Not signed in (Sign In)

Main Junction: [Sink] The Frank Miller thing

Bottom of Page

61 to 70 of 70

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >
  1.  (10347.1)
    Not the least bit surprising that Frank Miller is as over-the-top and hard-edged as the work he produces. He is The Goddamned Batman after all.

    IMO I'm not a fan of Occupy Wall Street. I'm a left-leaning moderate for the most part, but this just looks like a pointless, unfocused gesture to me. This isn't going to make "The 1%" do a damned thing. If anything, it'll just further their resolve.

    That being said, I don't make Miller any excuses. It was a very uninformed, incoherent rant, and he should rightfully be criticized from voicing such an ignorant complaint, even though he certainly has the right to voice it.

    I don't do boycotts really...at least not authors/artists/entertainers. Products perhaps, yes. Why should I have to deny myself good entertainment because I think the author might be a big fat jerk, or racist redneck? Seems to me most boycotts do the exact opposite of what you want them to and attract attention to whatever it is you're boycotting. If you actively boycott something or someone, I mean no offense, I just don't partake, that's all.
    • CommentAuthorflecky
    • CommentTimeNov 20th 2011
     (10347.2)
    @ HOT_RIGHTEOUS_DEATH: Well put.You took the words right out of my fingers.
  3.  (10347.3)
    First of all: Richard Pace, excellent work.

    As for Miller, it's a pathetic, uninformed rant. I don't have much to add beyond that. Mark Millar's response misses the point -- Miller's tone invited the vitriol against himself. Had he posted a calm, collected article defending his points, I'd condemn shouty, insulting reactions -- but he calls the Occupiers rapists, for fuck's sake. As for whether someone's work should be boycotted because they are detestable depends on each case, and in Miller's case, I already don't give a shit about his work anymore. His writing has become apparently unintentional self-parody, and his art, well...

    This was Miller then:



    This is Miller now:



    He hardly needed to be an asshole to convince me to stop following his work.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSobreiro
    • CommentTimeNov 20th 2011 edited
     (10347.4)
    Hot Righteous Death, the only doubt I have is WHAT good entertainment would you deny yourself by boycotting Frank Miller nowadays... Have you followed his career in the last 15 years or so?
    • CommentAuthorflecky
    • CommentTimeNov 20th 2011 edited
     (10347.5)
    I'm trying hard on this one to respect everyones opinion.Surely there are more important things in the world to put energy into than a few crap words from a resentful old git.I don't know...

    Should we boycott Steve Ditko for putting out Mr A?

    While we are at it let's boycott the internet for all it's twisted fooked up shite.

    I'm going to shut the fook up as you guys are better with words than me.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJon Wake
    • CommentTimeNov 20th 2011
     (10347.6)
    This site has seriously lost a step of three. Adios, Whitechapel. You went Frank Miller on us.
  7.  (10347.7)
    ...but nobody's called anyone a rapist yet. :(
  8.  (10347.8)
    Should we boycott Steve Ditko for putting out Mr A?

    I don't think it's the same thing. Ditko put his views into his work, which is fine, Miller put his in an ill informed rant directed at a particular group.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 21st 2011
     (10347.9)
    Gutters pretty much nails it.
  10.  (10347.10)
    @ Ren Thing BWAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!! brilliant and scary heh
    • CommentAuthorflecky
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2011
     (10347.11)
    @ William Joseph Dunn: I admit you are totally right about Ditko so i retract what i said.Thanks for putting me right.Respect.

    @ Jon Wake: If you are still with us could you please explain what you meant saying this site has "lost a step of three".I'm not having a dig.I don't even know you.But for some reason,probably a defect of my personality,maybe paranoia etc but i bear a petty resentment about your statement.Sounds to this old git that you are saying this site has turned to shit.That it's no longer good enough for certain people.

    Maybe i should be saying this on open mike.This site is what we make of it.

    Anyhow,if it's "Adios" time then bye bye and good luck.

    Yet maybe i got your post wrong so if so it's nothing personal and no hard feelings.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2011
     (10347.12)
    I always figured Frank had issues. You can't read his earlier stuff without picking up on his definition of what constitutes a manly-man and who doesn't make the cut (just about everyone),


    The issue of Daredevil where he beats the living shit out of a bunch of homeless guys just desn't read the same anymore.

