• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The All New, All Star Batman & Robin Thread!

The art work is awesome, but the writing and characterizations are pretty bad, the only thing i like is that superman becomes batman's little *****, that was sort of funny.
 
The art work is awesome, but the writing and characterizations are pretty bad, the only thing i like is that superman becomes batman's little *****, that was sort of funny.

it's a parody, the characterization and writing is supposed to be like that, it's the entire point.
 
Basically.

And the result is hilarious.
 
It's not totally a parody, it's more of a farce. If anything is getting parodied, it's the comics that have come after DKR and Watchmen, that took the superficial elements of those works and tried to pass themselves off as mature.
 
It's not totally a parody, it's more of a farce. If anything is getting parodied, it's the comics that have come after DKR and Watchmen, that took the superficial elements of those works and tried to pass themselves off as mature.
No, they're not as they're neither intentionally humorous nor satirical.

Also, ASB&R could very well be both a parody and a farce. They're not mutually exclusive terms.
 
It's FUN.

for me that's the best way to categorise it
 
Okay, I guess that makes sense, but didn't he already do the same thing with Dark Knight Strikes Again?

Either way, its not all that different to how he usually writes his characters, so I don't see how you could say he's satirising something else.

Not to say it can't be fun, (some people find it fun, others don't, doesn't mean its NOT fun) but maybe there's no point in ascribing some higher meaning to it (satire, farce, etc). If its a satire, I don't think its intentional. Over the top, sure, but over the top doesn't necessarily mean satire. Maybe he's just writing a fun cheeky superhero story in the Miller style, and there's nothing wrong with that.
 
All of Millers post-DKR work has been satire.

DKSA was a satire of 90's comics, with things such as everyone using giant guns, needless costume changes, and the overwhelming darkness. Miller has so much as said this.

And now ASB&R is a satire of modern comics, I would say specifically the Ultimates. It has the classic character (in this case Batman, in Ultimates Captain America) as a much, much harder version than his previous self, in this to an insane degree. The swearing, "adult" feel, one liners, and the insane amount of "darkness" put in all scream parody of modern comics. Hell, you could even argue that the delays only add to the effect, as anyone who read the Ultimates can tell you it never, ever came out on time (usually with a 3-8 month delay between each issue).
 
No, they're not as they're neither intentionally humorous nor satirical.

Also, ASB&R could very well be both a parody and a farce. They're not mutually exclusive terms.
What's not intentionally funny or satirical?

I know this book can be both parody and farce, I just don't think it is, not at this point anyway.
 
Its like Dirty Harry, just over the top and really funny because of it
 
All of Millers post-DKR work has been satire.

DKSA was a satire of 90's comics, with things such as everyone using giant guns, needless costume changes, and the overwhelming darkness. Miller has so much as said this.

And now ASB&R is a satire of modern comics, I would say specifically the Ultimates. It has the classic character (in this case Batman, in Ultimates Captain America) as a much, much harder version than his previous self, in this to an insane degree. The swearing, "adult" feel, one liners, and the insane amount of "darkness" put in all scream parody of modern comics. Hell, you could even argue that the delays only add to the effect, as anyone who read the Ultimates can tell you it never, ever came out on time (usually with a 3-8 month delay between each issue).

Interesting break-down and when you look at it that way, it makes some sense...

But I take exception to the idea that he's satirising anything he hasn't already satirised for the last ten years.

Miller has been doing giant guns, needless costume changes (DKR Batman changes outfits a few times throughout the issues), swearing, adult content, one liners, and heavily inked darkness since the eighties. All of his main male characters have almost always been very very 'hard' emotionless characters. ASBAR Batman's characterisation is nothing new, so its a bit of a stretch to say he's a direct satire on something like the modern Ultimates Captain America, when he's so similar to Marv or DKSA Batman or King Leonidas or any of his male leads.

