And rant time...
Miller hates superheroes? He sure has spent a great deal of his life writing and drawing them. He must be part of the cabal led by Fredric Wertham who created a number of sleeper agents that infiltrated the comic industry to destroy it years later. Now lets just continue to ignore Miller's depictions of Captain America, Captain Marvel, DKSA Barry Allen, Atom, Green Lantern, Big Guy, and his glowing introduction to one of volumes of Astro City. Hell, Dark Knight Strikes Again is a love letter to the superhero also extreme tongue in cheek satire turned up to 11. The entire last act is just about superheroes doing amazing things being great and saving the world.
He writes superheroes because that's where the money is. Most of SOTI was aimed at crime and horror comics, btw, in case you haven't read it, which every comics fan should.
The last act of DKSA is about Superman accepting his place as an Übermensch and moving to take over the world. His Captain Marvel was disgusting, as Captain Marvel should not age, and of course Miller had to kill him. Most of the other heroes were used as puppets in that POS story as the only thing he could come up with was "Luthor had their city/wife/whatever", because he is a one trick pony. And of course Superman cannot win without being a killer-which is the exact opposite of everything Superman stands for. So let's put it this way: Miller hates superheroes who are heroic, noble, moral, and value life, including the lives of their enemies. His treatment of Dick Grayson in DKSA is the single most disgusting thing I have ever seen in a comic with a male character. Of course Miller and other misogynists like him have treated female characters like crap for decades now, as evidenced by the women in refrigerators phenomenon.
And by the way, editorial dictate is the only reason he showed Cap any respect at all. His original Daredevil is the only good superhero work he's ever done, and even it's overrated. His second Daredevil sucked unless one hates women like Miller does and enjoys what he did to Karen Page in it.
I don't understand how Miller got to be so big a name to be honest. He's built his career on swiping others, be it Eisner, Kojima, Moebius, etc. To be honest, that's the only good thing about him since his popularity turned people on to those artists, who actually have talent. And Will did think a lot of him, and I do think Miller is a pretty fair storyteller-not in Eisner's league, of course, but he does understand sequential art even though his own art is all over the place in terms of style and quality. I don't completely HATE the guy, and as long as keeps his hands off superheroes-especially DC heroes and Superman in particular, I can give or take him.
Now ignore everything you now about continuity and about past characterizations.They are not important here or to the story. This is Miller's world, we just read it.
I find that idea disgusting. If Miller uses a character like Superman, then he should write Superman AS Superman, not some POS sellout with the \S/ shield on his chest. To me that is exploitation of Siegel and Shusters creation and disrespectful to them and their work. This isn't just some nothing character here, this is THE character that has made Frank Miller be able to have a career and a life. Without Superman, without Jerry Siegel's brilliance and without Joe Shuster's charming art and great costume design-Frank Miller is doing advertising art or something.
Miller's Batman lives in a dystopic fascist world and wants to do the right thing but does not want to be a slave to the system. Batman is an outlaw and to make a dramatic narrative it would be great to have someone who is on the other end of the spectrum. A rivalry based on opposites is just an age old tool for telling a good story. Now who would be a great opposite to Batman? Gangbuster? Hawkman? No, someone that is about as iconic as Batman. Someone on his same symbolic level. How about the Superman! He wants to do good. He wants to help people but he can't do it without the being a tool. He doesn't want to become some outlaw or led a revolution he wants to be Superman.
So Superman exists in Millers world as nothing but a foil and fall guy for his precious Bat-god. So it is worth it to make a completely unlikable version of Batman seem invincible so as to crap all over Superman. Nice. Superman is NOT and would NEVER be a tool. ANYONE who thinks that could happen knows NOTHING about the character.
Miller has pushed his agenda of Superman as a US government slave/puppet since 1983. Why? Because he doesn't know crap about Superman and doesn't care to learn. Had he knew anything about Superman and his history, he would know that Superman is a Godlike, transcendent figure, that his very presence on Earth has changed the world FOR THE BETTER, and that Superman's #1 priority at all times is the preservation of life. He would understand Superman's worldview: There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and that distinction is not very difficult to make.
You can't tell Miller how to write his story. It doesn't matter to the story how Superman has been characterized. If this wasn't a Batman story than things would have been differently. Superman would be the usual Miller hero. A fighter of corruption and tyranny. That's what all of Miller's heroes have fought for.
So how about I write a story where Spider-Man is a pedophile who eats the bodies of his 3 year old victims? After all, you can't tell me how to write my story, right?
If Miller is pasting his own personalities and motivations on characters, then they cease to be those characters and are just his original creations wearing famous costumes. He is exploiting the work and creations of other writers and artists to make his own stupid points. I just don't like that. I see these characters as sacred and I feel their creators should be shown respect by their creations being handled in a manner that is consistent with their intentions. That is a lot of why I feel the last 25 years of superhero comics in general and Superman in particular have been a failure.
I don't agree with Miller on most of his views. I'm not a believer of objectivism but I don't agree with Miller's viewpoint how he presents superheroes in his stories. It's a different take on the characters that I love and it is a lot more interesting and entertaining than most things published by the big two today.
I'm done...
First of all, I'm pretty sure that even with his limited knowledge/understanding of Superman, Miller can tell that Superman is built on the concept of altruism, and as an objectivist, Miller would see Superman as wrongheaded and soft at best, evil at most. So his hatred of Superman is due to his personal and political philosophy. I'm sure Miller sees Superman as a symbol of the welfare state.
Secondly, a lot of what the big two (DC especially) has done for the last 25 years and continue to do today is based on the deconstructionist schemes of people like Miller, Moore, Byrne, etc. I have no interest in grimdark comics. We live in a world of endless misery and suffering, and things seem to be getting worse and more hopeless. Heroic fantasy should be uplifting, it should make us feel better about the world, not worse. Superhero comics have consisted of DKR and Watchmen swipes for 25 years-it's beyond time for something different. I am so sick of the grimdark, violent, nerd soap opera crap comics have descended into that I could scream. It's especially unacceptable with Superman.
I'd love to see Miller make a story out of Batman and Jason Todd Robin personally.