    Frank's issue with OWS seems to be that they're promoting chaos rather doing something constructive like, say, mindlessly obeying a strong leader like - let's be honest - Frank as he leads them in overthrowing the weak decadent democratic system.
    • CommentAuthorbrinksman
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2011
     (10347.13)
    Ah, what a short memory poor Frank has. Seventies. Down and out. No one would hire him. Luckily for him, some of his fellow writers and artists (Jim Shooter, et al) showed more kindness to him, than he's shown to the protesters. Karma, Frank. It's heading your way, my friend...
    •  
      CommentAuthortexture
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2011
     (10347.14)
    Ugh, anyone read this piece of shit by Rick Moody on the Guardian site? Equating all comics / comic-based movies with Miller's allegedly 'cryptofascist' agenda. Ignorant, ill-informed, hyperbolic - the worst kind of reactionary left-wing journalism, makes me even sicker than Miller's rant in many ways...

    "...so many high-profile releases are based on a medium, the comic book, made expressly to engage the attentions of pre- and just post-pubescent boys. At least comic books themselves are so politically dim-witted, so pie-in-the-sky idealistic as to be hard to take seriously."


    CRUSH-KILL-DESTROY
  15.  (10347.15)
    @ -T-E-X-T-U-R-E- I tried to read that and got half way through before realising the guy's obviously some kind of lobotomised monkey.


    Will
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2011
     (10347.16)
    Enh. I mislike Rick Moody most of the time but he has a point. Hollywood loves comics because it's pre-sold storytelling and man, the Batman films, all of them, have been filled with disturbing violence and very morally ambiguous attitudes (Batman regularly blows up buildings, catches crooks in his car's rocket backwash, burns down a monastery in order to avoid killing one man - that one always got me). But you can buy Happy Meal toys that celebrate this violent murderer. At least Dirty Harry was never immortalized in plastic. And remember, it IS The Guardian, the paper that once mis-spelled its own name. That blunts a good deal of the piece's criticism, for me.

    What actually does "cryptofascist" MEAN, anyway? Does that mean you're a secret fascist but you're showing a bit of leg?
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2011 edited
     (10347.17)
    As a question of critical theory, though - does an author's life and beliefs and informal writings have a bearing on critically interpreting their fiction?
    I'm not talking about considering an author's word 'bad' or 'forbidden' because they have controversial political views. Open that question up totally to the theoretical implications.

    Is it fair, right or just to critically interpret Miller's work or any author's work, in light of outside utterances from their lives in any form. If so, how much?

    Is it any more or less silly to critique an author's work in light of other writings, than is a painter? A chef? A football player?
  18.  (10347.18)
    @Finagle: If the chef is cooking swastika-shaped cakes...
    •  
      CommentAuthortexture
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2011
     (10347.19)
    Hollywood loves comics because it's pre-sold storytelling


    That's unquestionably true. But I disagree that comics are pre-sold exclusively to pre-pubescent males, which was the point I felt Moody was belabouring.
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2011
     (10347.20)
    @ TEX- You're right, of course. But come on. Moody's also correct, in his way. I loved Capt. America (the movie and the comic and the character) but .... there wasn't much there THERE, ya dig? (Don't get me started on what they did to Bucky.)

    does an author's life and beliefs and informal writings have a bearing on critically interpreting their fiction?


    Yes and No. Phillip K. Dick was not only a loony, he was mean to people in his everyday ("mundane") life. Lovecraft and Ditko have been mentioned - both are ... problematic, to say the least. Wagner, (whose music, I've been assured, is better than it sounds) was an unreconstructed anti-Semite, as was Henry Ford. Driven a Ford lately? Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan the Fucking Barbarian weren't nuthin' but a Mama's Boy. So? They're all GREAT, right? Yes and No. Frank's Stupid Opinions and Frank's Great Works are Column A and Column B, at least for me*. Does the fact that Roman Polanski is a statutory rapist detract from his films? Not for me. That much. I guess.

    *"With two, you get egg-roll." Racist? Non-Racist? Anti-Racist? Split Hairs Much?!?!

61 to 70 of 70

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >