Comic Book Resources

*Reminds himself he needs to do a review of this shitpile for Atop the Fourth Wall...*

Wow, he really took that "goddamn Batman" thing and ran with it.

If you're trying to get me to buy this comic book, I think I should tell you that it's not working.

That's so awesome I'm almost in tears. Why, o why did I decide to wait for the trade on that series?

And knowing DC, I bet it'll be a goddamn expensive HC printed in crappy paper like All-Star Superman or the Fourth World Omnibus. Goddamn DC!

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

I call parody!

"And she’s dead RIGHT to say I’m half-CRAZY. But only half. The OTHER half is doing JUST FINE."

That has GOT to be one of the best lines I've seen / heard / read this year. I'll definately be using that one in a conversation sometime.

Before I even read the comments, this was my prediction:

Poster A: This Sucks!

Poster B: It's parody! Or satire! Or both!

Poster A: CRAP!

Poster B: GREAT!

Frank Miller: Money!

Jim Lee: Remember WildCATS?

Todd McFarlane: I used to draw comics! I own a once-expensive baseball!

Fans waiting for All-Star Superman: COLLECTIVE SOB.

Grant Morrison: Don't worry, Authority's been cancelled, so the next issue will hit by 2012!

Wildstorm: Dead.

My favorite part is how the goddamn gritty dialogue goes with Jim Lee's goddamn gritty noir-ish illustrations. I wonder how Frank Miller is doing these days.

*Frank Miller replies* “I’m doing fine. And you talk too damn much. Shut the hell up."

This book is awesome. I love how it gets comics fans all worked up. "That's not how the REAL Batman talks!"

Stealthwise, I meant parody of All Star Batman, in that I think that Greg just made it up.

Jaap-
No, all of those lines are from the book

Jesus, that nonsense about the "totally queer" Batmobile is a sight to behold - projection, anyone?

I don't read All-Star Batman & Robin, but that's because I know I won't like it because. Frank Miller has always written like this, and I've always thought it was laughable. Why, all of a sudden, are all of his fans noticing?

Try as I might, I find no difference between "Once you scare the CRAP out of them … they scramble away like COCKROACHES . . ." and "This isn't a mudhole. It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon."

Sorry. That "because" was unnecessary.

Much like most of Frank Miller's internal narration.

Are there any other books coming out that are this humorously bad? I can't think of any.

All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder is perhaps the greatest comedic comic of the modern age. I've made a point of buying the Miller variants for the most Milleriffic issues of this series, and after reading the Batman/Black Canary sex scene in this issue, I think issue #7 will be joining my "Wonder Woman's ass" variant.

We keep our masks on. It's better that way.

Wow. "Man of mine"?

Did anybody say that, ever?

"Thunderstruck in love" is pretty amazing, too.

I get this image of Frank Miller sitting on the toilet, coming up with dialogue, giggling the whole time.

Wow. I'm just speechless.

When I read "The Dark Knight Strikes Again", I suspected that Frank Miller had come to hate his fans and possibly Batman as well.

Now, I'm convinced.

I personally know people who would read this book and think its the "coolest book ever".

Sadly, Miller is just giving the most extreme fanboys what they want.

This is the awesomest comics on the stand today! Frank Miller is having huge a black comedy moment with the Dynamic Duo, deconstructing and reconstructing at the same time! You have to take it with a huge grain of salt and giggle along with him.

I agree, for the best effect, it's to be read with the Miller cover variants!

Furthermore, it's doing to Batman what Shaun of the Dead did for Zombie movies. "Serious" Zombie fans were shrieking with disgust, but that movie was totally cool.

I suspected that Frank Miller had come to hate his fans and possibly Batman as well.

Now, I’m convinced.

See, I'm convinced that he loves every word of it, and thinks it's brilliant. I mean, this is exactly what the dialogue was like in the Sin City movie, and that was his baby. I think poor Frank's just too far into himself.

I'm not smart enough to tell if Miller is doing this satirically or if he's just lost his mind, but I do read this book, and I do laugh hysterically the whole time. By issue 10, they'll change the title to "All-Star Goddamn Batman & The Goddamn Boy Wonder." By #13, every other word will be "goddamn."