As for the delays, the third part of Dark Knight Strikes Again was delayed by six months, so delays are nothing new in the Frank Miller repetoire either. His delays aren't some clever literary technique, he's just got a lot of projects he's working on at once and he lives comfortably on royalties from previous works anyway so that being on time isn't really an issue for him.

The only thing thats changed between something like ASBAR and his older work is he's taken away the thematic depth he used to always incorporate in his stories (as well as removing the layers of nuanced storytelling and elegant panel arrangements), and replaced it with the flimsy notion that its a 'satire'.

He may claim he's satirising modern comics, but if the result is the same as everything he's done in the last ten years, then I don't believe him. It seems more like its his preferred type of story to tell, in which case he should just be honest about it. If he said, "I write fun and over the top types of stories I myself would like to read." I doubt anybody would have a problem with it.

That said, there's nothing wrong with Frank Miller's over the top 'Hard Boiled' style. Its usually good fun, but I can definately understand why a lot of people hate it, since he's traded off the careful and lyrical comicbook storytelling from books like DKR, Ronin, or Year One, and replaced it with the more over the top violence etc like in Hard Boiled, Sin City, DKSA, etc. A trade-off of fun for thought, but that doesn't mean one is better (or more noble) a reason to read comics. ASBAR sounds like silly fun, all I'm saying is that maybe we shouldn't attempt to read some deeper meaning into it.
 
Miller has actually said that he hates how after DKR, everyone saw that as the definitive version of Batman, when he was really just trying to make old, pissed off Batman in an elseworlds type way...I dont think he ever expceted it to become so loved and accepted as the way Batman should be...and while it was dark, and slightly adult, there was nothing as extreme as he did with DKSA or All Star. And Sin City was also meant as an over the top love letter to old film noir movies, and of course the Spartans are portrayed as overly manly character. Take a look at some of his work on Daredevil though, and you'll see many male characters, including Dardevil, not being portrayed as overly macho stereotypes like his other work. So he can do it, which I why I choose to feel that this and DKSA are both meant as satire.

I do agree with you that it's silly fun, just like DKSA was, and that if you dont want to read into the satire thing, it's totally not required to enjoy it.
 
What's not intentionally funny or satirical?
What I mean is, the comic books of the past 20 years aren't copying Frank Miller and going "Oh man, isn't this ridiculous?" They're copying him and thinking "Man, this is great." That excludes those works from being parodies.
 
Miller has actually said that he hates how after DKR, everyone saw that as the definitive version of Batman, when he was really just trying to make old, pissed off Batman in an elseworlds type way...I dont think he ever expceted it to become so loved and accepted as the way Batman should be...and while it was dark, and slightly adult, there was nothing as extreme as he did with DKSA or All Star. And Sin City was also meant as an over the top love letter to old film noir movies, and of course the Spartans are portrayed as overly manly character. Take a look at some of his work on Daredevil though, and you'll see many male characters, including Dardevil, not being portrayed as overly macho stereotypes like his other work. So he can do it, which I why I choose to feel that this and DKSA are both meant as satire.

I do agree with you that it's silly fun, just like DKSA was, and that if you dont want to read into the satire thing, it's totally not required to enjoy it.

Its worth noting that Daredevil was relatively early in his career. I worry because he hasn't written something like Daredevil or DKR or Year One or Martha Washington in a long time, and I doubt he'd be able to do it anymore. If he wrote Daredevil now I think we know what we could expect, and I don't know whether its because he just doesn't want to write anything but the type of story he's become famous for, or if he's forgotten how to, or he's lazy, or he's too old and cynical or what.

