El Payaso
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 15,262
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 31
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.