Comics Why Does Frank Miller Hate Superman?

[theMan-Bat]

There are also insults at Batman's expense as well.

Does that mean Miller hates Batman and everyone else? No, that means Miller likes to add some character driven humor and conflict and no character is excluded from some insults or wisecracks at their expense. No character is portrayed as mr. perfect, they all have flaws in some way.

Batman didn't beat up on Hal, Batman never even hit Hal once. And Robin got out of control and almost killed Hal, which obviously shocked and upset Batman a lot, and Batman saved Hal's life. And that made him realize that he had made mistakes in Robin's training and "prays for a second chance."

 

[elgaz]

Have to agree with this thread, I've got most of Miller's Batman novels and I don't feel he 'gets' Superman at all. I don't feel he portrays the character properly or does him justice.

Superman as a hound dog for the USA government? Superman is many things, but he's never been written as a weak-willed character. He has pride and yes he gets angry at times, just like everyone else - I just don't buy that in some future which Miller dreamt up Superman has been reduced to little more than slave labour with no self esteem.

I'm not knocking Miller by the way. Great writer, his books are great, and he definitely understands the darker characters like Batman. But then, perhaps they're the easiest ones to understand - his parents' death and vengeance are strong motivations and easy to assess.

Superman on the other hand, he does good things just because he can. And a lot of people can't seem to get their head round that.

 

[Bad Superman]

I think Frank should've treated Superman's character with a little respect at least. It's OK if he hates him, but in the eyes of Superman comic fans such as myself, he comes off as a *****. It's OK to contrast Batman and Superman, but he over did it.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Have to agree with this thread, I've got most of Miller's Batman novels and I don't feel he 'gets' Superman at all. I don't feel he portrays the character properly or does him justice.

Superman as a hound dog for the USA government? Superman is many things, but he's never been written as a weak-willed character. He has pride and yes he gets angry at times, just like everyone else - I just don't buy that in some future which Miller dreamt up Superman has been reduced to little more than slave labour with no self esteem.

I'm not knocking Miller by the way. Great writer, his books are great, and he definitely understands the darker characters like Batman. But then, perhaps they're the easiest ones to understand - his parents' death and vengeance are strong motivations and easy to assess.

Superman on the other hand, he does good things just because he can. And a lot of people can't seem to get their head round that.

Serving his country doesn't make him weak-willed with no self-esteem. Superman is obeying the law and fighting for the American Way, which is his classic ideal. His whole issue with Batman are Batman's methods and recruiting children. Batman crosses legal and moral issues for Superman. Superman thinks of Batman as a criminal, not a hero, because his methods are categorically criminal. He's the hero who acts like a villain. Much of what he does to criminals is staged like a horror movie. He's guilty of assault and battery every night, he uses methods of torture, he doesn't read the Miranda rights to anybody. He's a vigilante, a criminal. And he risks the lives of children. Taking a child and putting that child in a costume out in danger in the middle of the night, when they are too young to legally be out past curfew. In All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder Superman says about Batman "I told you, Diana. I Told you all. From the first moment I heard of that maniac, I knew his methods would make us all look like monsters. We'd all be soiled by him in the public eye. And now he's kidnapped a little boy. He'll be the excuse they've been looking for -- to destroy us. We have to bring him in. Turn him over to the authorities." In Dark Knight Returns, which takes place years later, Superman explains "You were the one they used against us, Bruce. The one who played it rough. When all the noise started from the parents' groups and the Sub-Committee called us in for questioning--you were the one who laughed...That scary laugh of yours...'Sure, we're criminals,' you said. 'We've always been criminals. We have to be criminals.' We almost threw a party when you retired. By then the FBI was in it and things were getting out of hand. And there was that trouble with Oliver. Do you remember why you retired, Bruce? No--Just look at you. You'd do it all again--And like a murderer you'd cover it up again. Nothing matters to you except your holy war. They were considering their options and you were probably still laughing when we came to terms. I gave them my obedience. They gave me a license and let us live. No, I don't like it. But I get to save lives and the media stays quiet. Diana (Wonder Woman) went back to her people. Hal (Green Lantern) went to the stars. But you, Bruce--you and your wild obsession."

 

[elgaz]

We'll have to agree to differ then. I didn't view Miller's interpretation of Superman as merely 'serving his country' - that's what he does in all other variations of the lore. In Miller's version, Superman had been reduced to a lapdog for Reagan.

