When were [mainstream] comics ever aimed at “mature-for-their-age” kids? What a ridiculous thing to say. Comics used to be aimed at KIDS in general.

Roughly 1967-82 or thereabouts. The late '60s was when Marvel first became aware of their college-age fans, and the early '80s began the transition to the direct market. Prior to that time, most comics were aimed at kids in general (with the exception of EC and romance comics, among others; there was a big readership among the military in WWII as well). But from the late '60s to the early '80s, the primary market for both DC and Marvel was smart kids and geeky young adults.

Honestly, the book would have been better with the curse words and nad-crushing left in. It’s just that sort of ride.

Honestly? I think I'd be a little less annoyed about it if that were the case. There's something really asinine about this halfway approach, that's a big part of where I'm getting the sophomoric vibe from.

Also, Denny O'Neil weighs in on the All-Star snafu over at ComicMix. The interesting thing about his comments to me? He asks the very "editor questions" that I was speculating no one at DC dared to ask Frank Miller.

The book is just Miller having fun, with Lee along for the ride. They sure seem to be enjoying themselves, and I enjoy reading it. Not because it's satire, or because Miller hates his fans or something, but because it's an unabashed, hilariously OTT, balls-to-the-wall C-grade action movie, the sort that ends up getting watched way more often than the flavour of the month A-grade drama. It's Sin City with Batman characters and Jim Lee art, and I am totally down for that.

Honestly, the book would have been better with the curse words and nad-crushing left in. It's just that sort of ride. So I can get behind a criticism of the editors there, but other than that, I'll defend ASBAR to my dying breath.

P.S. Please, don't insult ASBAR when I'm close to death, because that would be a lame way to use my last breath, and I'm kind of committed to it now.

Steve Gerber's code-approved Marvel work in the '70s compared to Destroyer Duck. Or Hard Time, which came later. Similarly, I'd put Engelhart's Doctor Strange and Captain America one (but just one) notch above Coyote, as well.

Although I haven't read the Ditko colaboration Djinn, so grain of salt me on that last one.

Master Race compared to, heck, virtually all of EC's Pre-Code comics. Or, shucks, all the Harvey Kurtzman edited war books compared to the gross-out horror stuff.

R. Crumb's more restrained work is generally his best. I'm thinking Weirdo and Kaka, specifically. (And, yeah, "restrained' by Crumb standards is pretty far out there.)

Ditko's Static vs. Spider-man. (Or, Mister A., but Static crosses the line into "completely unreadable" for me.)

Or, y'know... Frank Miller.

And if we expand the argument a tad, it's tough to argue that some of the greatest works in comics were done in the EXTREMELY restricted medium of the daily/weekly newspaper: Yer Krazy Kat, Yer Little Nemo, Yer Pogo, Yer Peanuts. I've read *a* *lot* on Schulz' life and work recently, and I can't find anything to indicate that he would do better work under less restrained conditions.

I dunno... I'm still working through this, and don't really have an opinion, other than it would be very, very nice if Nitz the Bloody would stop talking about Superman Adventures.

P.S. Nitz the Bloody: Can you stop talking about Superman Adventures? It's annoying, distracts from the point of the thread, and it's more than a little insulting that you're working THIS hard to call Greg Hatcher's critical opinion into question, especially since you - By your own admission - Know sweet FA about the comparative level of craft on display in SA vs. Millar's other work.

Just using an extreme example to prove a point; that the " consensus " Greg Burgas put forth is anecdotal evidence that's tenuous at best. Of all the people who've read the bulk Millar's work ( though I admit I haven't read much of his Superman Adventures, I've read practically everything he's done from his Authority onwards ), what fraction preferred his animated DCU stuff to the rest? And of that fraction, what are their stakes in making the statement that Superman Adventures is the best thing Millar's ever done? For example, are they...

1.) Traditionalist superhero fans who have an inherent disdain for the cynically realistic ( or realistically cynical, depending on your opinion ) way Millar represents superheroes, and prefer his work on Superman Adventures because it doesn't feature any massive head wounds or military-industrial storm troopers?

2.) People who detest explicit content in all its forms, and hold to the belief that true quality is intrinsically opposed doesn't need violence, sex, or profanity?

3.) Self-styled iconoclasts who don't like Millar's commercially successful work and look back to Superman Adventures as an example of his talents as a lesser-known figure ( i.e., the " that band was cool before they got a song on the radio, now they're sell-outs " mentality )?

