Comic Book Resources

He has time to redeem himself and give me more of the adventures of half mad sociopath Batman and his snotty punk killing machine sidekick Robin that I’ve grown to know and love over the course of this series.

Yeah!

As they've made the point that this isn't set in the DCU, why are people so upset to read about about a crazy arse-kicking Batman?
If anything, the DCU should be taking some of this down - especially the Bat-mobile can fly part.

Also, it'd be sweet if fifteen year old Bat-girl got a bullet in the spine as well.
But then pulled it out, and rammed it up the arse of the guy who shot her, or something.
Miller could make it work.

To me, the most inexplicable thing about this sadistic "All-Star" train wreck (which I long ago stopped buying but still peruse in the shop) is that some DC bigwig(s) (Paul Levitz perhaps?) got soooo bent out of shape about "The Boys" that they let go of an ongoing that was actually a hit. Given the toilet state of most comics sales, that's a pretty extreme reaction. And what's wrong with "The Boys"? I mean, sure, it's not my cup of tea at all, but they were surprised when the author of "The Preacher" started doing outrageously horrible things to superheroes?

Meanwhile, DC management thinks it's OK when Miller takes DC's primary heroes, many of them icons, and starts trashing them? Yikes, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

Meanwhile, DC management thinks it’s OK when Miller takes DC’s primary heroes, many of them icons, and starts trashing them? Yikes, but that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Honestly, I haven't read "The Boys" (although I heard great things), but no matter what status of "hit" it currently is... All-Star Bats is consistently DC's #1 book in sales whenever it bothers to come out. I doubt that axing "The Boys" was a gigantic financial blunder. I'd argue that (from what I heard of the material) Ennis is better off with an independent anyway.

Despite that... I still don't see the "trashing" of icons in this series. Miller treats Superman as a puppet (which he always has). I don't particularly see much difference from mainstream DC Black Canary and Miller's Black Canary -- both kick ass and never tended to shy away from gratuitous sex -- Miller's BC is just seems dirtier because, well, she's written by Miller. As for Wonder Woman, her dialog suggests she certainly is leagues different from the kindler, gentler Diana in the mainstream DC. But at least she isn't written like a male Superman, the trap that too many writers have fallen in over the years. Miller's Wonder Woman is instead of a female version of his "300" Spartans, and for a character rooted in Greek mythology I really don't see anything wrong with that.

And Green Lantern getting taken to task for making giant egg-beaters with the most powerful weapon in the universe is, in my opinion, a wonderful counter to the constant Silver Age worshiping that is too prevalent in current mainstream superhero comics. Some things about the Silver Age WERE silly and there's nothing wrong with poking fun at that.

Frankly I don't see a huge outcry by readers about the new Ambush Bug series making fun of a "serious literary achievement" like Identity Crisis. But I guess poking fun at the Silver Age is still considered a no-no.

The following isn't really addressed to anyone here, but it does springboard off of some of Brad's thoughts above.

The problem with poking fun at the Silver Age is that it was always rather tongue-in-cheek to begin with; poking fun at the Silver Age Reconstructionists is different, but they're less likely to just have Green Lantern use eggbeaters as a campy bit than to come up with some elaborate threat involving Egg Fu the Fifth or Humpty Dumpty, the Hobby-Robber, so that those eggbeaters they always wanted to write in are dramatically justified, dammit!

And in the end, that's sort of the problem with Miller's efforts at satire; he parodies a rather poor caricature of the Silver Age rather than either the actual problems of the era (i.e., its verges into weepy melodrama or its often bizarre gender politics) or the reconstructionists who insist on the overseriousness of something that was never meant seriously in the first place.

More to the point...is Miller's gonzo Batman any less silly than Silver Age Green Lantern? Silly in a different way, sure, but equally goofy in the end. (Indeed, this is why ASSBAR *does* entertain.) Likewise Sin City and 300, which are so busy polishing their surface of macho delights -- tough dames and choreographed brutality and badass dudes -- that they utterly lose the more poetic qualities of, say, the post-war pessimism of film noir or the complexities and contradictions of Greek history.

It's well to say, 'That's not the point; bonkers fun is the point." Miller does trash art very, very well. And that's quite okay. Popcorn movies and gonzo comics exist for a reason. But for God's sake, can we all stop pretending that Miller is still an important or serious creator, insofar as his post-1980s work is concerned?