Somehow, I get the mental picture of Frank Miller and Jim Lee giggling like a pair of schoolgirls when they submit each issue. And I'm o.k. with that. I grew up with Haney Batman, so there's nothing that Frank Miller can dish out that's as odd as Haney.

Frank Miller hates comics and loves Frank Miller.

Apodaca said:
"Wow. “Man of mine”?
Did anybody say that, ever?"

Robert Kanigher's wife.

See, here's the thing -- I get that it's satire, deconstruction, etc.

The problem is that it's not a satire or deconstruction of much beyond "Frank Miller's Batman," and is thus still sort of pointless and dumb.

Frank Miller hates comics and loves Frank Miller.

I think that if he hated comics, he wouldn't still be making them. He doesn't need to anymore.

This book is awesome. I love how it gets comics fans all worked up. “That’s not how the REAL Batman talks!”

Actually, my reaction is more along the lines of 'Nobody talks like that. Ever.'

That people find this book so bad it's hysterically funny I can just about understand, if not share in. That they consider it actual art, that creeps me out a little.

This is good, because I've often been reading Batman and caught myself thinking, "Hmm. This would be better if it was an awful Bukowski story."

Excuse me? Serious zombie fans loved 'Shaun of the Dead'. EVERYONE loved 'Shaun of the Dead'. George Romero loved 'Shaun of the Dead'. 'Shaun of the Dead' was, in every sense of the word, a loving homage to the Romero zombie movies and a beautiful salute to them.

Serious zombie fans hated the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake. (I liked it myself, although it does slow down a lot after the first half-hour.)

Um...and the point is, 'All-Star Batman' isn't like 'Shaun of the Dead', a loving homage to a brilliant original. It's more like the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake, a glossy retread of the original with the pace speeded up and all the intelligent stuff traded out for fight scenes.

It's not really a satire of anything, it's more of a farce. I'm amazed at how people don't get this book. You read a Frank Miller book the way you watch a Tarantino movie. They are reverent of their influences, but understand that the conventions of those influential materials are a bit absurd to a modern audience.
The dialogue between the Bride and Vernita in Kill Bill? Was that not stylized? Didn't it make you laugh a little? Do you think that Tarantino believes people really talk like that?

I had wished Miller was drawing this, but Jim Lee's summer blockbuster aesthetic makes the book even more outrageous.
While I concede that it has some bad spots,this book is much more interesting to me than the soap opera of mainstream comics.

Shaun of the Dead is more of homage to Wilson Yip's Biozombie than Romero, considering how uncannily similar the plots to the two films are.

Equating Miller with Tarantino is pretty much exactly right, I think.

Frank Miller is far too accomplished a comics creator to not know how cheesy and cliche ridden his work has become, which means it must be a deliberate choice. And to be fair to Miller, it's not as if the original comics to tell the story of how Batman and Robin got together were exactly brimming over with naturalistic dialogue and realistic situations.

I don't read Miller's comics very often anymore because i find his views irritating. But that doesn't mean the actual technical quality of his work has changed- like Ditko and Sim before him, he is a true master of the comics medium who just happens to have gone a bit mental.

I'm thinking less "parody" and more "elaborate joke on the entire industry." Frank Miller knows that DC will publich anything he writes and that a Batman book with him and Jim Lee will sell like hotcakes no matter what.

So we're basically getting "Springtime for Hitler" in comic book form.

It's not something I care to purchase, but I'm not dismayed by its success anymore.

Man, at this point, Miller's just laughing at the people who still shell out for this crap.

And Miller's only like Tarantino in that he swears. Tarantino, at the very least, makes movies for the audience, rather than spitting on them.

The dialogue between the Bride and Vernita in Kill Bill? Was that not stylized? Didn’t it make you laugh a little? Do you think that Tarantino believes people really talk like that?

Yes, it was. Yes, it did. Yes, I do.

Your comparison is definitely spot-on between the two guys. I dislike them both for the same reasons.

To quote Matt Wagner on his opinion of the All-Star Batman & Robin, "He [Batman] is unrecognizable."

When you really stop to think about it, does that Batman actually ever acted that way (except in Dark Knight Returns)?

Man, that is just great. Now THAT is the best Batman comic of the past 15 years!