To me DKR seemed more extreme since it comes across as a more realistic setting. Closer to home, if you get what I mean. Somehow, the Joker murdering an entire troupe of pre-teen boyscouts was more shocking in DKR than Metroplis being destroying in DKSA. I'd argue that most of the implied violence in DKR (and Daredevil and Year One) is much 'heavier' than in any of his other work because of the trouble he's gone to, to make it at least partly believable in terms of setting, characterisation, and plot, and by the same reasoning the adult content (intended rapes, multiple murders, child kidnapping, drug references, that post-EMP riot sequence in DKR) seem less silly, and more adult. To me at least, its like the difference between comparing something like the adult content in Training Day to the adult content in From Dusk Til Dawn. One may be more 'extreme' but the other seems worse because its more believable.
 
What I mean is, the comic books of the past 20 years aren't copying Frank Miller and going "Oh man, isn't this ridiculous?" They're copying him and thinking "Man, this is great." That excludes those works from being parodies.
Right, I wasn't saying those were parodies. I was saying those books missed the overall point.
 
Interesting theory from another board regarding the satire/parody debate:

Re: ASB&RTBW # 7, because that was the issue that helped me understand the thesis of the All-Star series.

After Dick is kidnapped by Batman, issue two proved very disturbing in light of the fact that his parents where just killed. In some ways Batman's cruelty in "drafting" him into his war seems contradictory to such a liberating force. It isn't, but it seems that way. After all, what about Dick's personal liberty in choosing to fight?

The inclusion of Joker clarifies things because it symbolically is in the context of Miller's Dark Knight Universe calls back to the central thematic concept of how good is defined by evil.

Batman is deconstructing Dick physically and emotionally just as Miller deconstructed Batman in the first Dark Knight to artificially recreate the soul-searching that he himself went through after his parent's deaths. When Batman wants to get Dick to hone his survival skills by forcing him to eat rats to survive, Alfred says that he must not be reduced to doing so. "I was," replies Batman.

Alfred ends up feeding Dick a hamburger and fries, and Batman at least gives him "silk pajamas that are way too big" for him. In the end, despite Batman's seeming cruelty, he is a hero because good still perseveres through him in spite of evil. That is why Joker dies in DK2, a book in which Batman is shown to love Carrie as his daughter in an optimistic ending. In the end, Dick Grayson is fed, just as in the end, Batman does give him a choice.

See, Batman, he's been through hell. His parents were brutally murdered right in front of him, and that instant his worldview changed. He was now defined by evil, he now had to, by pure moral necessity, overcome the evil so that no one would ever have to suffer like him. That is why he said the bat "claimed" him in DKR, because to him the moral imperative that he must fight is inescapable. He knew it was inescapable, but he needed to sure that he wouldn't forget... that he wouldn’t forgive. He thus intensified his pain, tortured himself, locked himself in that cave as a child and hunted for food, lost in an endless nightmare of pain and sorrow and hunger and darkness. He now is damned to hell, but it is a "holy hell" because he needs it for his mission. Because he has rejected forgiveness, he "hopes to hell" that he knows what he's doing. Think of that pain and that rage. Think of how he is the only one to make a moral stand and is now judged for it, damned to hell for it. He is damned to hell for doing what he believes is right, but he would be anyway if he did what was wrong and did not fight. The man who killed his parents could have just killed him, but he did better... he damned him to hell.

In DK2, it was said he was never caught.

Now in his mind, he is a symbol. A symbol of hurt, of pain, of crime. In his mind, it was crime that murdered his parents; it was crime that damned him to hell. That's what he needed to feel.

Now he was angry enough to fight.

That's why he's a hero: because he has damned himself to hell so that no one else ever has to.

Yet now, Dick has suffered the same fate. He believes that likewise, the moral imperative that Dick must fight is inescapable.

Dick is still innocent. Batman doesn't want to hurt him or scare him or be cruel to him and in fact tries to comfort him in his own way by giving him his purpose, giving him shelter, giving him a way to deal with his pain. He only scares him so that Dick can see they are mirrors of each other. "He's that lonely," Dick thinks, "he's all alone." Dick now can see Batman's worldview, stripped of innocence and happiness and forced to confront the moral implications of the war he must now fight. Dick can now contemplate the pain and evil of crime, and, stripped of innocence, make an educated decision about it.