To sum up: Dear Internet, don't be the ASSBAR fan equivalent of those SA Reconstructionists, please, and don't be plain ol' SARs either.

Batman performed a tracheotomy in the Dark Knight Dark City story. On a baby.

Batman performed a tracheotomy in the Dark Knight Dark City story. On a baby.

Jeez, did Robin punch the kid too? The hell's wrong with him?

In Robin's defense that baby was being a dick.

And in the end, that’s sort of the problem with Miller’s efforts at satire; he parodies a rather poor caricature of the Silver Age rather than either the actual problems of the era (i.e., its verges into weepy melodrama or its often bizarre gender politics) or the reconstructionists who insist on the overseriousness of something that was never meant seriously in the first place.

I don't quite get your point here. Miller's All-Star Batman isn't a successful satire because he does not parody the "real problems" of the Silver Age? What if Miller isn't interested in taking on the "weepy melodrama" or the "bizarre gender politics?" Those are two things that Alan Moore tackled (very well I might add) in "Supreme." Moore is Moore, Miller is Miller, and I expect them to approach their subjects in vastly different ways. Miller is certainly not a subtle writer by any means. So what's wrong with attacking the obvious surface silliness? Just because it isn't deep rooted doesn't mean it is poorly written or a lesser work.

Keep in mind that DKSA is Miller's version of a Justice League story. After all, he uses all the Silver Age pillars -- Barry, Hal, Ray Palmer, J'onn, and even the children of dead space cop Hawkman/Hawkgirl -- and uses them all in heroic fashion (i.e. no giant egg beaters -- wait, actually Plastic Man changes into one. Anyway...). Hal Jordan even saves the day. Of course, in DKSA Miller pokes fun at Elongated Man (for being a second-rate Plastic Man) and a one-panel cameo of Hawk & Dove, but they are not exactly icons. So he certainly does have some affinity for the Silver Age (as we all do). But sometimes it's fun to poke fun at something you love.

More to the point…is Miller’s gonzo Batman any less silly than Silver Age Green Lantern? Silly in a different way, sure, but equally goofy in the end.

I don't disagree with you here. In fact, I think the biggest problem most current readers have with DKSA is that it IS silly. Batman, they say, especially Miller's Batman of DKR and Year One, ISN'T goofy! Miller's work over the last two decades has often been heavily rooted in sarcasm, stereotypes, and parody. It's almost like most of the people leveling this kind of criticism have never read anything Miller wrote after he stopped writing Marvel & DC books. Did people honestly expect 2006 Miller would write like 1986 Miller? In fact, that doesn't surprise me, considering many comic readers won't read anything without either company's logo on the cover.

But for God’s sake, can we all stop pretending that Miller is still an important or serious creator, insofar as his post-1980s work is concerned?

Considering Miller is (because of the recent 300 and Sin City movies) probably one of the most well-known comic creators, one whose art and writing has clearly influenced many (both a good and a bad thing), I completely disagree. This would be akin to saying Jack Kirby's or Stan Lee's post 1970s work, since it wasn't as good as their 40s-70s work, makes them less relevant as a whole. Or that Moore is less relevant now because most of his work is about Victorian and storybook characters having sex with each other. Miller (and Moore, and Lee, and Kirby if he was still with us) will always be relevant, and the comic book world will always stop to see what he's doing. Even if it isn't up to their usual standards.

This comic really is the best depiction of Dick Grayson in decades, I love it.

"Regardelss of that, she doesn’t appear to be a hooker or madam, so there’s on for Miller on the gender relations tip!"

I think you spoke too soon. Miller has said that 'All Star' is the same universe as 'Year One', and she was established as a prostitute in 'Year One'. (I actually thought it was said somewhere in All-Star as well, but I might be wrong -- you've certainly read it more recently than I.)

and not a longform Mad Magazine serial or something

Now that you mention it... There is a bit of a Harvey Kurtzman air to the whole thing isn't there?

I don’t quite get your point here. Miller’s All-Star Batman isn’t a successful satire because he does not parody the “real problems” of the Silver Age? What if Miller isn’t interested in taking on the “weepy melodrama” or the “bizarre gender politics?”

Then it raises the question of what he *is* interested in taking on. It's not the SARs, because he's not really taking on their overseriousness -- the wackiness of his own setup undermines that tactic from the get-go. How successful can a satire be if the thing it's satirizing doesn't exist or is indeterminable?

Those are two things that Alan Moore tackled (very well I might add) in “Supreme.” Moore is Moore, Miller is Miller, and I expect them to approach their subjects in vastly different ways. Miller is certainly not a subtle writer by any means. So what’s wrong with attacking the obvious surface silliness? Just because it isn’t deep rooted doesn’t mean it is poorly written or a lesser work.

I think I've explained fairly clearly why going after the surface silliness of the SA is, at the very most, a lesser recapitulation of the SA's own self-aware silliness. It's removing a dimension and then pretending to mock the SA for lacking the very quality Miller strips out.

I'm not arguing that ASSBAR is a poor piece of work; I give full marks for the entertainment value, for the surface polish, for the style. I'm simply saying that it isn't a particularly significant or important piece of comics work.

0Keep in mind that DKSA is Miller’s version of a Justice League story. After all, he uses all the Silver Age pillars — Barry, Hal, Ray Palmer, J’onn, and even the children of dead space cop Hawkman/Hawkgirl — and uses them all in heroic fashion (i.e. no giant egg beaters — wait, actually Plastic Man changes into one. Anyway…). Hal Jordan even saves the day. Of course, in DKSA Miller pokes fun at Elongated Man (for being a second-rate Plastic Man) and a one-panel cameo of Hawk & Dove, but they are not exactly icons. So he certainly does have some affinity for the Silver Age (as we all do). But sometimes it’s fun to poke fun at something you love.

I'm not really going after DKSA in the first place. Perhaps my statement about "trash art" wasn't clear enough: trash art is loads of fun, and certainly should exist. (I think I wrote something similar initially, but maybe it was a bit muddled in the execution.) But trash art gets to be the kind of fun it is by, well, giving up on being meaningful or significant art.

I don’t disagree with you here. In fact, I think the biggest problem most current readers have with DKSA is that it IS silly. Batman, they say, especially Miller’s Batman of DKR and Year One, ISN’T goofy! Miller’s work over the last two decades has often been heavily rooted in sarcasm, stereotypes, and parody. It’s almost like most of the people leveling this kind of criticism have never read anything Miller wrote after he stopped writing Marvel & DC books. Did people honestly expect 2006 Miller would write like 1986 Miller? In fact, that doesn’t surprise me, considering many comic readers won’t read anything without either company’s logo on the cover.

For that matter, it's not as if DKR was exactly subtle either, with its Hitler-mustachioed Dr. Wolper, doltish Reagan, and Dr. Ruth dying while screeching about "zex." But DKR was much more acommentary on its times and the context of the comics around it than the later stuff, which has no such ambitions. The ambitions that DKSA and ASSBAR and the rest do have, they fulfill; I'm simply arguing that the nature of those ambitions makes this later work a lot less powerful and a lot less likely to influence the medium and genre than DKR and the 1980s material.

Considering Miller is (because of the recent 300 and Sin City movies) probably one of the most well-known comic creators, one whose art and writing has clearly influenced many (both a good and a bad thing), I completely disagree. This would be akin to saying Jack Kirby’s or Stan Lee’s post 1970s work, since it wasn’t as good as their 40s-70s work, makes them less relevant as a whole. Or that Moore is less relevant now because most of his work is about Victorian and storybook characters having sex with each other. Miller (and Moore, and Lee, and Kirby if he was still with us) will always be relevant, and the comic book world will always stop to see what he’s doing. Even if it isn’t up to their usual standards.

I'm not making that argument at all. You've overlooked the "insofar" I stuck in there, which was a limiting tactic. My point is that Miller's post-1980s work is simply not all that significant or meaningful for comics. That says nothing about his 1980s work, any more than a review that remarks on the hollowness of Stan Lee's Just Imagine project means that his old Marvel work is to be tossed out as well, or a review pointing out that Kirby's New Gods are thematically powerful but lack the humanist touch that made his earlier Marvel work more polysemous and influential is a statement that Kirby stinks and always did.