When taken in the context that this book is supposed to be part of the "BatMillerverse" (yeah, I'm coining a phrase), it's incredibly fun. Notice; I said fun, not necessarily good. I just find it refreshing to have a comic be an enjoyable experience all the way through. Anything else I read from DC is either so bogged down in "Countdown" nonsense or written so obtusely by The God Of All Comics that I lose interest. This book, on the other hand, is written so tongue-in-cheek that I think a recent picture of Miller will show that his tongue is actually protruding out of a hole in the side of his face. It's not brilliant, but it's an enjoyable read. I personally find all the Goddamns to be quite funny.

I'm a serious zombie fan and I LOVED "Shaun of the Dead"
Because they clearly understood the genre and the appeal of zombies.

I did shriek in disgust at both the Day of the Dead remake and Marvel Zombies.

(Though I liked Marvel Zombies vs. Army of Darkness.)

There has to be a way to make a game out of this, like you check off on your card if he says Goddam Batarang or Goddam Batpole or Goddam Whirlybat.

Or body parts:
"I take out his knee. Then I take out his tonsils. He didn't need 'em anyway."

Do you drink the bottle if somebody complains about the Goddamn Goddamns?

John Seavey said...
"‘All-Star Batman’ isn’t like ‘Shaun of the Dead’, a loving homage to a brilliant original. It’s more like the ‘Dawn of the Dead’ remake, a glossy retread of the original with the pace speeded up and all the intelligent stuff traded out for fight scenes."
You're kidding, right? "The pace speeded up?" I'm fairly sure this is the first time this comic has been accused of that.

Personally, I love it. It's insane and unpredictable in a way that the Batman comics haven't been in a long time. Miller and Lee are obviously having fun making it, and that's translated to my enjoyment of it as a reader. I admit that it took a few issues for me to really get a handle on it, but man, it's always the book I look forward to reading the most whenever it comes out.

"Tarantino, at the very least, makes movies for the audience, rather than spitting on them."

This is the common criticism of All-Star Batman that I don't understand. How is Miller spitting on the audience? He's having fun, I'm having fun, it's just a fun book. There's an audience who enjoys this book, and Miller's writing it for us; he's not going out of his way to spit on you.

"She’s got a RIGHT to say whatever she WANTS. She’s got the RIGHT. THOMAS JEFFERSON and all that. And she’s dead RIGHT to say I’m half-CRAZY. But only half. The OTHER half is doing JUST FINE."

Admittedly the rest of the dialogue you quote is goddamn awful but I genuinely think this piece is great.

This is the common criticism of All-Star Batman that I don’t understand. How is Miller spitting on the audience? He’s having fun, I’m having fun, it’s just a fun book.

Assuming that Miller is just having fun (which I've never seen satisfactorily proven), this thing is so over-the-top it's hard to read as anything but contemptuous of its audience.

Seriously, if it's satire, when exactly do we get to the lighthearted winks aside to the audience? As I understand it, Batman has at least a sense of style, whereas this thing is wholly incoherent and graceless. (No, repeating the same bits of dialogue over and over doesn't count as style unless said dialogue was stylish to begin with.)

How does one lead, artistically, into the other?

I happened to be re-reading Miller's Daredevil these past few days, and I have to say: No, Frank Miller didn't always write this way. The older he gets, the more he descends into self-parody.

"Seriously, if it’s satire, when exactly do we get to the lighthearted winks aside to the audience?"

GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN
GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN
GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN
GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN

...possibly.

Is it for real? Is it satire? Is it serious? Is it fun? Is it unintentionally over the top? Is it ironic?

I guess I don't know for sure. I don't care. I know All-Star Batman is Frank Miller unleashed on the Bat-mythos, free to amp it up to whatever ludicrous degree he desires. And I'm loving the hell out of that.

I honestly don't think it's satire, in that I don't think there's any particular aspects of Batman's history that Miller is targetting. I think it's just meant to be Miller to the max, set in Gotham City, with every issue being more delirious than the last.

I love all the people who project whatever pre-conceived notion they have of Frank Miller onto this comic book.

Seriously:

"Frank Miller hates comics and loves Frank Miller."

