The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - - - Part 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, I just don't know how Frank Miller would ever come to this conclusion. Which comics did he read? He's so off for both, Superman and Batman, it's unbelievable. It seems like he's just made this stuff up in his head and never really read the comics, or only through his extremely filtered perception. I don't know. I mean it even shows in "Year One", he probably didn't know that Catwoman had an origin, that Alfred wasn't the old family retainer and so on.

I don't know why you think these are Miller's conclusions or where is he saying all of that came from comics. And Catwoman have had more than one origin, even BTAS had a different one. Altering things in these characters has been a long tradition. They add things, they ignore things, they bring back the dead, they start from scratch.



I think people defend Miller because like them, Miller knows nothing about the characters he writes stories with...or ignores their history so as to make them fit whatever point he is trying to make.

Or maybe they like what he does.

Miller either didn't know or ignored that it was Batman, not Superman, who first because a part of the legal establishment (The People VS. The Batman, BATMAN #7, October/November, 1941) while Superman was still being hunted and shot at by police as late as Action Comics #47, Apr 1942. He also either was ignorant or ignored the numerous early Superman stories where he bent or broke the law, treated government officials like they were idiots, and even was attacked by the US military. Superman was MUCH more anti establishment in his early days and he stayed that way for a longer period of time than Batman did. And once editorial edicts made both characters become part of the establishment, Batman was every bit the smiling do-gooder that Superman was, if not more with his tweener sidekick and his elderly English butler, not to mention him constantly paling around with the police commissioner of Gotham City who literally had him on speed dial and a gigantic light to let him know when to come running.

Miller warped all those characters to fit his story and his agenda. DKR and DK2 are reason #1 that I feel characters should be kept true to their creators intentions, not warped by some jackhole who is writing a bunch of self-indulgent Mary Sue ****.

What??? An artist took the characters and created something original. Good grief, I don't know where this chaos is going to end. First, Shakespeare takes Hamlet's legend and kills the main character instead of leaving him alive like it was originally. Now this. The end is coming.




I agree with all of that.

Just last night found myself up against an arguement with two TDKR loving friends, who genuinely think it's an accurate portrayal of Superman, and think Batman would always kick Superman's ****.

Doesn't matter that I try and point out what Superman should really be, or how he used to be portrayed.

They are just laughing and laughing, superman got beat the **** out of, it's great!

So why did DC allow that to happen. Why did they allow a story like this to even see the light of day? And why did they suddenly think that because the book was a success, that meant Superman would be more of a success if they kept showing him getting beaten...

Where they simply trying to appeal to people who hate Superman's sadistic side?!

*sigh* :(

Ah, so I had this friend and he was 9 and he put this towel aorund his neck and jumped out of the window thinking he was Superman. So naturally I blame DC for allowing this to happen.

Look, if your friends decide to be misinformed or decided to think Superman is lame, then it is their choice. Which, btw, shouldn't affect you this way.





Personally, I think it was a calculated move on DC's part to allow that story to see print. Obviously if they viewed Superman as their flagship character, they would have not published a book by a then-major talent that denigrated him in such a strong manner. I personally feel that DC did it as a business decision-that they decided that because of changes in the comics market and changes in comics themselves, moving towards a darker, more cynical style, that Batman would serve them better as he fit that style more than Superman could. Plus-and this is the big one-DC had been getting sued off and on since the late 40's by Siegel and Shuster and they had to know more lawsuits were possible. So they could invest in Superman, a character whose rights they might not always 100% control and whose costs in royalities to the creators and their heirs could possibly go up, or they could make Batman, who was almost as famous as Superman, their flagship character and they knew his rights and cost were under control. As a pure business decision, it's really hard to argue with-look at the results.

So, if I understand correctly, DC thought, 'Okay, Superman is famous worldwide, we can still make money out of cartoons, toys, movies and a long etc. Let's just try to ruin it ourselves as much as we can.'

Sorry man, cannot buy that for a second. It's like I didn't like Batman Begins so I decide to think WB wants to destroy the chartacter. Hell, they weren't trying to destroy even with Batman & Robin!




In regards to Kurosawa from the previous page...

Sure, he may question whether you are or are not a true Superman fan... He may call out reasons why you (whoever you are) are settling for something less than what the original creators wanted for Superman...

But as far as I'm concerned that is his right, just as it is everyone else's right to say what we want about our (favorite?) superhero...

Far as I see, if you don't like it, ignore it. And if you want to debate it, what better place than public forums...?

It's not his right to make generalizations in which fans are labeled as 'not true fans' just because he feels like it.

And then again, we're also entitled to reply and give our reasons, which leads us again to where we are.
 
I cannot believe this is still happening. All I am saying is give peace a chance.
 
It's not his right to make generalizations in which fans are labeled as 'not true fans' just because he feels like it.