He's assisting the US Army against the soviets for crying out loud - since when did Superman take sides? The Superman character we know would strive to stop the war between the countries, not pick a side to work for.

The whole setup stems from Miller's idea that these superheroes would be hunted down and eventually make a pact with the government - that Batman would disappear, Superman would give them their obedience, etc. And therein lies the fundamental problem; I don't buy for one second that Superman as a character (no matter who writes him) would ever swear his obedience to any one government or country. He himself is aware of how his powers could thus be misused. I'd sooner believe that he would rather just fly off into space than be put in that situation.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Superman by his creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster was very patriotic, assisted the U.S. Army, gave obedient service to U.S. service men. He took the U.S. side completely.

Superman assisted the U.S. in fighting Nazis and the Imperial Japanese military. Superman is shown sinking battle ships, destroying planes, destroying tanks, etc. Ordinarily of course Superman wouldn't kill enemies. Killing in war is justified by law. He doesn't like it of course but he can't really save and in-prison all of the enemy solders. There's far too many of them. Although he does end up working for the state, he is also working for the people of the state and the preservation of the free world, not just the entity of the U.S. government. He's doing violent deeds in our defense. He's trying to protect the free world, and the American Way, the Constitution of the United States to preserve freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from those who threaten our freedom.

And in the Fleischer Superman cartoons based on these Superman comics he assisted the U.S. in fighting Nazis and the Imperial Japanese military.
[YT]R0FNvYi49kY[/YT]
[YT]EOp66h05N2w[/YT]
[YT]upUNi4dFPJw[/YT]
[YT]Okl9vSJCRNg[/YT]
Superman assisting the U.S. in fighting the Cold War Soviet Union military in the Dark Knight Returns was clearly influenced by all of this.
At the end of Dark Knight Returns Frank Miller writes:
With Acknowledgment to the works of
Dave Fleischer
Max Fleischer
Joe Shuster
Jerry Siegel
And Frank Miller's idea that these superheroes would be vilified by parents groups, the media, and be called in for questioning by a Senate Sub-Committee was modeled after the real-life vilifying of these characters and the U.S. government proceedings against them in the 1950s. In reality these superheroes Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were vilified by parents groups, the media, a psychologist named Frederick Wertham and a Senate Sub-Committee on Juvenile Delinquency called the comic book publishers in for questioning and they eventually make a pact with the government that they would give them their obedience or disappear. It happened in 1954 and the original strict Comics Code was created, those that weren't code approved were forced out of publication because the threat of newsdealer boycotts were pressuring them into not selling what somebody had found offensive. DC editors had been censoring Batman comics since 1941 when they created an Editorial Advisory Board so by the 1950s it was actually the horror and crime comics Crime Suspenstories, Crime Does Not Pay, Tales of the Crypt, Vault of Fear, Haunt of Fear, that made comics all look like monsters and really soiled them in the public eye. Batman is at his core a horror-esque character dressing as a bat to frighten and had very brutal methods before DC editors censored the character, so Frank Miller puts Batman in the role that the horror and crime comics and their publisher Bill Gaines were in at the time that these things really happened.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Superman by his creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster was very patriotic, assisted the U.S. Army, gave obedient service to U.S. service men. He took the U.S. side completely.

Superman assisted the U.S. in fighting Nazis and the Imperial Japanese military. Superman is shown sinking battle ships, destroying planes, destroying tanks, etc. Ordinarily of course Superman wouldn't kill enemies. Killing in war is justified by law. He doesn't like it of course but he can't really save and in-prison all of the enemy solders. There's far too many of them. Although he does end up working for the state, he is also working for the people of the state and the preservation of the free world, not just the entity of the U.S. government. He's doing violent deeds in our defense. He's trying to protect the free world, and the American Way, the Constitution of the United States to preserve freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from those who threaten our freedom.