"Miller’s only like Tarantino in that he swears. Tarantino, at the very least, makes movies for the audience, rather than spitting on them."

And my personal favourite:
"Frank Miller is contemptuous of his audience!"

Reality Check:
Frank Miller doesn't personally hate you and isn't purposely crafting a Batman comic to spite you/spit on you/screw with your life. The comic is clearly satirical in fact, if Frank Miller is poking fun at anyone it is himself.

"(No, repeating the same bits of dialogue over and over doesn’t count as style unless said dialogue was stylish to begin with.)"
Sorry, I meant to respond to this with the satire thing. Repitition actually does count as style, I think. 'Style' doesn't just refer to dialogue that sounds cool, I'm sure you'd agree. If I could be bothered to look up any of the Style Guides I've got lying around, I could find a decent definition, but for conversation's sake I'm pretty sure 'style' can refer to any deliberate techniques and quirks that the author chooses to deploy in their work.

Repitition would be one of those, harking back to the old pulp novels Miller's always loved, and even if he used that particular technique way too much in the early issues for my liking, I think he's levelled out pretty well. I can see how people might not enjoy it, but it is a stylistic choice.

Heh. I spelled repetition wrong... repeatedly.

Reality Check: Noone is taking this personally at all. Noone here has suggested that Frank Miller hates any specific fan individually.

But, after reading Dark Knight Returns, I can believe that he's disgusted with fans as a whole. I imagine that decades of conventions where his attempts to drum up interest in his other projects were met with cries for his return to Batman could leave him bitter and frustrated.

Imagine him signing copies of Sin City while fans tell him how they loved the the fight between Superman and Batman.

Perhaps he grew to become resentful and jealous of the Batman franchise and the way it overshadowed his original creations.

The solution: Return to Batman and turn it into a farce. Fill it with cliches, cheesy dialogue, and superficial trappings that fans raved about in the original minus the political subtext the innovative pacing (yes I said it... I did love the pacing of Dark Knight Returns).

This is what I suspect he did with Dark Knight Strikes Again.

I haven't read All Star Batman, but it seems to be a part of the same joke. This time attaching a "hot" artist, who isn't necessarily known for his storytelling abilities.

So I agree that, yes, Frank Miller is having a joke. If you expected a serious Batman book, then the joke is on you specifically. And, he is probably indeed laughing as he takes any money you give him anyway. If you're buying the book because it makes you laugh, well, that's probably just gravy.

This is the only explanation I can imagine for a writer whom I've enjoyed in all those Daredevil comics. The only other explanation I can think of is that he's lost his touch and just pandering now.

And for those who think that its not possible for a creator of mass entertainment not to hate their audience:

Clearly, you've never worked in children's television.

I will again ask -- if this is some sort of "joycore" comic, as the more ealborated defenses of it here seem to suggest, why does so little manage to happen in it other than the ludicrous dialogue and posing? Say what you will about the Tarantino comparison, but he uses a fairly evident (and fast-paced) setup and payoff system to produce at least the illusion of plot movement.

More to the point, even at his most indulgent Tarantino generally seems to be commenting on cinematic violence as much as he's indulging in it. (Admittedly, Kill Bill was an exercise in nearly erasing the line between commentary and indulgence.) Miller, at his most indulgent, simply seems to turn Mickey Spillane up to 11 (and Spillane was already at 10, and tiresome for it in comparison to a Chandler or a Hammett.)

And that's...well, it's rapidly boring to me. I'm not interested in playing Beavis on the couch muttering "Heh heh, he said 'Goddamn.' Batman's so tough he's crazy tough. Heh heh." And less so am I interested getting my jollies imagining Beavis on the couch, endlessly amused by my own ironic distance from that perspective.

This is glacially-paced, one-note, overdone material; the camp defense works for two or three issues' worth, but not for twelve issues dribbled out across years or sold in expensive hardcover.

Christ, it's stuff like this that gives postmodernism a bad name.

Oh, I'm aware it's technically a stylistic choice. I'm using 'style' here as per this definition, from Answers.com:

A quality of imagination and individuality expressed in one's actions and tastes

As I say, I have always assumed Batman had that kind of style. I don't see any in Miller's work, at least not on this book. Just a whole lot of bad writing.

GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN

…possibly.