Yet, he sees through Batman's harsh exterior and sees the kind hero who wants nothing more than to believe that he could rid the world of crime and save Dick from the fate he is now doomed with. After comforting Dick briefly, "He tries to make his voice go cold again." Dick thinks: "It wouldn't fool anybody".

Dick sees right through Batman's act, he thinks it's just a "Clint Eastwood impersonation". Because Dick does not physcologically conform to Batman’s world view, Batman adapts to the context of the situation as a symbol: He does give Dick a choice. "Gotham needs me," he tells Dick, "Gotham needs me. And maybe she needs you. Maybe not. We'll see." This is why Batman is a hero: he is the triumph of the human spirit. He believes that we of our own free will shall do what is right if he exposes us to the idea that we have the absolute moral imperative to do so.

And Dick does, and he proves it when he denounces killing, like Batman, in #7, and finds that in fact it was the most effective thing he could do since now he could get information out of Jocko-Boy. By doing so, he does not get the personal satisfaction of revenge, but does at least get a chance to ensure others do not suffer like him.

Batman's righteous fury is deeply powerful in this book because his triumph of the human spirit to liberate us brilliantly adapts and changes in this book that he may do so. His rage is existentially relevant, the way he changes to express political and moral ideals fascinating, the vision behind All-Star supremely eloquent because of the idiosyncratic way that it triumphs.

As this review notes on #5:
http://joglikescomics.blogspot.com/2007/05/in-which-goddamn-batman-gets-to-goddamn.html

"Batman is the favored Miller superhero, because he’s no deity. He’s actually, fully human, yet he stands just as high as the gods. He can bring the greatest of the gods down low. And here, in All Star Batman, he represents perfect, joyous freedom. That’s the key to the series so far, in all its ridiculous, pitiful, gregarious glory and/or shame. Batman acts silly, and says silly words like “cool,” and spits out the most overblown of pulp narrations, and giggles while jumping down to engage in corny verbal play with street toughs, because I genuinely believe that is what Miller considers fun. Batman is a ‘fun’ superhero, because he is free, and he stars in what I'm sure Miller considers a 'fun' superhero comic."

With that, the deeply poignant themes of the book resonate so much stronger because of the satire in them, because of the incessant mix of horror and joy, of tension and relief. The raw power and emotion and excitement of this triumphant, powerful Batman are absolutely stunning.

From issue 5:
"It's called a compound fracture, punk. It'll never heal. Not right it won't. Now you'll REMEMBER me every TIME the AIR goes WET and COLD. Arthiritis, punk. It'll HURT like HELL."

I'm sorry to those who don't like this book, but that is just unbelievably awesome.

The way Batman renders moral judgement when no one else will makes us ants to him. We are so weak, and so small, and so puny, and he curses us, laughs at us.

The reader, after being initially disturbed in issue two, has now gone through holy hell. We now laugh with him. To contextualize this, Miller pokes fun at superheroes because he is likewise mocking a world that must be pretty damn ridiculous to need them. From the uncontrollably hilarious issue three with the uncontrollably repetitive use of "sweet chunks", to Batman growing stubble over the ridiculously long car ride to "I'm having a date with BRUCE WAYNE. I'm having a date with BRUCE WAYNE. I'm having a date with BRUCE WAYNE. I'm having a date with BRUCE WAYNE. How COOL is THAT? I'm having a date with BRUCE WAYNE. How COOL is THAT? I'm having a date with BRUCE WAYNE. HOT DAMN", this book is a powerfully brilliant, hilariously moving black comedy.

This is all building up to a point; don't worry (I know I’m is rambling on and on).

