Neal Adams returns to Batman (with Frank Miller)

[jds1911a1]

I think his worked peaked with the original Dark Knight Returns and Batman:Year One.....

After that everything else has sucked IMO....

that is the crux of it. his High water mark is by most opinions over 20 years ago. And what a watermark. and for every once in a while he can get close. to that level but never quite makes it.

It's like the kid in 6th sense and pay it forward his performace at 6 was so acclaimed age nothing he does for the next 40 years will ever surpass it (or M Knoght shalamlan either now he si simply trying to recapture the success of that formula)

[ctc]

>I think he intentionally set out to make "FRANK MILLER'S THE SPIRIT" instead of "Will Eisner's The Spirit".

I'd disagree.... sort of. I think he set out to make what he considered the DEFINITIVE Spirit film, which ends up being Frank Miller's 'cos... well, 'cos he's the one making it. But I don't think the plan was to dismantle the old comics. Like I said, I think he's Byrned out, and part of that malady seems to be a narrowing of vision. His brain is locked, his internal definition of "good" is absolutely set, which is part of why everything he does looks the same. (Even if it shouldn't.)

>Uwe Boll doesn't set out to make bad movies and I think it's pretty evident in his rather vocal response to his critics.

Maybe he's Byrned out too?

Don C.

[samurainoir]

>from a financial POV, he's actually created a low budget model that allows him to continue to make films and give his investors a bit of return as well, which is how he continues to make films.

I'd heard it's the opposite: that due to a quirk with the German arts entitlement program he keeps getting funding 'cos his movies DON'T make money, and therefore his backers can claim them as a chariatable deduction. Something like that, anyhoo....

They are generally domestic box office bombs (North America), but they do eventually make their money back on foreign release, DVD, Cable, itunes etc.

I think Dungeon Seige was the only film with a large enough budget ($60-70 million) to really be considered unprofitable and unable to eventually garner a return.

Let me put it this way... if House of the Dead, Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark did not achieve some measure of financial success in the long run after all the other viewership windows (foreign, DVD, cable, itunes etc) are added up worldwide, then there is no way in hell they would have come out with sequels for all of them (albeit even cheaper straight to video fare).

Their budgets are generally so low ($12-25 million) that it's virtually impossible for them NOT to make some money (creative accounting aside), particularly when you have a built in gamer audience that easily surpasses movie goers in their video game related expenditures.

He's been able to finance two more low budget films since his German Tax Shelter went away, and I'm sure he'll always have video games to turn into movies and enough "name" actors out there he can secure for a quick buck as he always does.

But the point is, Uwe Boll doesn't set out to make bad movies and I think it's pretty evident in his rather vocal response to his critics.

It's ludicrous for anyone to "defend" Uwe Boll, but knowing how difficult it is to secure funding, actually shoot a film, and find distribution, I don't think anyone who gets as far as he has can be accused of simply hacking it out on purpose. Filmmaking is too a long and grueling process.


LLoyd Kaufman on the other hand seems pretty proud of his ability to make "bad" films and there is no doubt that he's a guy who sets out to make campy no-budget Ed Wood style cult films with high concepts and interesting enough box covers.

[samurainoir]

I think he intentionally set out to make "FRANK MILLER'S THE SPIRIT" instead of "Will Eisner's The Spirit".

And given the love-fest that typifies the published conversations between the two, it's difficult to believe that Eisner would not have been okay with that in the same manner that Maurice Sendak has been interviewed recently about how the movie version of Where the Wild Things Are is Spike Jonez's Wild Things with his input and blessing. Also, how unlikely would it have been for Miller NOT to have talked to Eisner about making The Spirit film at some point in their relationship before his death in 2005, particularly when Sin City was on the table as a film?

Although it's all academic given the fact that Eisner himself is not around to speak for himself and we only have the artifacts of their relationship prior to his passing away to go on. Maybe he would have gone on every website to pull an "Alan Moore" and disown the film, but c'mon... from what we know about the man, he's far too classy for that kind of behavior and more than likely would have given Miller a pat for at least trying.

I mean can you really imagine Will Eisner standing up during opening night part way through the film and declaring "Frank, this film is a slap in the face to me and the fans of the Spirit! Why didn't you make MY version?! I'm outa here."

[ctc]

>After that everything else has sucked IMO

That seems to be a popular opinion; but sometimes I wonder if it's that his work started sucking more, or if this was the point where the novelty wore off. Miller has the problem a lot of mainstream cartoonists seem to have: they're one trick ponies. At a certain point they seem to stop developing artisticly and everything you get from them is exactly the same. (We used to call it "Byrning out.") Buschema, Byrne, Lee, Liefield, McFarlane, Miller, Ross, Bisley.... it's not they're style that's recognizable; it's the designs and layouts that they keep recycling.

Don C.

[The Bat]

Despite Miller's systematic destruction of his own reputation....I will always be grateful for TDKR & Batman:Year One...I LOVE those Books.

[The Toyroom]

When I first came across Miller's work on some Spectacular Spider-Man stuff and Amazing Spider-Man Annuals I wasn't impressed...for the time his artwork seemed out of the ordinary and it just didn't click with me.