Uh-huh. I'd call that more of a 'sledgehammer' than a 'wink' to the audience, but clearly mileage may vary.

“Tarantino, at the very least, makes movies for the audience, rather than spitting on them.”

"Say what you will about the Tarantino comparison, but he uses a fairly evident (and fast-paced) setup and payoff system to produce at least the illusion of plot movement."

Clearly you two didn't watch Death Proof. Not that I can blame you. I wish I hadn't.

Fair question, Omar, but for mine, it answers itself. The 'joycore' element of All-Star Batman and Robin is exactly what you said: that nothing happens in it other than the ludicrous dialogue and posing. It's the ultimate celebration of style over substance, and for five bucks a pop (exchange rates and shipping and all) every six months or so, it's pretty good value.

I think that people might dislike it because they're judging it based on what they'd like it to be, rather than what it actually is. Why do 'joycore' comics have to be diagetically 'light hearted', and contain a sequence of compressed, rapid fire events? There's a uni-dimensionality of tone that the blogosphere seems to want that I find myself resenting, and I appreciate that Miller has shown us a different way to make a comic enjoyable. Not good, neccessarily, but enjoyable.

Likewise, why does Miller have to comment on the conventions he's indulging in, just because Tarantino does? All he wants to do is turn Mickey Spillane up to 11 and imagine him writing Batman. That's his goal. Judge him on that. If you don't find that to be a worthy goal, that's totally understandable. It's certainly not thought provoking stuff we're talking about here. But surely after seven issues, you've realised it's not for you?

All he wants to do is turn Mickey Spillane up to 11 and imagine him writing Batman. That’s his goal. Judge him on that.

Out of pure curiosity, Rohan, what makes you so sure that that's all he wants to do?

"All he wants to do is turn Mickey Spillane up to 11 and imagine him writing Batman. That’s his goal. Judge him on that."

AMEN. Miller has even stated (in an old Sin City lettercol) that he's a Spillane fan (IIRC, his exact words were: "Spillane's the man")

(and all Tarantino wants to so is remake the Kung Fu and Horror movies he watched as a kid with bigger budgets, hence the comparison)

Just to clarify- I don't think I fit into either camp here- I'm not reading ASBAR, because it's not to my taste. I'm just not confusing my subjectives with my objectives. However:

Omar- I think there may be truth in your theory re: Miller's motivation- but I think that his irritation with people endlessly asking him to do a new DKR has driven him to write the Batmen HE wants to read, rather than one that is just deliberately bad, as you suggest.

oh KM, what did you DO? There is a reason some of us never use the quote function in comments on this blog, you know...

I'm basing that assumption on my reading of the work itself, KM, and on interviews with Miller I've seen where he repeatedly states that all he really wants to do with the Sin City franchise (and, presumably, this Batman title which appears to be a licensed offshoot of that) is tell stories that interest him about tough guys, fast cars and faster women. Sounds like fun to me.

I was going to make the Spillane point, but then I saw it was already brought up.

Here's some Spillane for comparison, by the way, from "Vengeance is Mine":

"'Goddamn it, stop!'
Then one of them laughed and shoved me back on the bed.
I couldn't think. I couldn't remember. I was wound up like a spring and ready to bust. All I could see was the dead guy in the middle of the room and my gun. My gun! Somebody grabbed at my arm and hauled me upright and the questions started again. That was as much as I could take. I gave a hell of a kick and a fat face in a fedora pulled back out of focus and started to groan, all doubled up. Maybe I laughed, I don't know. Something made a course, cackling sound."

So, yeah. You might not like it, but Miller's just being true to his influences.

Sorry about the quoting thing, guys...

...tell stories that interest him about tough guys, fast cars and faster women. Sounds like fun to me.

Eee-yeah. Sounds incredibly messed-up to me, at least from the perspective under debate, but as you like.

Ok, km, I'll bite: how is placing a character- who was created as, essentially, a pulp character- back into the pulp milieu 'incredibly messed up'?

Just out of curiousity, do the people who like Miller's dialogue like the Batman and Robin movie with George Clooney? Arnie's "Chill out" seems to me on the level of “Let me take you to school, suckers … in chemistry.”