And in the Fleischer Superman cartoons based on these Superman comics he assisted the U.S. in fighting Nazis and the Imperial Japanese military.
[YT]R0FNvYi49kY[/YT]
[YT]EOp66h05N2w[/YT]
[YT]upUNi4dFPJw[/YT]
[YT]Okl9vSJCRNg[/YT]
Superman assisting the U.S. in fighting the Cold War Soviet Union military in the Dark Knight Returns was clearly influenced by all of this.
At the end of Dark Knight Returns Frank Miller writes:
With Acknowledgment to the works of
Dave Fleischer
Max Fleischer
Joe Shuster
Jerry Siegel
And Frank Miller's idea that these superheroes would be vilified by parents groups, the media, and be called in for questioning by a Senate Sub-Committee was modeled after the real-life vilifying of these characters and the U.S. government proceedings against them in the 1950s. In reality these superheroes Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were vilified by parents groups, the media, a psychologist named Frederick Wertham and a Senate Sub-Committee on Juvenile Delinquency called the comic book publishers in for questioning and they eventually make a pact with the government that they would give them their obedience or disappear. It happened in 1954 and the original strict Comics Code was created, those that weren't code approved were forced out of publication because the threat of newsdealer boycotts were pressuring them into not selling what somebody had found offensive. DC editors had been censoring Batman comics since 1941 when they created an Editorial Advisory Board so by the 1950s it was actually the horror and crime comics Crime Suspenstories, Crime Does Not Pay, Tales of the Crypt, Vault of Fear, Haunt of Fear, that made comics all look like monsters and really soiled them in the public eye. Batman is at his core a horror-esque character dressing as a bat to frighten and had very brutal methods before DC editors censored the character, so Frank Miller puts Batman in the role that the horror and crime comics and their publisher Bill Gaines were in at the time that these things really happened.

Here's a late reply if there ever was one, but...

Superman had to be patriotic during WWII. He was being used (as most superheroes were) as a propaganda tool. Besides that, in those days the good guy/bad guy dynamic was very clear cut. Nazis = bad. Anyone sympathising with Nazis = bad. Why would Superman not side with America. He (Clark Kent) was after all an American citizen.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand... I wonder if when DC was entertaining the idea of letting FRANK MILLER do the Superman revamp in 1986, given Frank's love of the Fleischer cartoons, would he have given us a noir-ish Superman (one where cops were decked out in the 40's police blues with Tommy Guns and mad scientists and whatnot) or would it have been something different?

Thoughts?

 

[The Morningstar]

Why do people moan about Miller's take on Superman in TDKR? It's clearly an elseworlds tale. What is the point in writing alternate universe/timeline/esleworld stories if you're gonna just write the characters exactly the same? That's completely redundant.

 

[CoolCadaver49]

Why do people moan about Miller's take on Superman in TDKR? It's clearly an elseworlds tale. What is the point in writing alternate universe/timeline/esleworld stories if you're gonna just write the characters exactly the same? That's completely redundant.

I'm a long time lurker, and this is my first time posting. I don't claim to know much at all about comics, but as I understand it, elsewhere stories are less about changing characters and their personalities, and more about altering the events of the world around them. I mean, I thought the whole point of alternate universe stories were to see the same characters that we know in situations that they would never be in if they were in the "canon" universe.

It seems like the only thing consistently tying "Elseworlds" stories to their canon counterparts are the familiar characters. Plus, I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm reading a book or watching a movie about a character that I am a fan of, I want that character to be portrayed accurately. I don't really care about whether it's "canon" or not. Unless there is an explicit reason for the character's change in behavior, I wouldn't like it. There's not much point in including a specific character in a story if s/he is completely different than they usually are portrayed.

I say this without knowing much of anything in regards to Superman or how accurately he might be portrayed by Frank Miller. I also might be wrong about the purpose of alternate universe stories, if so, I apologize in advance.

 

[The Morningstar]

It's either/or really.

You can keep them the same, or you can change them.

The advantage of writing stories that are not in canon, or in alternate universes, is that it gives the writer more freedom to tell a story, they don't have to stick to pre-established histories and characteristics. If they're gonna write them exactly the same, you might as well do it in the mainstream continuity/canon.

In TDKR Supermans case... he's still the Last Son of Krypton, he's still Superman, some elements of his personality remain the same, like his love for humanity and protective attitude towards them. As shown in the example with the nuke strike. But much like how that alternate universes events and different culture shaped Batman into a different Batman we are used to, it shaped Superman differently too. They are more exaggerated, almost to satirical levels.

Same can be said of Red Son, basically a "What if Superman crash landed in Soviet Russia instead of Kansas". That's one of my favourite Superman stories, it's really interesting to see a story about what would happen if he wasn't raised by a friendly family in the heartland of America.