That's just not what I'm saying at all. Miller4, Moore, et al. *are* less influential *in terms of their current work*. They remain *highly* influential in terms of their past work, which is still shaping the genre and the medium. All I'm saying is that they're not doing anything influential right now, and that this deserves acknowledgment and consideration. It's not about tearing down their influence, it's about noting that the creators themselves, as in any medium or genre, are not producing still fresher revelations and artistic modes. ASSBAR is late-period Miller: technically surefooted, focused, and polished, but without the spark of genius or originality that prior Miller material had.

That's the most incoherent thing I've read in a while. Nice!

I agree with Omar, and I'd add that as satires go, ASSBAR isn't particularly original, intelligent, or funny, IMO. My feelings for ASSBAR are similar to what I felt when I read Garth Ennis's pro. The superhero genre is already a very easy target for satire, and the best Ennis and Miller could come with are jokes about how naive and wimpy Superman and Green Lantern can be, or Wonder Woman as a man-hating fanatic, or Batman as a repressed homo or something? It looks like the sort of stuff a 15-year old could come up with. Surely you can make fun of superheroes while being a bit more original?

They can do better than that. There was an issue of "Marshal Law" that pocked fun at the Marvel heroes, with the Captain America analogue as a paranoid conservative that had those huge meandering thought baloons that led nowhere, and Mister Fantastic constantly talking to his imaginary, non-existent invisible wife. Those were genuinely funny parodies. Even Garth Ennis got a bit better at it, the issue with Tek Knight and his dream of saving the Earth by having sex with the asteroid was funny too.

It seems to me that some fans are so tired of certain aspects of the superhero genre or at least of the current stories, that they overestimate ANY satire, as if anything that tried to attack this self-important, silly genre were valuable.

The ambitions that DKSA and ASSBAR and the rest do have, they fulfill; I’m simply arguing that the nature of those ambitions makes this later work a lot less powerful and a lot less likely to influence the medium and genre than DKR and the 1980s material.

I’m not making that argument at all. You’ve overlooked the “insofar” I stuck in there, which was a limiting tactic. My point is that Miller’s post-1980s work is simply not all that significant or meaningful for comics.

Well I apologize if I misunderstood your statement, but I still disagree. Considering there is a significant "movie" audience out there that saw Sin City and 300 and thought it was entertaining enough to sell more copies of the original books. So successful, in fact, that Sin City 2 is in the pipeline and there's talk of somehow making a sequel to 300. Now I know that movie audiences are movie audiences and comics audience are comics audience, but isn't thousands of readers picking up their first graphic novel (or even readers picking up their first non-Marvel non-DC graphic novel) significant to the industry? Isn't that meaningful? I'd say that even though 300 and Sin City (the books) are several years old, the true influence of both have yet to be determined based on current mass popularity. Not everything is as immediately influential as DKR, Sandman, or Watchmen.

With that said... I think it goes without saying that All-Star Bats, DKSA, and any other Batman or Daredevil project that Miller comes up with until the day he dies will probably never have the influence that DKR, Year One, and Born Again have. I mean, those books are HUGE. The "Miller style" has already been done, and it's almost impossible for any artist -- whatever the medium -- to remain at the forefront of the craft for his or her entire career. But that's like dismissing, say, Arthur Conan Doyle's other works because clearly his first two dozen Sherlock Holmes stories were the most influential. Even if Miller's only "ambition" is to get a nice, fat check from DC... well, congrats to him. Ambition really isn't everything. Charles Dickens wrote long novels because he was paid by the word. Mario Puzo wrote the Godfather because he needed money fast. It was the critics and readers who declared the works important. Perhaps when All-Star Bats finishes (in 2016 or so) it may not be considered all that influential. But look what has happened to Sin City and 300, and now, Watchmen, which is selling out faster than DC can print new copies. It's possible that the influence of these three works hasn't even come close to peeking, and I bet the "ambition" behind each one was incredibly different.

As a final note... I haven't quoted the rest of your post because, frankly, everyone is free to their own interpretation of All-Star Bats. I think it works as an analysis of how exactly crazy a man would need to be in order to become Batman (and how someone like Dick Grayson would ground that man). The 300-style Wonder Woman, goofy Hal Jordan, and leashed Boy Scout Superman are just touches of Miller's humor, enough to keep the work from being TOO serious. I always liked the man's sense of humor, so... I like it. What I don't agree with are people who say it's crap or that "Miller's lost it," because, well, they simply can't get over the fact that Batman is a bit loony ,and Hal Jordan gets punked out by Robin. Or that a man can change the way he writes a character after two decades (although, as I've said before, I really don't see many deep-rooted differences). I understand if Miller's writing is not somebody's thing, but I'm glad people have given up on the "this isn't Batman" crap. I'm not saying that you said this (far from it, actually), but that's my main problem with the response to this series.