See, if Batman is defined by Joker, than Joker is giving him moral justification to act... to Joker, dressing up as a bat makes sense, and he thus MUST think the world makes sense. This is diametrically opposed to Batman who said, in DKR, his parents taught him "the world only makes sense when you force it to". This point is proved because of the way Miller points out the ridiculous absurdity of the world, but it has thematic weight because much of the satire in these books is a comment on the real world.

Because when we, with Dick, go through "holy hell" our perception changes. This is deliberate because Batman is the hero, yet he is morally questionable. Our perception of Batman changes, for example, when he saves the woman from being raped in #5 and at first she is disgusted by his act of violence but then smiles, and kicks one of the punks Batman had already beaten.

This is why when we relate to Batman, we find it very funny and clever when we see, say, Hal Jordan in the book (the excerpt is from the fist link you'll see if you scroll up from here):

"I think the funniest part for me was definitely Miller’s characterization of Hal Jordan as the most bland, wishy-washy waste of a superhero concept ever. Diana barks at him, and he uses the infinite power of his ring to… make her a hanger for her jacket. What a horrible, horrible superhero Hal Jordan is. It’s almost like one of Johnny Ryan’s parodies of independent comics, hell-bent on upsetting everyone as a means of enhancing its own comedic drive."

That's why we laugh. Yet Joker doesn’t because to him the insanity of the world makes sense, because he's insane himself. That's why Joker doesn't laugh in DKR. His name in irony. Perhaps Batman is ironic because he laughs all the way through All-Star.

In some ways then, Joker and Batman are the same, and that's why their contrasts are what define each other.

Joker defines Batman's moral necessity to fight, that we support him even though he's no role model. But because he also is responsible for Dick's parents being killed, and therefore Batman's harsh treatment of Dick, he also is a symbol of Batman's moral objectionibility. It is because Dick comes to see that Batman is right that he triumphs as a symbol.

As a hero.

Because Batman decided that it is better to be free and perhaps not happy rather than enslaved and content, he exposes new ideas to the people, while Superman censors them. Because the people side with Batman, censorship clearly weakens Superman because if you are not exposed to certain ideas, you cannot act on them, just as it apparently never occurred to Superman you can fly.

As part of a running joke in this series, suggested in #4 when Superman runs on water across the ocean, in a laugh-out-loud funny moment, Batman tells Black Canary: "I'm not the one who can fly, although that IDIOT doesn't even know he CAN fly."


The way the symbols of Batman, Joker, and Superman come together in ASB&RTBW #7 shows that theses symbols adapt and change to suit their environment. Because the people side with Batman, it seems that the people choose to act based on the symbols in their culture.

This sly ant-censorship thesis is based on the idea that if you are not allowed to be exposed to certain ideas, you are not allowed to act on them. That is a serious threat to the personal liberty Batman symbolizes.

The cincher proving this thesis in #7 comes in the car ride. Batman thinks of Black Canary's remarks about his extreme actions:

"She's pushing her luck."

"Nuts to THAT. She's got a RIGHT to say WHATEVER she wants. She's got a RIGHT to say WHATEVER she wants. She's got the RIGHT. THOMAS JEFFERSON and all that."

The joyous repetition and tough-guy-esque way he goes "NUTS to that" brings a smile to my face.
 
Continued:

The anti-censorship idea makes this book remarkably exuberant and fun because of the extreme way the content pokes fun at hard-core fans of the characters.