Or with the Ultimates, which is an alternate universe version of Marvels Avengers. Tony Stark is still a billionaire genius who invents a suit of armour. Steve Rogers is still the super soldier of WWII who got frozen and woken up in modern times. But they have different personalities. That is also one of my favourite Avenger stories.

Point is, there is nothing wrong with these stories, they are basically "what ifs". If you keep an open mind you might find you enjoy them. They're fictional characters at the end of the day, and although one of ongoing serialised comics great attributes is the fact that they have long, rich histories and continuities, it is nice to see the characters outside of that rigid system.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I always view Superman in DKR as a satire of the propaganda tool that Superman was during the war years. There was no difference between the Reagan-loving Superman and the patriotic Superman who begged US to buy war bonds in the 40's. The Reagan-loving Superman is nothing more than a satire.

Besides that, IT IS RIDICULOUS that people think Miller hates Superman. He has gone on record saying that he loves the golden age Superman and the Fleischer cartoons. There is no evidence that he hates Superman. FANS WHO DON'T GET IT ARE JUST PATHETIC. DKR is a good story for what it is. Don't take it out of context.

 

[CoolCadaver49]

Okay, I can see where you are coming from now; it is nice to see different takes on characters. Freedom and versatility are important in alternate universe stories.

I knew about the Ultimates, but that "Red Son" story sounds pretty interesting. Thanks for the informative response.

EDIT: The above was directed at Morningstar; Holy crap, either these boards move fast, or I just type really slow. Probably a little of both.

 

[The Morningstar]

No worries. Glad i could help

 

[Pawwet]

Hello,
Can anyone tell me what episode of what magazine the superman cartoon in post 181 was in? I have the original storyboards for this cartoon and this is the first i have seen it online.
Thanks
PAwwet

 

[BH/HHH]

I always view Superman in DKR as a satire of the propaganda tool that Superman was during the war years. There was no difference between the Reagan-loving Superman and the patriotic Superman who begged US to buy war bonds in the 40's. The Reagan-loving Superman is nothing more than a satire.

Besides that, IT IS RIDICULOUS that people think Miller hates Superman. He has gone on record saying that he loves the golden age Superman and the Fleischer cartoons. There is no evidence that he hates Superman. FANS WHO DON'T GET IT ARE JUST PATHETIC. DKR is a good story for what it is. Don't take it out of context.

Never thought of it like that.

Just a heads up don't call people pathetic its not justified. It comes down to opinion, people take away different things from each story. I understand people saying they don't like this intepretation of Superman, heck I'm not completely sold on I myself so much as I accept it within this story. But to call people pathetic for not getting something is going to far.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

"Have you taken a look at Gotham's crime rate lately, Hal? Never mind the corporate stuff, I'm not taking them on, just yet -- but the streets are safer. Even from the cops."

I eagerly await the story arc when Batman declares war on white collar crime, waging a non-stop campaign to strike fear into the hearts of corrupt CEOs, bankers and Wall Street crooks and bring them to justice.

The above quote summarizes the reactionary outlook of Batman/Bruce Wayne better than any I've seen. Even though Bats was my favourite superhero as a kid and I still enjoy his stories today, as an adult it's hard for me to get past some of those undertones when you consider the focus of this privileged billionaire's one-man war on crime. Batman almost exclusively concentrates on low-level criminals rather than the incomparably more powerful ones at the top of the social ladder, whose crimes impact the lives of millions (which is why I usually scoff when people like Miller portray Bats as anti-establishment).

This panel is also interesting to me because it notes that more powerful heroes like Superman and Green Lantern tend to fight enemies on the level of "bug-eyed monsters."

Now, Superman is my favourite superhero in part because Clark adamantly believes in the potential of humanity for good (loved that line by Jor-El in MOS). He's fundamentally an optimist. But when he was first created during the Great Depression, Superman was a champion of the little guy, and rather than fighting giant robots and space aliens, he took on more real-world villains. From Wikipedia:

In the early stories, Superman is the only science-fiction element. He is described as the champion of the helpless and the oppressed, and he combats real-world social evils: munitions manufacturers, dangerous conditions in mines and a hit-and-run drunk driver (in Superman #1), rigged prize fights and corrupt businessmen (in Superman #2), child abusers and wife beaters (in Superman #3) and crooked cops and politicians (in Superman #7).