Exactly why do people think ASBAR is a satire? I said this in the other thread, but I don't recall Miller stating this. Farce? Maybe. How about we just call it 'Miller having fun'?

Rene-you're oversimplifying the characterizations to make a point. You say that Superman and GL are portrayed as wimpy and naive. Superman isn't wimpy in DKR and DKSA, or ASBAR for that matter. Unless you think Superman as a character is wimpy. He hasn't been in ASBAR enough at this point to do much but so far he's been someone who is extremely careful because he's extremely powerful.

WW hates men. Well Ok she's an Amazon, that's a perfectly valid characterization.

In ASBAR GL is a goofball but in DKSA he's basically a god. This is because early on he doesn't know the type of power he has. Somewhere down the line he "gets it".

Not to mention the fact that what the JLA say about Batman is right. Superman wants to bring Batman in because he seemingly kidnapped a kid, and GL is the one who says "maybe he's was helping the kid". In the Yellow Issue everything GL is correct. He just doesn't have the inside knowledge that we do, that Batman can break the rules and do the right thing all at the same time and make it work.

Miller set Batman,who is someone who will whatever it takes(break someone's legs, paint himself and everything else yellow) against the JLA, who have boundaries. Throughout DKR, DKSA and now ASBAR, Batman's methods are questioned.

I haven't read even one issue of this, only read about it, but I don't understand how Robin is supposed to have been able to steal a GL power ring from its wearer at all, let alone without his noticing. Shouldn't that be impossible? No one has addressed this. A GL power ring isn't merely a piece of jewelry. Isn't anyone who has read this issue a 'Green Lantern' reader at all and familiar with how power rings work and act?

And yes, I do grasp that 'ASBAR' is supposed to be outside DCU continuity, WHATEVER THAT IS AT ANY GIVEN TIME, ha-ha, but that's not an excuse, that's just lazy storytelling.

Hal was in a room covered in yellow, and was still very new to his powers.

That shouldn't affect how the ring reacts if some kid tries to yank it off a GL's hand, Omar. GL power rings, even early on, as I recall, were depicted as having independent onboard AIs (artficial intelligences), which ought to at the very least scream bloody murder if some bipedal autochthonous sapient, wearing yellow gloves or otherwise, tries to steal them from their wearers. Built-in safeguard, you know. The fact they were in a yellow room should have no bearing on it as long as the ring had any charge at all, and the yellow environment wouldn't suck all the charge out of the ring. Shouldn't have worked.

Oops, sorry, Mr. Jerusalem! For some reason I thought it was Mr. Karindu who said that.

But if the ring can't work with yellow, then when it was totally surrounded by it (Robin was yellow), it wouldn't be able to work.

Honestly though, it may sound silly out of context, all of ASBAR does, but the scene just works.

So I'm saying maybe, MAYBE a mugger wearing yellow gloves can snatch a GL's power ring off his digit if the wearer doesn't realize that overcoming great fear neutralizes the yellow impurity and enables the ring to work against yellow, but the ring's AI would alert the wearer that the autochthon was trying to take it. Robin shouldn't be able to snatch the ring without Hal noticing, as I understand the story depicts, like the Artful Dodger cutting purses in Dickensian London. Or is that simply demanding too much intellectual rigor of the scribe of the Goddamn Batman?

I'll stipulate artistic license, Mr. Jerusalem; I'm just making the point that, logically, the power ring would have been yelling, 'Attention, Green Lantern of sector 2814, Dick Grayson, age twelve, is trying to steal me!' Robin wouldn't have been able to silence the ring, yellow gloves or no.

You're missing a really great issue.

So I’m saying maybe, MAYBE a mugger wearing yellow gloves can snatch a GL’s power ring off his digit if the wearer doesn’t realize that overcoming great fear neutralizes the yellow impurity and enables the ring to work against yellow, but the ring’s AI would alert the wearer that the autochthon was trying to take it.

The whole fear thing is a recent development, and wasn't around when the story is set (even if the story wasn't set in it's own continuity), and so yellow stopped it from working.

Or is that simply demanding too much intellectual rigor of the scribe of the Goddamn Batman?

I think he's just trying to tell a fun over the top story, and stuff like that really does get in the way.

I'm not accentuating the overcoming-fear thing as much as I am that the ring's autonomous AI would make some noise to alert its wearer. Yellow would block RING ENERGY but it wouldn't block SOUND. Robin shouldn't have been able to SNEAK the ring away. MAYBE strongarm it. I'll certainly stipulate 'over-the-top', Mr. Jerusalem, but it wasn't much 'fun' for GL, now was it?

I ought to leave you Batfans alone. I'm coming across as a troll doing all this arguing. I'm only commenting because a character other than Batman is involved. I don't care about Batman/Nightwing/Robin/Batgirl at all (well, I KIND OF like Babs Gordon). The last Batcomic I bought was Barr/Davis/McFarlane's 'Year Two' in, what, 1987? Wonder whether that's still in 'continuity'.

Oh, I forgot I also bought 'The Killing Joke'.

And I should clarify that Hal Jordan isn't my favorite GL. He could have been left corrupted and dead for all I care. Guy Gardner is my GL.

I’ll certainly stipulate ‘over-the-top’, Mr. Jerusalem, but it wasn’t much ‘fun’ for GL, now was it?

He's fictional... I didn't really pay attention to whether or not he was having fun... it wasn't part of the story.

The last Batcomic I bought was Barr/Davis/McFarlane’s ‘Year Two’ in, what, 1987? Wonder whether that’s still in ‘continuity’.

Probably.
ASBAR never has been, and was advertised as not being in continuity.

Oh, I forgot I also bought ‘The Killing Joke’.

That was written out of continuity as well, but then worked into it.

And I should clarify that Hal Jordan isn’t my favorite GL. He could have been left corrupted and dead for all I care. Guy Gardner is my GL.

Cool.

Isn't ASBAR supposed to be in-continuity with the other Miller bat-books (Year One/DKR/DKSA)? At least I seem to recall reading this in one of Miller's pre-release hype-up interviews. It sticks out in my mind because at the same time DC was advertising it differently, as a back-to-basics out-of-continuity relaunch.

(Even if Miller intended it to be as such - a continuing/set-up that tied into his other works - I'm not sure he'd say that's what he's doing with it now, anyway.)

(Even if Miller intended it to be as such - a continuing/set-up that tied into his other works - I’m not sure he’d say that’s what he’s doing with it now, anyway.)

Whilst it isn't as 'serious' as Year One or Dark Knight Returns, I'd say it fits in well enough.

(Especially if you consider that in-continuity Batman goes to Space quite regularly, saves the world quite often with his flying friends, and yet still sits around on rooftops in Gotham every night).
(I mean Year One and Dark Knight don't necessarily fit that well together at all)

ASBAR kind of reminds me more of DKSA than DKR, but I can see those three all working together. Year One I really can't... unless ASBAR is meant to be the massive change of tone and feel that the Dick Sprang-era light n' goofy comics represented, as funneled through Miller's own post-Code sensibilities.

(Not an interpretation I'd considered before now, but one I'll have to think on-- it puts a lot of things into a certain logical context.)

In-continuity Batman is so completely a character that makes no sense, I think most of us are just kind of inured to it. I suspect most people by now read the guy squatting on rooftops in Gotham and the guy hanging out with the Justice League as two 'different' characters, even if they don't consciously realize they're doing this. If Miller's Batman isn't getting the same courtesy... well, I wonder if people end up bringing higher expectations to out-of-continuity projects, at least in terms of expecting a lot of internal consistency.

Of course, if Miller is doing a post-Code take on the Dynamic Duo years with ASBAR, well... internal consistency is really, really not what Sprang-era Batman comics were about.

Of course, if Miller is doing a post-Code take on the Dynamic Duo years with ASBAR, well… internal consistency is really, really not what Sprang-era Batman comics were about.

It's not what most silver age comics were about, but don't tell that to the continuity geeks who seem to ignore that everything from the era considered 'in-continuity' was cherry-picked at a later date.