival back at Gotham on the plane after his travels. One of the smaller touches but still carries the same feeling as the opening to Year One, it does to me anyway.

- The ending with the Bat-signal and the new enemy The Joker being brought up by Gordon. The same ending give or take a few details.

-edit: Even Bruce going out in a makeshift disguise and not being as successful without the Bat-costume, illustrating why he needs the suit. Not done the same way, but conceptually cut from the same memory cloth.

Bash Miller all you want for whatever reasons you want, but give credit where credit is due.

 

[El Payaso]

The Lemonade scene is a classic. Its so over the top, but everything is, only Robin is normal is ASB&R. Wonder woman goes from feminist to man hating, superman goes from the american way to useless servitude, Green Lantern goes from dumbass to dumber-ass.

Miller is having a good laugh at fans who think Batman should be serious and dark all the time and the fans that think Robin is campy and unworkable. He probably watches Adam West every time an issue comes out.

I agree and think that's THE good thing about it (other than the illustrations). I had problems with the maniac Batman who laughs like a crazy man and the serious Joker, but I couldn't help laughing imagining all the angry fans.

That said, both BB and TDK had way too many things from TDKR and BY1 to say they weren't based on Miller's work.

And THAT said, no, I don't think Miller should be called. Nolan knows perfectly how to put Miller's best elements into the movies. Sometimes even better than Miller himself.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I agree and think that's THE good thing about it (other than the illustrations). I had problems with the maniac Batman who laughs like a crazy man and the serious Joker, but I couldn't help laughing imagining all the angry fans.

That said, both BB and TDK had way too many things from TDKR and BY1 to say they weren't based on Miller's work.

And THAT said, no, I don't think Miller should be called. Nolan knows perfectly how to put Miller's best elements into the movies. Sometimes even better than Miller himself.

Wow you had Batman acting like a crazy maniac and Joker being serious. Talk about character switches right their. And Joker being a homosexual aswell too lol that was funny.

But still loved Miller's Batman comic books. Thought it was funny and entertaining as hell what he wrote.

 

[returntovoid]

There is just as much Miller's Year One in there as any Batman comic writer, if not more of.

- Miller introduced the concept that most of the cops and higher ups, like Judge Fayden in BB, were corrupt, thereby creating more of a need for Batman.

- Gordon. The Gordon of BB is the Gordon on Year One, the one who watches his corrupt partner Flass go about his business while he has to take a back seat for the time being as there is no-one for his to go to to help curb this corruption.
He's the one guy Batman can go to in both versions, their partnership begins in the same way.

- Batman escaping from the cops, the escape within the cloud of bats, the little device that summons them, all straight out of Year One.

- Batman's arrival back at Gotham on the plane after his travels. One of the smaller touches but still carries the same feeling as the opening to Year One, it does to me anyway.

- The ending with the Bat-signal and the new enemy The Joker being brought up by Gordon. The same ending give or take a few details.

-edit: Even Bruce going out in a makeshift disguise and not being as successful without the Bat-costume, illustrating why he needs the suit. Not done the same way, but conceptually cut from the same memory cloth.

Bash Miller all you want for whatever reasons you want, but give credit where credit is due.

I agree but Miller wrote the traditional Dennis 'O Neil/Bill Finger type version of Batman in Year One.

In TDKR, TDKSA and ASB&R, Miller turned the character into a maniac.

After Year One, Miller just kept writing the same maniac version of the character, that's why he should not direct the next Batman film.

 

[david icke]

I agree but Miller wrote the traditional Dennis 'O Neil/Bill Finger type version of Batman in Year One.

Em, you could say that about any writer of Batman who has done straight down the line BM stories since the 70s, without subverting the character.
But there are specific elements Miller introduced to the mythos that are major themes in BB/TDK.
Finger and O'Neil did not have the element of a corrupt police force in Gotham in the books, people take it for granted now but Miller introduced that. That was a backbone of TDK's plotting never mind BB.
Sure, you would get the odd corrupt politician or cop in the ongoing monthly but no more than any other crime book.

In TDKR, TDKSA and ASB&R, Miller turned the character into a maniac.

After Year One, Miller just kept writing the same maniac version of the character, that's why he should not direct the next Batman film.

I don't want him in on the Batman films so much, directing? I wouldn't think of entertaining that notion for a second.
I just think Miller deserves credit where it is due, it's become fashionable to bash him, and he only has himself to blame for this. I enjoy ASBAR but it's a bit of a piss take in a way, and the earlier issues left a lot to be desired, quite sparse.
Anyway, No Miller Year One, no Long Halloween(which I think is very overrated btw) which was a concious (inferior) sequel to Year One.

I always thought the Batman of DKR became a little more violent and cold to face up to the harsher times he was living in. He was still the same character to me.

 

[returntovoid]

Even though I hate Miller's maniac characterization of Batman, I still think that he should be given credit for writing the best Daredevil stories, his art on the Wolverine Limited Series and the elements on Year One.

Nolan did take elements from Miller's Batman books, it's just that Miller's maniac characterization of Batman is not the one in the Nolan Bat-films.

 

[david icke]

Even though I hate Miller's maniac characterization of Batman, I still think that he should be given credit for writing the best Daredevil stories, his art on the Wolverine Limited Series and the elements on Year One.

Nolan did take elements from Miller's Batman books, it's just that Miller's maniac characterization of Batman is not the one in the Nolan Bat-films.

Ok, I see that you're mainly talking about characterisation, but I think some of the more in depth Batman characterisation in Year One influenced not only the movies but succeeding Batman writers.

I'm sure it's on that documentary 'Comic Book Confidential', where Miller talks about how and why he wrote TDKR. He was sitting in his apartment in New York looking out the window, thinking about the city and how a real life Batman would have to be in this world. So he made him rougher and tougher, but he still has the same principles of obsession and desire for justice that is the base of the character.

I can see why Batfans would not like ASBAR but I think it's a real shame if one can't take to TDKR. I think that and Year One are the two best BM stories.
They are chock full of iconic momenst, and it's great to see some of those moments ended up in on the big screen, like the device summoning the Bats and his escape clouded in them.

Miller is quite simply one of teh best writers/artists ever in the medium, nothing he does now can take away from what he did in his prime.
The Rolling Stones haven't made an album as good as their best in over 30yrs, yet they are still fondly held in high regard with fans and critics. I just think it's a bit rough for Miller with the amount of flack he gets these days considering those old Daredevil comics and his reinvention of the Batman mythos basically gave us those two characters as we know them today. I love all the pre-crisis Batman comics of the late 70s and early 80s, but Year One was needed, and was the perfect origin story to set the character and his monthly title up for a more discerning audience.

 

[returntovoid]

Ok, I see that you're mainly talking about characterisation, but I think some of the more in depth Batman characterisation in Year One influenced not only the movies but succeeding Batman writers.

I liked how the characterization was done in Year One because it felt a lot closure to the essence of Batman.

In TDKR, the characterization didn't have much essence of Batman and also, it was just too ruthless, even more than "Dirty" Harry Callaghan, IMO.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Lol Batman was a maniac, slapping Dick and telling him to eat **** off the ground for food. But the Dirty Harry Callaghan thing is great for Batman in a way. Batman no sweet guy you know.

 

[returntovoid]

I'm not saying Batman should be friendly but neither should he be a maniac that's mean and ruthless.

Dirty Harry was very rough and tough but was he a mean/ruthless/maniac?

No, I don't think so.