It’s not just the way everything is repeated over and over, but also the central joy behind it, the way certain words are capitalized, the way the absurdities of the piece generally enrich it’s thesis and perspective. The work is shameless, what with 5 pages, about a fourth of the first issue, being spent with Vicki Vale in her lingerie, Batman referring to Dick as a brat, Superman saying only the word “damn” throughout issues three and four, Batman having sex with Black Canary (“We keep the masks on. It’s better that way.” Classic!), and “Eat glass, LAWMAN!”. Some things in it are deliberately provocative, from Batman remembering how he touched his mothers breast to see if there was a heartbeat when she died, to the sheer energy of the shameless repetition in “Somebody murdered his parents. Brutally. Brutally. It was brutal,” and of course the continued use of “the goddamn Batman,” which clearly offends those who like their childhood icons a little too much (although that line is actually pretty poignant with the metaphor of the horned, violent demon – Batman- welcoming Dick to hell, his subterranean lair underground). While some may feel this work does not purely capture the essence of it’s protagonist it in fact is much more resonant when it takes the symbolism behind him to contextualize him in a way that demands more of the reader for him being there. With the Dark Knight books, Frank gave him new life and relevance, captured his essence more purely than anyone else in Year One, and, influencing a wide range of Batman stories and contributing to Spawn/Batman and Batman Black and White, helped to define his modern voice, he now remains a consistent, vital voice to the character and indeed is creating the most relevant, best-selling book he appears in to emphasize the way deconstructing him and challenging his readers thematically and artistically gives him greater relevance… indeed the Dark Knight Universe as a whole has produced some of the greatest modern graphic novels in history. Because this work visually and philosophically refuses to conform even to the prejudice of fans of Frank’s other Batman works, it is one of the most individualistic and, arguably, important comics currently being published. The thesis of the work I concluded after Joker’s appearance being the idea that if you are not allowed to be exposed to certain ideas, you are not allowed to act on them is fitting first because Batman’s ideology is in agreement with this, but also because the deliberate provocation in the work emphasizes that a more personal, raw, uncensored vision is also a more vital one. There is no embarrassment in say, Vicki Vale’s ass shot (as Frank wrote in the script, “I’m shameless, Jim.”). The creators are having a ball with the book and when they do, so do the readers.
Way back when issue #1 of this thing came out, I wondered aloud if it was satiric. I understand now that there’s no need to wonder anymore, as there’s plainly no satire here. I don’t think there’s any parody either. I do think there’s elements of self-reference on Miller’s part, that much is clear, but after these three issues I’m convinced that the intent behind this book is largely straightforward. This is what Miller considers to be Fun comics… This book started out rocky, and I blame the dissonance between writer and artist. But that evaporates here. There is no embarrassment in the issue, though I figure the title will always toe the line.

How can it do any less?

This is undeniably to me an entertaining book, as of this issue, happy to be floating off in its own world. The DC All Star line has two good comics in it, as far as I’m concerned.”



“Thank god for some mature, sensible comment: a veritable island of calm, thoughtful, reasoned, humility within a sea of reactionary, juvenile hysteria that seeks to reduce mature, talented men to mechanical support pillars of corporate mediocrity, while preserving the childhood dreams of boymen who refuse to grow up. Boymen who demand that their fixed, narrow perspectives of characters that are by the very nature of their being, and the creative process which births them, open to interpretation and reinvention.

Or perhaps I’m wrong and grown, talented men when assigned the contracts by DC should also waive all rights to think, examine, play, mould, shape, and create. Perhaps this waver should prevent adults from applying their knowledge, opinions, erasing all personal feeling and political viewpoints and just produce easily digestible monthly fodder that is unerringly simple in concept and delivery, that can be consumed by 13 year old boys without ever challenging their 13 year environment, sensibilities or awareness: No wait. We have that. We have J. Loeb. We have the Batman adventures. We have a host of hacks that churn out pap in any number of inoffensive, safe Spiderman or Superman titles. The likes of Gaiman and Moore have huge –deservedly so- reputations, but the only comic artist who has managed to work within this most conservative of mediums and actually play, morph and these moribund culture icons into something contemporary and immediate and now, is Frank Miller: His much lauded, historical achievement with DKS feat- of delivering an authentic high-speed comic ride, while simultaneously critiquing the entire Reagan-neo con era - a prescient act that outranks another pilloried work- Spike Lee's "do The Right Thing”, is only exceeded in brilliance and forethought by the visionary excoriation within DK2 of the ties that bind between an authoritarian government and muted, satiated, meek populace, accurately foreshadowing the post September 11- middle eastern invasion era that was to come…. I ask, in all seriousness, how weighty is a publication such as “Tom Strong” , the inward looking fantasy of “Sandman”, the flaccid, corporate garbage such s “1602”, actually compare to the “Millerverse”. Perhaps Miller is the one who overstretched: he has always rejected the term Graphic novel artist”. perhaps the most *********ory, self-justifying phrase invented within the last 20 years of the pop-cuturalsphere; and self-consciously defined himself as a cartoonist, a definition that was write large within the visual representation of DK2, clearly homaging the historical war propaganda epistemology of the medium/character, and claming that call to arms didactic within the ongoing narrative of DK2 through the- I luv how you put it- “the will to power”. Something the American media and public is only just waking up to.