Those early Superman stories are great. Of course, as the character became more powerful, his threats had to increase accordingly, which is when he started to fight more mad scientists and dinosaurs. But if you had to identify the moment at which Superman turned from a rebel into a symbol of the establishment, it would be America's entry into World War II, when the character became a super-patriot. Subsequent years, particularly the George Reeves TV show (with his fatherly, middle-aged Supes) reinforced the image of the character as fundamentally conservative.

Say what you will about The New 52, but I really love the portrayal of Superman in those new comics. Grant Morrison wrote the initial issues and I think he consciously attempted to invoke the Superman of his earliest years -- a brash, cocky rebel who's willing to take on more realistic social threats in addition to the usual science fiction villains we've grown accustomed to.

From my political perspective, I can't tell you how awesome it is to see this kind of Superman again. Bringing Superman more in line with his '30s origins in the comics written by Siegel and Shuster was a great move IMO, whatever the other weaknesses of The New 52.

 

[BH/HHH]

That first issue of Grant Morrison's run is my favourite single comic ever.

 

[the5timechamp]

If his "hatred" of Superman is based on the fact that he is always voicing Batmans opinion of Superman..then I ask...has he written a story involving Superman where Batman is not in the equation?

 

[BH/HHH]

I know Miller said he had a Superman story he wanted to tell someday but he hasn't done it so far. Tbh I think if he had done it back then (wouldn't want him to do it now) then I can only imagine it would be very patriotic. I used to think Miller hated Superman but I don't now. Also remember he did do the covers for the Superman Secret Identity mini series and you'd have to imagine if he'd hated him he would have turned those down.

 

[Alex_Spider]

"Have you taken a look at Gotham's crime rate lately, Hal? Never mind the corporate stuff, I'm not taking them on, just yet -- but the streets are safer. Even from the cops."

I eagerly await the story arc when Batman declares war on white collar crime, waging a non-stop campaign to strike fear into the hearts of corrupt CEOs, bankers and Wall Street crooks and bring them to justice.

The above quote summarizes the reactionary outlook of Batman/Bruce Wayne better than any I've seen. Even though Bats was my favourite superhero as a kid and I still enjoy his stories today, as an adult it's hard for me to get past some of those undertones when you consider the focus of this privileged billionaire's one-man war on crime. Batman almost exclusively concentrates on low-level criminals rather than the incomparably more powerful ones at the top of the social ladder, whose crimes impact the lives of millions (which is why I usually scoff when people like Miller portray Bats as anti-establishment).

This panel is also interesting to me because it notes that more powerful heroes like Superman and Green Lantern tend to fight enemies on the level of "bug-eyed monsters."

Now, Superman is my favourite superhero in part because Clark adamantly believes in the potential of humanity for good (loved that line by Jor-El in MOS). He's fundamentally an optimist. But when he was first created during the Great Depression, Superman was a champion of the little guy, and rather than fighting giant robots and space aliens, he took on more real-world villains. From Wikipedia:

Those early Superman stories are great. Of course, as the character became more powerful, his threats had to increase accordingly, which is when he started to fight more mad scientists and dinosaurs. But if you had to identify the moment at which Superman turned from a rebel into a symbol of the establishment, it would be America's entry into World War II, when the character became a super-patriot. Subsequent years, particularly the George Reeves TV show (with his fatherly, middle-aged Supes) reinforced the image of the character as fundamentally conservative.

Say what you will about The New 52, but I really love the portrayal of Superman in those new comics. Grant Morrison wrote the initial issues and I think he consciously attempted to invoke the Superman of his earliest years -- a brash, cocky rebel who's willing to take on more realistic social threats in addition to the usual science fiction villains we've grown accustomed to.

From my political perspective, I can't tell you how awesome it is to see this kind of Superman again. Bringing Superman more in line with his '30s origins in the comics written by Siegel and Shuster was a great move IMO, whatever the other weaknesses of The New 52.

Those are exactly my thoughts. I prefer the Champion of the oppressed and the common worker depiction that has a cocky attitude, than the bastardized blue boy scout, that saves cats from trees and poses happily next to presidents and government officials . I also wouldn't mind a reduction of his powers to that of his original appearance, like instead of sun-powered being based on the stronger gravity on Krypton, and him being able to leap large distances instead of flying. Yep, I sad it

 

[Haggard01]

You're still posting an opinion, not fact. You do realize that you as much a fanboy as anyone on this board right? I think you should just relax and not get so defensive about this. Especially with the "Superman haters" crap. Calm down.