And then again, we're also entitled to reply and give our reasons, which leads us again to where we are.

Yep, insulting the person in such way clearly falls under Argumentum Ad Hominem.

Its a debate tactic used by con-men and not something that should be anywhere close to a discussion based in logic and facts.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
 
True fans.. HMMmmmmm...

Does being passionate about a particular actors take on Superman make you a true fan? Not sure.

Does risking the wrath of the mods defending/attacking a particular comicbook writers take on the character make you a true fan? Not sure.

Does accepting nothing less than a carbon copy of the classic comic book outfit worn by a particular character make you a true a fan? Not sure.

Ever worn a red towel or blanket around your neck and tried to fly?

Yes?
Then your a true fan.
Congratulations.


Oh dear wrong/inappropriate thread? Sue me.
 
If Miller's treatment of Superman alone caused so much damaged, I wonder why Batman is still cool after Miller's All Stars Batman & Robin.

Well that did have that great scene with Hal Jordan and the yellow paint. I thought All Star was pretty funny. It seemed to me it was Miller taking the piss out of his own style and turning it up a few notches.

As for Superman in TDKR? It was an "elseworlds" version of Supes. Quite an interesting take I thought. It doesn't effect the traditional Superman at all, so I don't quite understand why people hate it so much.
 
Well that did have that great scene with Hal Jordan and the yellow paint. I thought All Star was pretty funny. It seemed to me it was Miller taking the piss out of his own style and turning it up a few notches.

I enjoyed All Star only because, frame after frame I could imagine/feel the fanboys' wrath. But it was Miller ruining his own style taking it to hilarious extremes. A serious Joker and a Batman that can't stop cackling. But no way on Earth it ruined Batman for me.

As for Superman in TDKR? It was an "elseworlds" version of Supes. Quite an interesting take I thought. It doesn't effect the traditional Superman at all, so I don't quite understand why people hate it so much.

I have never seen TDKR as an elseworld. It's as fantasious as any other comic book. I mean they have officialy re-told some origins many times and no one has to be more "real" than the other.

Now, you don't understand some people's hate. Me neither. But hey, people feel their childhood violated because Superman has no trunks.
 
Ah, so I had this friend and he was 9 and he put this towel aorund his neck and jumped out of the window thinking he was Superman. So naturally I blame DC for allowing this to happen.

Look, if your friends decide to be misinformed or decided to think Superman is lame, then it is their choice. Which, btw, shouldn't affect you this way.

How is that a relevant comparison?

Did I say 'My friends read TDKR and started beating people up because of it'?

No, I just said that people who already disliked Superman enjoyed reading a story in which he was beaten up because it gave them more 'logs for their fire' so to speak. And i'm sure that sadistic side of audiences contributed to sales.

And I just find it weird that DC thought it was a good idea to put material out there in which their biggest character was turned into something that can be and readily is mocked.
 
It absolutely does...

The definition of muscle with no shirt doesn't ever translate to the amount of muscle definition we see in that shirt...

They have a muscle suit, but only for the definition that wouldn't show up through fabric...

read my post again.
 
How is that a relevant comparison?

Did I say 'My friends read TDKR and started beating people up because of it'?

No, you said your friends' reactions are DC fault.

No, I just said that people who already disliked Superman enjoyed reading a story in which he was beaten up because it gave them more 'logs for their fire' so to speak. And i'm sure that sadistic side of audiences contributed to sales.

Probably people liking TDKR halped the sales. Why did they like it is mere speculation. But how could you 'blame' DC for people liking their products.

And I just find it weird that DC thought it was a good idea to put material out there in which their biggest character was turned into something that can be and readily is mocked.

You find weird that DC supported a successful comic?

Well, from what I know, Batman sales weren't big at the time so they went with this original idea. It was a risk. And I'm sure, as you say yourself, that some people had problems with the Superman concept before TDKR.
 
I don't know why you think these are Miller's conclusions or where is he saying all of that came from comics. And Catwoman have had more than one origin, even BTAS had a different one. Altering things in these characters has been a long tradition. They add things, they ignore things, they bring back the dead, they start from scratch.





Or maybe they like what he does.



What??? An artist took the characters and created something original. Good grief, I don't know where this chaos is going to end. First, Shakespeare takes Hamlet's legend and kills the main character instead of leaving him alive like it was originally. Now this. The end is coming.






Ah, so I had this friend and he was 9 and he put this towel aorund his neck and jumped out of the window thinking he was Superman. So naturally I blame DC for allowing this to happen.

Look, if your friends decide to be misinformed or decided to think Superman is lame, then it is their choice. Which, btw, shouldn't affect you this way.







So, if I understand correctly, DC thought, 'Okay, Superman is famous worldwide, we can still make money out of cartoons, toys, movies and a long etc. Let's just try to ruin it ourselves as much as we can.'

