Dk2 #2 [Archive] - toonzone forums

TimTwoFace

02-20-2002, 05:01 PM

It's definately not as good as part one of the series...or as good as any of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, for that matter. I found it good and all, but I've never been a JLA fan, so I don't really have any love for any of the superheroes in that issue besides Bats and Supes. The only parts I really did like were when Batman was confronting Luthor about decieving the public with his presidential machinations and all that.

The news reports are one of the other things I have liked in Miller's writing - it provides an entertaining (and enlightening) commentary on the goings-on in the issue.

(But why he thought that Joker-rip-off-cameo was necessary, I don't know.)

-Tim

Sugar Daddy

02-20-2002, 07:12 PM

Yea, I read TDKR and really liked it. I really just dont like how light the drawings are now. The warm color backgrounds dont fit in with the plot at all

mgibson72

02-20-2002, 07:22 PM

I'm not even talking about bad in relation to TDKR. That comparison is not even close to being fair.

But I was expecting a decent story and art for the price of the book...Miller has done some phenomenal work in the past and this just reeks of commercialism and fast dollars. Too bad. For all the hype in Rolling Stone and on CNN, I was hoping for a good yarn at least.

Ugh.

Karkull

02-20-2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by mgibson72
Miller has done some phenomenal work in the past and this just reeks of commercialism and fast dollars. Too bad.

Well, if someone offered you a load of money to revisit a story you liked writing 15 years ago what would you do? I agree--it's not as good as the first one--but I can see why he did it.

Clayface

02-20-2002, 11:08 PM

Its funny how, if some project doesn't live up to some fans' expectations, those fans start throwing around the "sell-out" label. You see it all the time in the music industry too.

Sugar Daddy

02-20-2002, 11:14 PM

Your right, clayface, but, Miller really shouldn't have changed the backgrounds. IMO, of course. But he had 15 years to think about this, and granted he didnt know if there would be a sequel, but he have thought about it before. This definitly could have been better. Once again, IMO.

Samhaine

02-20-2002, 11:18 PM

I'm goin' with my gut here and waiting until it's finished. The story as a whole might not seem as bad as the second book did alone. After all, the middle of TDKR dragged a bit.

MAXIMUS

02-21-2002, 12:10 AM

on an unrelated topic when is Dark Knight Strikes Again #3 coming out?

TimTwoFace

02-21-2002, 02:14 AM

I would have much preferred keeping all those OTHER heroes out of this series...Superman is fine, Wonder Woman is handled OK, but everyone else is kind of pointless...

*SIGH* Nice nods to the past and all, but nothing going on with them in the present (or future).

Keep Lex Luthor and Brainiac as the villains, that's fine, but more references to Batman's personal side of things would have been better - I had high hopes for the "breaking into Arkham" sequence of issue #2, but we didn't even see any familiar faces. Sigh.

-Tim

Salvor

02-21-2002, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Clayface
Its funny how, if some project doesn't live up to some fans' expectations, those fans start throwing around the "sell-out" label. You see it all the time in the music industry too.
Well sometimes it's true. Personally I don't think it's the case here. To my mind, Miller isn't trying to earn more money, he's trying to make plain how easy it is to make so much money. Provocation has always been one of Miller's incentives, hasn't it? I know many young amazing artists are more than irked by such a success, which is understandable. Not that they are jealous of FM, but they honestly feel like they can do much better than that... and they're entitled to feel that way. I mean, it goes to show how meaningful the word "industry" is in the phrase "comic industry"...

Clayface

02-21-2002, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Salvor

Well sometimes it's true. Personally I don't think it's the case here. To my mind, Miller isn't trying to earn more money, he's trying to make plain how easy it is to make so much money. Provocation has always been one of Miller's incentives, hasn't it?

Oh come on. You're seriously trying to tell me you think he's trying to write something that will tick off the fans? Talk about conspiracy theories!

He's not just turing out something he doesn't care about here - if you read the interviews with him, he's very excited about this project, and is putting alot into it. Just because its not what one expected doesn't mean that he's just churning out any old thing.

Yes, its very different from the first series. But it was clear from his interviews that it was going to be from the start. He's not happy with the impact the first series had on the comic industry as a whole. So, he's trying to stay away from the dark brooding stuff, and be more like the classic "superhero" comics of days past.

mgibson72

02-21-2002, 10:36 AM

Yes, its very different from the first series. But it was clear from his interviews that it was going to be from the start. He's not happy with the impact the first series had on the comic industry as a whole. So, he's trying to stay away from the dark brooding stuff, and be more like the classic "superhero" comics of days past.