If you do like it, more power to you. With a war going on, we shouldn't get worked up over Batman's diction.

"Just out of curiousity, do the people who like Miller’s dialogue like the Batman and Robin movie with George Clooney?"
I may like Frank Miller's Batman, but I'm not completely insane.

In all seriousness, Batman and Robin doesn't work for me because it doesn't seem to know what it wants to do. It's got some solid, emotional scenes in there with Bruce and Alfred, but then it wants to out-camp the '60s series in the other scenes, without much of the surreal creativity that made the '60s series so great. If they had just said at the outset, 'you know what, we want this movie to be an all-out tribute to Adam West's Batman', and cut loose and gone all out in that direction, it probably would have been okay. It wouldn't have been any more popular, though, because cinema audiences don't seem to want a campy Batman.

Really, I don't see how the people saying "Miller hates DC/Batman/readers" are making any more of an assumption than the people saying "It's all a satire/Miller having fun."

Both groups are making unsupportable assumptions.

I don't see any group saying Miller hates anyone or anything. I see one group saying it's a shitty comic, and one saying it's not.

Ok, km, I’ll bite: how is placing a character- who was created as, essentially, a pulp character- back into the pulp milieu ‘incredibly messed up’?

It's a matter of your POV. The 'pulp' genre, as embodied by Spillaine, was only ever harmless fun to begin with if you were a white, American male.

That Miller, instead of updating the genre into something clever or even stylish (second definition again) has chosen to revel in its basest, most misogynistic aspects - to me, that's messed-up. At the very least, it appears to be a whole lot of talent wasted.

Personally, I think this book is exactly like R. Kellly's hilarious "Trapped in the Closet" series of videos; I think both started off as serious by the creators, but when the creators heard the laughter and collective criticism of their work, they switched gears and pretended to be "in on the joke" the whole time. That's why we're hearing "goddamn" so much; Frank heard us laughing at him, and now he's acting like he was laughing the whole time too.

Me, I'm buying it all, just like I watched all of Trapped in the Closet. Something this awful is just too good to miss.

I'm not a Spillane fan (not out of dislike, I just never read his work), but if there is one thing that the Spillane quote above makes clear, Miller is not creating a loving homage (as per the Shaun of the Dead / Tarantino comparisons above) or being "true" to Spillane as much as he is parodying Spillane. If Miller is being "true" to any inspiration, I would say it was MAD magazine.

The problem is that Spillane is certainly the least of the major pulp writers, and Miller's homage to him is yet less. The book exists as a superficial bit of nonsense, and that is all.

Does this mean it shouldn't be enjoyed by its fans? No.

Does this mean it should be taken seriously or con sidered an artistic achievement of any kind? No.

It's crap. The fact that it's crap that some people find a mindlessly fun doesn't make it anything more than guilty pleasure at best.

This is, incidentally, why Miller can be held to account for failing to cmment on the material he's rather guilelessly aping: because were he to do so, it might be possible to claim that he's, you know, doing something that requires an iota of thought.

It's not crap because it can be enjoyed by fans.

Also to say that Miller isn't putting any thought into it is a bit ignorant to say. If you have ever read an interview or heard one with him you'll see that he is very thoughtful of what goes on in his stories.

Elvis Mitchell's The Treatment and NPR's Fresh Air have some good interviews with him that are available. Also The Comics Journal Interviews book is phenomonal

"Also to say that Miller isn’t putting any thought into it is a bit ignorant to say. If you have ever read an interview or heard one with him you’ll see that he is very thoughtful of what goes on in his stories."

Yeah, I read an interview where he said that Batman fighting Osama bin Laden "wasn't going to be pussy", and I thought, "Man, that guy is so thoughtful."

By the way -- Cool Points should be offered to anybody who can find the *one* time in the entire issue that "Batman" is said without being preceded by "Goddamn".

Well if you want to take one line out of context, sure, go ahead. Why don't you post the full quote, or the things he said before or after that? Because that would disprove your point?

Mickey Spillane is parody-proof, like porn or professional wrestling. If you're doing it, then you're doing it.

BTW, Shaun of the Dead was neither a parody nor an homage of zombie movies. It was a zombie movie, and one of the best ever.