So as a political cartoonist Miller provides work that makes people think, as opposed to those who want to satiate themselves on perpetual repetitions of the Human Torch flaming on, or Spidey slinging a web through New York city, without anything like, oh, I don’t know - Iraq, Scooter Libby, the repeal of Wade vs Woe, institutional governent backed anti- gay leglisation, a return to school segregation- and on and on. No, I must stop. The boys read the coloured frames to get away from all of that. They demand from the web site and blogs that owners artists and printers should only churn produce work that allows them to ignore their children, tune out their girlfriends, ignore the demands of their bosses, and let them pretend they are actually flying through the cosmos about to save an intergalactic civilization from an exploding sun, so that we might place an American flag on their home world and introduce them to the sanguine prose of the founding fathers. How dare the likes of Miller and Lee do anything but use their hard earned sills to give the children anything but bright colours, tight pants heads being thrown through walls. Action that compete with the x-box or playstation, sure, but no more than that. For the children luv these characters. They know them better than the creators themselves. If they could- and this is their secret, secret super-power- they'd write better than Noman Mailer. If they could draw, they'd take commissions away from Michaelangelo.

I am tired of the children on silver bullets this and Millar world that, promoting themselves as self-appointed gate-keepers, and well-intentioned guardians of the unsanctified character who they will determine, control and shape for our enjoyment and protection. A little modesty would go a long way in my opinion, to say nothing of a sharp, injection of reality, as well as a small awareness that the comic reading market is not composed of individuals who share , echo and endorse their pathetic, insular, Peter Pan, hallowed days of yore, mentality.

Lastly, I wait to see where this present “All star” run will go. I’m excited by the originality. The cheek. The boldness. The sheer “let’s throw this baby up in the air and see where it lands” balls. I’m not interested in whether I fully embrace the project: It’s the ride tat matters. Seeing whether these two great artists can actually pull this daring vision off. I’m giving them the chance. And if they fail, so what? No one will die. I congratulate DC for allowing such well-known creations to be put under the knife and opened up. Why on earth do the infants continue to act like character such as Batman can be damaged, killed of, or irretrievably hurt by such publications: These cartoon characters, - and I know the nappy suckers are kicking over their potty’s after reading this simple truth- are immortal. Stronger than a speeding bullet. More durable than a 12 issue run from even the combined genius of the present writer/artist team.

I hope that people with free minds continue to buy the comic and enjoy it for what it is, and I have a feeling, despite the inane, overblown on-line chatter from the newly born, though irretrievably brained damaged conservative rabble, that the present successful sales - and I have no doubt that the trade paperbacks will break records - will reflect the power and market value of JL and FM. And isn’t that the whole point. For good or bad, this is Frank Miller’s Batman. You know what you’ll get. If you don’t like it, don’t waste time or print, go buy the latest issue of Teen Titans on your way to pick up your monthly order of diapers, and leave those who actually like to open a comic and be challenged, stimulated, appalled, repelled, enthused, energized, excited, intrigued - surprised even; to be just that.”
 