Agreed with this

 

[Haggard01]

Those are exactly my thoughts. I prefer the Champion of the oppressed and the common worker depiction that has a cocky attitude, than the bastardized blue boy scout, that saves cats from trees and poses happily next to presidents and government officials . I also wouldn't mind a reduction of his powers to that of his original appearance, like instead of sun-powered being based on the stronger gravity on Krypton, and him being able to leap large distances instead of flying. Yep, I sad it

I agree on this. I really wish they would start to go back to some of the 1930's stuff of taking on white collar bad guys, etc. Which like you said the blue coy scout attitude needs to go, big time. Personally there's a part of me that has just gotten sick of it.

Also yes finally somebody that sees some sense of needing to give Clark a reduction of powers, big time.

I don't even read Superman stuff on much interest just since they have made him so powerful, I don't feel like there's any threat there.

One reason why I started collecting Superman in New 52 stuff was because they returned him to his roots but I kind of left once they brought in alien threats and just the typical boy scout stuff all over again.

Heck you've got me thinking on Fan fiction wise of doing a Superman reboot of him more powered down and focusing on defending the common worker.

 

[Haggard01]

Those are exactly my thoughts. I prefer the Champion of the oppressed and the common worker depiction that has a cocky attitude, than the bastardized blue boy scout, that saves cats from trees and poses happily next to presidents and government officials . I also wouldn't mind a reduction of his powers to that of his original appearance, like instead of sun-powered being based on the stronger gravity on Krypton, and him being able to leap large distances instead of flying. Yep, I sad it

I agree on this. I really wish they would start to go back to some of the 1930's stuff of taking on white collar bad guys, etc. Which like you said the blue coy scout attitude needs to go, big time. Personally there's a part of me that has just gotten sick of it.

Also yes finally somebody that sees some sense of needing to give Clark a reduction of powers, big time.

I don't even read Superman stuff on much interest just since they have made him so powerful, I don't feel like there's any threat there.

One reason why I started collecting Superman in New 52 stuff was because they returned him to his roots but I kind of left once they brought in alien threats and just the typical boy scout stuff all over again.

Heck you've got me thinking on Fan fiction wise of doing a Superman reboot of him more powered down and focusing on defending the common worker.

 

[Haggard01]

double post

 

[Haggard01]

@theMan-Bat

Superman is not an idiot, he's intelligent (he's a reporter) but he's also not a Super-genius. I'm bored by the Super-perfect, unbeatable Mort Weisinger Supergod of the Silver Age/Bronze Age. Perfect characters are boring. The Golden Age Jerry Siegel Superman was not a Super-genius. He wasn't infinitely powerful. He was flawed. He made mistakes. The Golden Age Bill Finger/Bob Kane Batman happens to be a detective and scientist and engineer. He doesn’t have any high and mighty superpowers so he had to learn and rely on his mental skills.

Agreed on this. Which yea I don't read or have much interest in Superman due to this "Super god" thing that's been created.

That was Batman with no experience handling a kid. Frank Miller is embellishing Batman and Robin's beginnings for a contemporary audience. It look Batman time to evolve into a father figure. He wouldn't be great at suddenly playing daddy with no experience handling a kid.

To sum it up you've actually made me see this in a different light. I can't say I completely agree with Bruce's treatment of Dick and I think at the end of the day, we are not supposed to but you've kind of shed some light on where Frank Miller is coming from on this.

American Superheroes were castrated. By the Silver Age the DC superheroes were all virtually interchangeable with each other. The characters had completely lost their edge and individuality and became much softer, nicer, mushier, blander, politically correct. They all had the same boy scout personality. If you've ever seen the Super Friends, that's an example of how they were in the comics. Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were all extreme originally. Extreme has always been Frank Miller's thing long before he created Sin City.

Yea I've seen Super Friends of owning a few DVD's and would agree it fits in with DC characters became well bland due to everything you've described.

Agreed on what you said as well. I will say it was nice seeing the characters taken backwards/up dated to the Golden Age. Frank actually made them interesting again.