You know, one thing that can definitely be said for this book: it gets people talking. It may be more polarizing than Hilary Clinton, but it does open up a dialog. It's more than can be said for universally panned books like Countdown or Amazons Attack. I don't think I've seen anyone jump to the defense of either book.

Yeah, I read an interview where he said that Batman fighting Osama bin Laden “wasn’t going to be pussy”, and I thought, “Man, that guy is so thoughtful.”

Geez, you people really can't let that Bin Laden thing go, can you? Anyone can isolate a single quote from a guy out of context and then use it to characterize his whole body of work, but is that really proof of anything?

Let's see if this post fixes the formatting problem or makes it worse

It’s not crap because it can be enjoyed by fans.

That's not how it works.

Geez, you people really can’t let that Bin Laden thing go, can you? Anyone can isolate a single quote from a guy out of context and then use it to characterize his whole body of work, but is that really proof of anything?

Easy there, Trigger. I don't think his post had anything to do with which story he was talking about. Just the fact that his description of it was so fratboyish and ripe with false machismo bullshit.

I want to be Batman for my Halloween party just so I can walk around muttering "I'm the goddamn Batman." I figure wandering around in a stained white tank top, torn jeans, and the cowl coupled with a bottle of beer and smoking a cigarette would be grand. If only I knew a single person outside of this blog that would get it...

Apodaca -actually that's exactly how it works. Crap has no redeeming value at all.

Apodaca -actually that’s exactly how it works. Crap has no redeeming value at all.

Where on earth did you get the idea that entertainment has to have redeeming value in order to please fans? Not from American pop culture, obviously.

I dunno, these selections make me more interested in reading the book than I was.

If something that can be enjoyed by its devotees cannot be dismissed as crap, then the existence of coprophilia suggests that even actual crap is not crap.

This would suggest that it is indeed possible for something to be crap while having some set of people who enjoy it. Even Coleman Francis has an admirer somewhere, and no one in their right minds is going to call his films anything but crap.

But it's all about intention. People are complaining that it has bad and clunky dialogue. That's an obvious stylistic choice. If you don't like that choice, then fine. But it's not like Miller is trying to write naturalistic dialogue and failing. The difference between Ed Wood the director and Ed Wood the movie.

OK, so he's deliberately trying to be bad (far unlike, it must be said, Ed Wood). That's a good thing how exactly? (Not snarking, just curious).

It kinda sounds like you are snarking, km, because you choose to phrase it as "he's deliberately trying to be bad", when that's clearly not what was said. 'Not naturalistic' doesn't equal 'bad' (although in this particular case, it clearly hasn't equalled an artistic masterpiece either, so it's not like the snark is unwarranted). It's just a different style, that I happen to be enjoying a hell of a lot, and apparently so are a decent amount of other people.

Sure, it has flaws, and it's not a patch on the work Miller did with the character in the '80s, but I can't see how a fun book with deliberately over-the-top characters that comes out once in a blue moon has come to be regarded as such a crime against humanity.

And I'm not entirely sure why a 'fun book' etc should inspire such defensiveness in its fans. It's perfectly OK for me (and others) to dislike it just as intensely as you like it, y'know?

That said, we do seem to have reached an impasse in this argument. Thanks and signing off now.

It's not entirely defensiveness, as it is an answer to the question you posed one post earlier. But you're right- ASBAR is definitely a take-it-or-leave-it book, so it's not hard to figure out why a lot of people don't care for it.

I bought the first issue and hated it so much that I gave it back to the comic shop. I didn't ask for my money back, but I just preferred not to have it in my house. Reading that "Thomas Jefferson" line makes me think that I may have made a serious mistake.

It kinda sounds like you are snarking, km, because you choose to phrase it as “he’s deliberately trying to be bad”, when that’s clearly not what was said.

Actually, that is what was said, by Punch. I've quoted it below:

People are complaining that it has bad and clunky dialogue. That’s an obvious stylistic choice.

He says right there, that bad is an obvious stylistic choice. Now, this, I don't doubt. I think Miller is completely aware of how he's writing and how it reads. He just likes that. I don't. The style is a matter of personal preference, yes, but the clunkiness is a matter of craft. That can be judged objectively.

Wow, you're right, Dan, nice catch. Sorry, km.