There was no evidence that Batman put the pajamas on Dick. :dry:
 
Right, I wasn't saying those were parodies. I was saying those books missed the overall point.
Oh, sorry, I read wrong.

But don't you think parodying ripoffs of your own work is even more ridiculous any parodying your own work? Especially considering ASB&R is actually a ton closer to Miller's DKR Batman than anything I've read from the past two decades.
 
Continued:

For good or bad, this is Frank Miller’s Batman. You know what you’ll get. If you don’t like it, don’t waste time or print, go buy the latest issue of Teen Titans on your way to pick up your monthly order of diapers, and leave those who actually like to open a comic and be challenged, stimulated, appalled, repelled, enthused, energized, excited, intrigued - surprised even; to be just that.”

This last wall of text you posted is slightly at odds with itself. I can't think under what criteria ASBAR is a genre-defying, challenging, suprising bold piece of writing. I certainly can't see how it could be seen as 'original', since its a strange cross between DKSA and Sin City and every other piece of writing he's done thus far. Its no suprise that so many of Miller's defenders always turn to DKR to defend his current writing, since his latest works are so thematically vapid.

Either way, you can't claim that ASBAR is entirely at odds with the insular childish adventures of the typical modern superhero comic, and then proceed to claim that its a satire on the modern superhero comic. If Miller is a satirist, there is absolutely no content in ASBAR that satirises 'Teen Titans' 'Batman Adventures' or anything the poster states are currently representative of superhero comics today. Its not poking fun at THOSE comics, because Miller doesn't know how (or doesn't like) to write that kind of story.

More likely, ASBAR is satirising the state of comics more than two years ago when he started scripting this crazy thing. He's still 'satirising' the 90s fake-adult Image-style comic, obviously so by having Jim Lee do the art duties. Meanwhile, the bulk of Superhero comics have moved on on their own, and Miller is satirising old news. whats the point? If satire is to expose the flaws in its subjects, Miller is behind the ball. If its satire, he has the obvious opportunity to adapt the script to continually be responding to the state of modern comics (superhero marriages and whatnot). For a skilled satirisit this would be a piece of cake: its not hard to continue an ongoing plot but to change the idea behind each issue, perhaps attacking everything he dislikes about Superhero comics in each issue.

But Miller only writes the one type of story (one man against the world), and If the current product is similar to what he always prefers to write anyway, then I have trouble believing its intentionally satirical of anything.

His work is fun in the same way as something like Commando or Die Hard. Awesome though they are, the content itself is hardly challenging, but Miller's tried and true formula is still offensive to some in the pedantic continuity lets-keep-superheroes-clean-and-PC camp, so a lot of people latch onto it and pretend that its somehow revolutionary, challenging or rebellious, like the poster did. ASBAR is none of those things. In reality, ASBAR is just as one-dimensional and childish as all of the comics the poster criticises. I think thats the point. Its not MEANT to be seen as challenging or critical or genre-defying, because its not. Its a silly over the top romp in the Frank Miller way.
 
Even if it's parody or satire....It's still bad writing. It's being debated now because it's so bad compared to other work Miller has done. But I'm afraid you can't fake being this bad. If it is satire? It's still not funny. It's boring and ungodly slow. Each book is the equivalent of maybe 30 seconds.
 
Even if it's parody or satire....It's still bad writing. It's being debated now because it's so bad compared to other work Miller has done. But I'm afraid you can't fake being this bad. If it is satire? It's still not funny. It's boring and ungodly slow. Each book is the equivalent of maybe 30 seconds.

its definately some of his worst work for sure.
 
Even if it's parody or satire....It's still bad writing. It's being debated now because it's so bad compared to other work Miller has done. But I'm afraid you can't fake being this bad. If it is satire? It's still not funny. It's boring and ungodly slow. Each book is the equivalent of maybe 30 seconds.

IMO every Frank Miller story that involves Batman is bad writing. :cwink:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"