Sorry man, cannot buy that for a second. It's like I didn't like Batman Begins so I decide to think WB wants to destroy the chartacter. Hell, they weren't trying to destroy even with Batman & Robin!






It's not his right to make generalizations in which fans are labeled as 'not true fans' just because he feels like it.

And then again, we're also entitled to reply and give our reasons, which leads us again to where we are.

I let the Miller stuff slide a few pages ago, but all I can say for your defense of Miller is this: as far as I am concerned, your taste in comics sucks. And I'm sure you feel the same way about mine. I hate Miller, I hate his Batman, I hate deconstructionists. I felt his books spat on and insulted Superman and a good many people agree with me. Defend the piece of **** all you want, I still hate his work. So like what you like and I'll dislike what I dislike.

Also, we have nothing else to discuss. I have nothing to say to a person who defends Miller's treatment of Superman. Either add me to ignore or ignore me; I will not respond to any of your posts. I cannot converse with a Frank Miller fan on the subject of Superman.
 
ga190.jpg


I thought we were done with Miller and TDKR discussion. It's just causing trouble because it leads to people who disliked it speculating why some other people like it and those other fans being insulted by their speculation. Anyways, it would be more appropriate in the Characterization thread. This is the Costume thread after all.

Anyways, thanks for giving me an opportunity to use my new facepalm pic. :oldrazz:
 
Last edited:
I let the Miller stuff slide a few pages ago, but all I can say for your defense of Miller is this: as far as I am concerned, your taste in comics sucks.

No, I happen to have an open mind. But I understand your assumption that nobody does.
 
Once, at a Thanksgiving dinner, my brother “came out” as a Frank Miller fan. Needless to say, he was immediately ejected from the house and the family disowned him. Months later, we thought we saw him rummaging around our recycle bin. But we chased him off with the garden hose.
 
No, I happen to have an open mind. But I understand your assumption that nobody does.

I feel there is a difference between having an open mind and accepting treatment of a character that makes the character look bad and is harmful to the character, which in my opinion, DKR and DKSA did with Superman.

In fact, there is a study I have read concerning what factors have contributed to Superman's decline in popularity, and the conclusion it came to was that more than anything else, it is Superman being turned into a jobber that has hurt the character the most...and that can be traced directly back to DKR.

If Miller ever does his Superman story and shows the character any respect, then I'll be willing to revise my opinions on him as far as Superman goes. Until then, the only Superman work he has ever done that I don't dislike are some (badly drawn) covers to the Superman: The Secret Years mini series, and a section of Superman #400, brilliantly written by Maggin and badly drawn by Miller.

To make a long story short: not a fan of Frank Miller. I like his first Daredevil run (particularly when Roger Stern was writing the book) and that's it. And his treatment of Superman in DKR is where I started really disliking him. Although, IMO, he treated all the characters like crap. And what he did to Dick Grayson in DKSR was even worse.
 
The trouble with asking people to have an open mind is that you only tend to ask that when they dislike something that you like.

When you start thinking things like "Hey, maybe Hitler wasn't so bad" and "Evolution's cool and all, but what about Intelligent Design?", all of a sudden open minds aren't that great.
 
JAK®;21667731 said:
The trouble with asking people to have an open mind is that you only tend to ask that when they dislike something that you like.

When you start thinking things like "Hey, maybe Hitler wasn't so bad" and "Evolution's cool and all, but what about Intelligent Design?", all of a sudden open minds aren't that great.

I laughed out loud at that response.
 
Also, we have nothing else to discuss. I have nothing to say to a person who defends Miller's treatment of Superman. Either add me to ignore or ignore me; I will not respond to any of your posts. I cannot converse with a Frank Miller fan on the subject of Superman.

You're like a parody of a fanboy. I won't talk with disgusting homophobes, but you draw the line over a goddamn funnybook? Come on man. This is not worth drawing lines in the sand over.

And you're still being gigantically arrogant and condescending.
 
Once, at a Thanksgiving dinner, my brother “came out” as a Frank Miller fan. Needless to say, he was immediately ejected from the house and the family disowned him. Months later, we thought we saw him rummaging around our recycle bin. But we chased him off with the garden hose.

Uh, I am clearly to un-cultured to understand this one:dry:
 
JAK®;21667731 said:
The trouble with asking people to have an open mind is that you only tend to ask that when they dislike something that you like.

When you start thinking things like "Hey, maybe Hitler wasn't so bad" and "Evolution's cool and all, but what about Intelligent Design?", all of a sudden open minds aren't that great.

Isn't this known as having your mind open at both ends?... :cwink:
 
I'm so glad they got rid of those dated trunks, the old suit looked really silly.

I love the direction they are taking with the new film with this modernization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,505
Messages
21,742,315
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"