Different I can live with. But books like TDKR, Watchmen and the new (80's) streamlined Superman is why I really began to enjoy comics again. The market was getting WAY too silly and that's what I'm seeing here. I'm with Bloodone: let's wait until the end and see how it ends up.

And Clayface: I never said that Miller was selling out and if he was it wouldn't be because DK2 "didn't live up to some fans' expectations". I'm just giving out my opinion...yes, DK2 is different but it's sloppy and poorly rendered. A creator can be different and still come up with beautiful work, right? Not in this case. Again, IMO.

Borg4of3

02-21-2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by bloodone
I'm goin' with my gut here and waiting until it's finished. The story as a whole might not seem as bad as the second book did alone. After all, the middle of TDKR dragged a bit.

The middle of DKR showed the end of the Mutants, rise of the Batman, and the death of the Joker! I didn't think it dragged in the least. But it does seem that DK2 is more of a whole story broken up into parts rather than a bunch of stories pieced together. Here's another to hoping for #3 to make things right!

Clayface

02-21-2002, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by mgibson72

Different I can live with. But books like TDKR, Watchmen and the new (80's) streamlined Superman is why I really began to enjoy comics again. The market was getting WAY too silly and that's what I'm seeing here. I'm with Bloodone: let's wait until the end and see how it ends up.

Oh, I agree! Books like TDRK, and Watchmen were a big factor in my comic collecting and reading habits as well. Unfortunately though, there are those fanboys out there that are very strongly against the impact books like these have had on the industry as a whole. And those individuals have complained and complained, and somewhere along the lines, Miller has come to agree with them - thus the results we see in DK2.

And Clayface: I never said that Miller was selling out

:confused:
Generally, if you say an artist's work is the result of commercialism, you're saying that the artist is a sell out. And you did say:

Miller has done some phenomenal work in the past and this just reeks of commercialism and fast dollars.

Sounds like your'e calling him a sell-out to me.

A creator can be different and still come up with beautiful work, right? Not in this case. Again, IMO.

Yeah, that depends on what you consider "sloppy" - I don't see anything sloppy about DK2 personally. I am a bit disappointed with the art on some pages, but unfortunately, that's just the way his style is going in recent years.

Salvor

02-21-2002, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

Oh come on. You're seriously trying to tell me you think he's trying to write something that will tick off the fans? Talk about conspiracy theories!

He's not just turing out something he doesn't care about here - if you read the interviews with him, he's very excited about this project, and is putting alot into it. Just because its not what one expected doesn't mean that he's just churning out any old thing.

Yes, its very different from the first series. But it was clear from his interviews that it was going to be from the start. He's not happy with the impact the first series had on the comic industry as a whole. So, he's trying to stay away from the dark brooding stuff, and be more like the classic "superhero" comics of days past.

Yeah, and talk about naïveté! Sure, it would make sense for Miller to lask out against his own work, like "yeah, buy my upcoming comic books, they are sooo crappy" ...?! "Oh come on", be realistic yourself dude :)

And I don't think one man making a fool of the whole comics industry is a "conspiracy" (boy, as a Mulder fan, I know something about conspiracies... if you know what I mean). Hey, obviously you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Miller schemed against DC. But his work is so rushed and so lacking artwise... (I was visiting some Drawing Board the other day and certain reknown artists felt like pointing out some startling mistakes in the storytelling... and I'm afraid Miller almost stand out as an amateur!)

I think he rushed the books. A LOT. He didn't bother to make a decent book (just look at the second issue: no backgrounds, awful proportions, half empty splash pages, incomprehensible storytelling...), which I know he could have done, and I call that "making fun of both DC and the readers".

Salvor

02-21-2002, 12:53 PM

Big Brother is watching you Clay, from the Who's Online page :)

"Quoting a post" huh?

Clayface

02-21-2002, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Salvor

Yeah, and talk about naïveté! Sure, it would make sense for Miller to lask out against his own work, like "yeah, buy my upcoming comic books, they are sooo crappy" ...?! "Oh come on", be realistic yourself dude :)

How is he lashing out against his own books? He's not saying they were crap. All he's said is that he didn't like the lasting impress they left on the industry. So, now he's trying a different approach.

And I don't think one man making a fool of the whole comics industry is a "conspiracy" (boy, as a Mulder fan, I know something about conspiracies... if you know what I mean).

And again, how is he "making a fool of the whole comic industry"?

Hey, obviously you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Miller schemed against DC. But his work is so rushed and so lacking artwise... (I was visiting some Drawing Board the other day and certain reknown artists felt like pointing out some startling mistakes in the storytelling... and I'm afraid Miller almost stand out as an amateur!)