4.) Thoughtful critics who compare the works as objectively as you can compare art, and have a rational reason for why Superman Adventures is inherently better constructed than Millar's later works?

I can fess up to having enjoyed some Millar works more for their ideology than their quality at times ( I stuck through Civil War longer than I should have, on the grounds that the people it pissed off were initially those I disagreed with ), but critics should be able to critique themselves, as well.

" Whereas a lot of his Marvel work tends to take the premise that “if this sort of stuff or these sort of people existed in real life, it would be TERRIBLE.” It’s a much more cyncial, and easy road to hoe. Also more popular, sadly. "

Positivity does not necessarily equal a better story. You can find a celebration of human altruism in every episode of Captain Planet, and you can find nihilistic parables on human evil in George Orwell's stories. I encourage everyone to try and explain why Captain Planet is better than 1984 ( though this isn't an argument, just because I want to see if anyone here is a talented enough scholar that they can make Captain Planet sound brilliant with pure academic bullshit ). Flex Mentallo's axiom about " only a naive teenager would confuse realism with pessimism " ( paraphrased ) works in reversed, too.

( Also, consider that Millar got a nomination for " Best Writer " Eisner during the following year, when he was writing the Authority and Ultimate X-Men. Both of which were significantly more ambitious than Superman Adventures ( one being the new direction for a very popular maxi-series, the other being a from-scratch reinvention of a venerable and popular franchise ). )

Whereas a lot of his Marvel work tends to take the premise that "if this sort of stuff or these sort of people existed in real life, it would be TERRIBLE." It's a much more cyncial, and easy road to hoe. Also more popular, sadly.

As for Miracleman vs. Teen Titans - a comparison I hate to even bring up - I think the whole Wonderdog mess is another example of a controversial scene inserted for "pop" - i.e. it riles people up (we just know some fanboy somewhere yelled "KICKASS" when they saw Marvin's corpse) and keeps people interested in whatever storyline the violence is ostensibly tied to. Miracleman, despite the presence of super-heroes, is more of a horror/sci-fi comic and the destruction created by the big "super-fight" is meant to horrify rather than titallate and it was clear from that point forward in the story that nothing would be the same again. There were lasting consequences.

What was the last time you could say that about a mainstream super comic? Can there even be lasting consequences for a character like Batman or Spider-Man, who probably generates more income in merchandising than comics sales anyway?

"Just about the snicker," indeed.

If it happens you are for some reason, then that's a lot of people you've got to successfully prove are idiots. "Millar was best on Superman Adventures" is an opinion I've seen all over the internet, from big forums to scans_daily to 4chan to multiple blogs, for about the past five years.

It also seems strange to denigrate the work so much for being a tie-in to a specific Superman status quo when I seem to recall Millar's Superman Adventures work won an Eisner Award, and I know that the book launched with a run of much-hyped issues by Scott McCloud.

DC was clearly from the beginning pushing it as more than a desultory tie-in. They were trying to duplicate the high sales and high regard that were (at the time) lavished on the Batman: The Animated Series comic book, which tended to enjoy strong creative teams and good word-of-mouth.

The problem with stuff like Wonderdog having his little snack, with pretty much ALL of what Miller is doing now, with Superboy/man Prime ripping people's limbs off etc. is that they are CRUDE, which is slightly different from merely being tasteless.

Something which is crude is "not carefully or expertly made". It's blunt, unrefined, immature.

At their best, comics can go totally out of the box and push people's buttons. But when its simply about the ACT of button pushing, its shabby. The button pushing has to have a greater point, an endpoint other than simply riling people up. And frankly its got to have some originality, because retreads can't really get away with trying to claim that they are provoking people to think of something in a new way. Instead they are simply bowing to that crudeness, because its just about the snicker, not about anything more.

Which begs the question; when you balance ambition and execution, which one holds more weight? With Adventures, Millar was working on a tie-in to a Saturday morning cartoon, utilizing an art style designed for TV and not comics, having a storyline hindered by the status quo of a cartoon heavily about that, and being published more out of obligation to a often-hypothetical kids' market than out of audience interest. There was no room whatsoever for ambition. Superman: Red Son had more room for mature content, but as a three-issue Elseworlds published by a less-than-controversial company ( re: the whole September 11/Authority debacle ), the room for ambition was still limited.

Whereas Millar is given much more freedom with his Marvel work, and often uses it to its full advantage. Early Ultimate X-Men and the Ultimates involved Millar and his collaborators completely redesigning the Marvel Universe to reflect a post-human sci-fi aesthetic, as opposed to a Cold War one. In the Ultimates, Millar took the goofy 60's Avengers and used them for a darkly humorous political satire. And while there was shock value to it, it was all contextualized in the universe ( for example, if the Hulk is pure id with no restraint, he would have those really disturbing animal impulses. Or if Captain America is a 1940's soldier thawed out in modern times, he would probably NOT be a secular humanist ).

I think that if Millar succeeded even slightly on the Ultimates ( and I think he succeeded more than slightly ), it'd mean much more than a full success on a Superman Adventures comic.

" Nitz: Yeah, it’s completely unscientific, but for the past four years, whenever I would complain about a Millar book (even though I liked the first year of Ultimates, I complained about other stuff), I’d get a bunch of comments telling me that Superman Adventures was his best stuff. So it’s anecdotal, but the sentiment is out there. "

With all due respect, I'd need much more detail for that anecdote to think it shows any trend in the larger comics audience. How many people gave you comments? What were their tastes in comics and media in general? And what opinion of Mark Millar did they enter the books with?

Or to phrase it another way; if 24 out of 24 people enjoy Big Macs, and 22 of them are living in a homeless shelter, does that mean it's a good hamburger?

That said, its pretty much a wish fulfillment snuff comic, with the leads dressed as people some may find familiar- kind of like the whores in James Ellroy's prostitution ring in "LA Confidential" with all the hookers resembing movie stars to fulfill their client's fantasies. If its satire, its not very good satire, because great satire gives us something of quality to redress the issue at hand- Robocop's brilliant commercials hacking at rampant consumerism, Jonathan Swift's excellent treatise on how to combat poverty, so on, so forth. And this is a snuff comic that throws an issue of "52" there saying "hey, this is all that comic did- get it?" but giving us nothing better in return- its what pissed me off about the film "Adaptation"- I don't need a hollywood film telling me hollywood makes shit films, and then turning it into one rather than giving me something better.

James Ellroy put it best: "A whore cut to look like Veronica Lake is still a whore".

I don't actually have a problem with ASB&RTBW... I simply look on it as a sort of prequel to The Dark Knight Returns... with better artwork... In the pages above i can even see shades of the video arcade sequence that introduces us to the new Robin in DKR... DKR was dark satire as well... I'm not saying it's supposed to be laugh-out-loud funny... just dark satire.. just like the better Judge Dredd stories. (Anything by John Wagner & Alan Grant)

I DO think however that both DKR and ASB&RTBW needed to have "For mature readers" on there.. or even the more classic "NOT FOR KIDS" that I remember seeing somewhere...

Perry Holly: I have to absolutely agree with you about Ironwood.. Scarily it was actually what swung me over to try Fables... I think my question to my LCS guy was:
"Bill Willingham? Didn't he write Ironwood for Eros?"
"Yup!"..
"That was pretty good writing if I remember, wasn't it?"
"Yup"

OK I'll try it... never looked back since...

I think the problem is what people are expecting from their comics...
On one hand you have people who never want their heroes to EVER face adult situations.
On another, you have guys wanting superhero porn... (hence a HUGE number of amateur X-Men, Star-wars, Spider-Man/Black Cat porn pictures all over the net...)

The rest of us get stuck somewhere in the middle...

There ARE a few decently written and drawn stories out there that DO tackle adult themes in an adult way, but just like the rest of the media, printed, broadcast or online, there tends to be a whole heap of compost in order for a handful of roses to grow...

Oh, and the best parody of DKR was in Cerebus... "ribs cracked... bowels ruptured.. gotta keep climbing... remember Jason... Jason was a soldier!" Bwah-hah-hah-hah-haaaaa!

Maybe comics need a uniform ratings system. There are some arguments against it, but this sort of thing might not come up as often if you knew, looking at the shelf, that TEEN TITANS #whatever issue is an “M” (or whatever letter is still not trademarked) for violence, while GREEN LANTERN CORPS Is a “T” this week, and ALL STAR BATMAN is “M” for swearing and nudity and whatever else Frank is doing now.

I really agree with the need to do this. I think it's a responsible business practice and I'm actually more perturbed they aren't doing than anything else.

But...the latest issue of New Avengers has a clone of Reed Richards being tortured as he watches his wife killed and features wholesale slaugher of clones of the iluminati... and it's given a rating of "A", or ages 11 and up. Between this and DC's attitude which seems to be "Batman shouldn't be in a comic with a mature readers label, so we just won't put one on a book that clearly merits one" I don't trust either DC or Marvel to enforce it either.

Can't it be both, though? I imagine that the main story is meant to be somewhat straight, but then Miller comes up with all these over-the-top parody scenes he thinks is so amusing that he throws them in anyway.

Kinda like Judge Dredd, some stories are serious, some are obvious satire, and some straddle some middle line when you can't really figure out what is meant to be taken at face value and what is not.

Also, I bet there were people writing very similar essays when Marvel/Miracle Man came out and when Brat Pack came out etc, and the only real difference is that you liked those ones.

You and Lynxara are doing fine on your own so I hesitate to step in, but this does strike me as a bit disingenuous. I spent a whole column explaining that there IS a difference and why I think so. If you're saying the difference is only that I liked Miracleman and Bratpack, and not All-Star Batman or Titans, well, yes, that's true... but I had reasons and tried to get them out front. That was the point of writing the thing. It's what reviews do: I liked those because of A, I disliked these because of B. If I screwed that up, I suppose I could have written it better, but it's not the arbitrary decision you are suggesting it is.

Also, I tried to note where fans DID protest that the content of these past examples was over the line. Chaykin's Shadow drew some heat, and the Miracleman birth issue. That was it as far as I can remember here in the States. I'm not a 'journalist,' but I do make an effort to try and get these things in there when they apply.

If you are enjoying All-Star Batman on the same Mystery Science Theater level that people are enjoying retrospectives of crappy movies, okay; I certainly have my own beloved inventory of crappy pop culture items around here as well. Some favorite movies of mine-- Black Belt Jones, Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires-- are never going to end up on anyone's "Best Of" lists, and I still love them.

But that's not really an argument against stuff like that being adolescent or stupid. I would never argue that Black Belt Jones is intended as a satirical sendup of martial arts films. It's just bad. Likewise I think All-Star Batman is simply bad. I don't think it's 'satire.' That strikes me as an after-the-fact defense. I don't think it's meant seriously, but it reads more to me like a big middle finger to people that were expecting the "Frank Miller Batman." You want the same old Dark Knight again? Fine. You asked for it, fanboy.

That’s a really hilarious thing to say when Paul Dini is writing Detective Comics, based purely on how popular his Batman kid’s cartoon writing was.

But his cartoon writing isn't his comic writing - the cartoon didn't have Batman familiar with the staff at S&M clubs, or Poison Ivy murdering people she picked up at bars looking for sex.

(So in other words, if you go with 'based purely' on the fact that he wrote the cartoon, sure, it's hilarious, but if you read the books he has written... not so much).

Morrison’s current run is built upon referencing old Batman comics from when the franchise was at its kid-friendliest, the Silver and early Bronze ages.

So is ASSBAR.

The mainline comics aren't really written with kids in mind, true, but the vast majority of all Batman comics to date would be perfectly harmless reading to give to a eight-to-ten-year-old boy (and younger and the dialogue is too likely to be above-level). Most that aren't appropriate to ten are perfectly harmless stuff by fourteen, including ASBAR in all of its ridiculous glory. Whatever the kids are seeing in movies, TV, or listening to in music is very likely to be much more challenging in terms of adult content, and probably more interesting to begin with.

In fact, I've never seen anything half so gruesome in a Batman comic as goes down in some of the novels that are required and recommended reading for kids of that grade level in school. A simple Holocaust unit or a project about World War I is going to be more grisly and affecting stuff than anything Frank Miller ever drew, and at least in my state a kid is going to be required to go through all of that real-world nastiness by fourth or fifth grade.

Batman's just not a Serious Business character. He was intended basically to drive merchandise and licensing, and that's why Bob Kane made sure he got a better contract from DC than virtually any of his contemporaries. Kids like superheroes, so no matter what the tenor of "serious" Batman projects, DC is going to keep selling Batman toys, books, and apparel to kids for as long as they can get away with it, regardless of the tenor of any other Batman books they're publishing. Batman's commercial value only stops being a factor in how the character is perceived and handled when DC stops selling him to kids on a regular basis.