But by the time he began doing Daredevil (which I had been reading prior to his association with the title), I wasn't as bothered by his style as much. In fact, I thought when he took over the scripting as well as the artwork it was quite good.

I wasn't impressed with Ronin but I did like his return to Daredevil with David Mazzuchelli as well as his work on the 1st Wolverine mini-series with Chris Claremont. For me, I think his worked peaked with the original Dark Knight Returns and Batman:Year One.....

After that everything else has sucked IMO....

[ctc]

>from a financial POV, he's actually created a low budget model that allows him to continue to make films and give his investors a bit of return as well, which is how he continues to make films.

I'd heard it's the opposite: that due to a quirk with the German arts entitlement program he keeps getting funding 'cos his movies DON'T make money, and therefore his backers can claim them as a chariatable deduction. Something like that, anyhoo....

As for Miller.... I got kind of an odd take on his stuff. When he first started I wasn't too impressed. Seemed to me all he did was appropriate themes and techniques from the pulps. His NEW stuff seems like more of the same, but more. Working with the independants lets him use naughty words, nipples and blood; but thematicly I find his stuff still the same.

Don C.

[The Toyroom]

"Slap in the Face" has intention behind it, and he's not intentionally setting out to ruin Eisner's character given his fondness for both Eisner and the Spirit.

I think he intentionally set out to make "FRANK MILLER'S THE SPIRIT" instead of "Will Eisner's The Spirit".

[The Toyroom]

^ Ms.Mystic?

[samurainoir]

On the topic of Neal Adams, what's the last sequential comics work he's done?

[samurainoir]

I do really still like Martha Washington though, and enjoyed the latest one-shot a great deal.


Although maybe it's got more to do with Dave Gibbons' ability to render a character with so much empathy for her and her constant struggles amidst increasingly ludicrous antagonists and odds stacked against her.

[samurainoir]

Trust me...."slap in the face" IS the correct term...Miller has always fancied himself the heir to Eisner's throne...and maybe at one time he was...but The Spirit movie was a thinly guised Sin City knock-off...there was nothing Eisner about it....cripes, Samuel L. Jackson as The Octopus alone was a travesty. Thanks to Miller it's highly-unlikely we'll ever see another big-budget Spirit flick again.

Never say never though! Who'd of thought The Phantom would get another kick at the Big Movie can within our lifetimes?

"Slap in the Face" has intention behind it, and he's not intentionally setting out to ruin Eisner's character given his fondness for both Eisner and the Spirit.

He might have "driven it off a cliff", or "accidentally ran over some toes".

I will agree though, his most recent Work for Hire stuff for DC does seem like he's been phoning it in, and returning to Batman in particular he seems to have run out of things to say and can only play it ironically or at best, satirically (in DKSB).

I would love to see Alan Moore's return to Batman though, given how much I liked his love-letter to the Silver Age Superman in the form of Supreme.

I’ve never really liked my story in The Killing Joke. I think it put far too much melodramatic weight upon a character that was never designed to carry it. It was too nasty, it was too physically violent. There were some good things about it, but in terms of my writing, it’s not one of me favorite pieces. If, as I said, god forbid, I was ever writing a character like Batman again, I’d probably be setting it squarely in the kind of “smiley uncle” period where Dick Sprang was drawing it, and where you had Ace the Bat-Hound and Bat-Mite, and the zebra Batman—when it was sillier. Because then, it was brimming with imagination and playful ideas. I don’t think that the world needs that many brooding psychopathic avengers.

Alan Moore Reflects on Marvelman - Part 2 - Mania.com

[The Bat]

Miller was one of the first comic creators recognized by mainstream media, so he became the buzz name for the "mature" comic book trend. Due to sloppy journalism, most mainstream reporters thought Batman comics were still campy 60s throwbacks prior to DK, and thus painted Miller as the be-all-end-all that not only saved Batman but returned comics to their pulpy roots, and then some. Miller did take things up several notches, and added an epic scope to things, but clearly any comic fan knows Batman had been grim and gritty since 1970. Thanks in large part to Denny O'Neil and, Neal Adams!

But the result was even those who didn't know comics from their butt knew the name Frank Miller, and before too long Miller was hype onto himself. The problem with Miller now is he's "Sin City's Frank Miller" all the time. He couldn't turn it off for DK2, All-Star Bats or the Spirit. He should take a page from his directing pal Robert Rodgriguez who can film a hardcore, over-the-top gritty movie like Sin City, but then go make another Spy Kids movie. Now THAT takes talent, and leaving your ego at the door.

Chris

Couldn't have said it better myself Chris!

[samurainoir]

>no one ever sets out to purposely make a bad movie (well, maybe LLoyd Kaufman).

...Uwe Boll?

http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/files/5/0/uweboll.jpg

I think it's weird how once upon a time Miller could do no wrong, and now he can do no right. (At least as far as the fans are concerned.)

Don C.

LOL! a friend of mine wrote that movie! I can tell you for sure that he didn't set out to write a bad film.

By most accounts, Uwe Boll doesn't try and make bad movies either, but his production model doesn't seem to help the chances of creating something that the majority of viewers would deem "Quality". On the other hand, from a financial POV, he's actually created a low budget model that allows him to continue to make films and give his investors a bit of return as well, which is how he continues to make films.