I certainly wouldn't consider it rushed - he's spent as much time on this work as he has any of his others. In fact, DK2 was postponed a number of times to give him more time to work on issues. No rushing going on there.

It may be that you just don't care for his current style - and that's fine. But there's no evidence that things were rushed.

I think he rushed the books. A LOT. He didn't bother to make a decent book (just look at the second issue: no backgrounds, awful proportions, half empty splash pages, incomprehensible storytelling...), which I know he could have done, and I call that "making fun of both DC and the readers".

In regards to the second issue:

No backgrounds- that's not rushed - that the style he uses now. He's never enjoyed doing backgrounds, and so he's dropped them in his current work.

Awful proportions - this i can agree with - unfortunately, it seems that as he's getting older, his sense of proportion is getting worse. Again, I don't see how this is a sign of things being rushed - its just the way he draws now, as is evident in his other recent works.

Half-empty splash pages - I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I would suspect that this come from his lack of backgrounds.

Incomprehensible storytelling - maybe this is you and not him. I had no problem following the story, and I don't really know anyone else that did either.

Clayface

02-21-2002, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Salvor
Big Brother is watching you Clay, from the Who's Online page :)

"Quoting a post" huh?

Dang that Who's Online page is creepy! :eek:

mgibson72

02-21-2002, 01:18 PM

Hey, Clay:

If Miller isn't rushing things, then that's even worse for Miller fans...to see a great comic creator put out poor quality books for the sake of his "style" is a bad thing, IMO.

And I didn't make my "commercialism" comment clear enough: I think DC and the media overhyped these books to death. Miller is putting out what he wants and that's fine...he's welcome to do so. I don't think he's selling out so much as DC is milking this as much as possible. But DK2 is so much different from TDKR that the advertising really didn't explain what to expect. This could be a good thing to some people.

Personally, I would have preferred better draftsmanship if this book were to be so much different from TDKR. Sorry: the whole book is evidence that Miller rushed through this. He's better than this. ;)

Salvor

02-21-2002, 01:47 PM

Man, you got me wrong on a number of points here...

Originally posted by Clayface

How is he lashing out against his own books? He's not saying they were crap. All he's said is that he didn't like the lasting impress they left on the industry. So, now he's trying a different approach.

Nah, I was referring to what you said he did, ie praise his new style. What I'm saying is: he wasn't going to assert his new books were bad. Promoting means you praise your work, not the contrary! Hence the lack of relevance in your first point (my point was to disprove your earlier point... man, I'm getting lost all these points!)

And again, how is he "making a fool of the whole comic industry"?

:confused: didn't you read what I said?? :)

I certainly wouldn't consider it rushed - he's spent as much time on this work as he has any of his others. In fact, DK2 was postponed a number of times to give him more time to work on issues. No rushing going on there.

It may be that you just don't care for his current style - and that's fine. But there's no evidence that things were rushed.

Spending time on it doesn't necessarily mean working on it. I say he rushed the art and the storytelling, but he might have needed some time to draw up the whole thing (as regards the different steps of the story, the preliminary designs...)

In regards to the second issue:

No backgrounds- that's not rushed - that the style he uses now. He's never enjoyed doing backgrounds, and so he's dropped them in his current work.

Awful proportions - this i can agree with - unfortunately, it seems that as he's getting older, his sense of proportion is getting worse. Again, I don't see how this is a sign of things being rushed - its just the way he draws now, as is evident in his other recent works.

Half-empty splash pages - I'm not sure which you're referring to, but I would suspect that this come from his lack of backgrounds.

Incomprehensible storytelling - maybe this is you and not him. I had no problem following the story, and I don't really know anyone else that did either.

Anyone else?? Here we go:

Birdboy: Wow! I'm still having a wee bit of trouble following the story line, but this issue made alot of things clearer for me.

Tracer: I am disappointed. The story seemed thrown together and erratic.

Kathy Kane: As for the plot it is a bit hard to follow

and so on... just check out the DKSA talkback thread on this board and you'll see.

Well, the storytelling wasn't "incomprehensible" per se, but it seemed more than weird at times: so many heroes appearing out of nowhere (like Black Canary, the Creeper...), characters being in places you have a real hard time recognizing... of course, this wouldn't happen had backgrounds been made. So much for that "new style" huh?

Oh, and you call "forgoing backgrounds" a new "style"? Please, I'd rather call it laziness.

As for his latest works, even the latest Sin City yarn was better looking. At least there were some dynamic figures in it. And clearer backgrounds. Sure the hands were already insanely big but looking back at it now (in the "aftermath" of DKSA), it wasn't that bad.

Clayface

02-21-2002, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by mgibson72

If Miller isn't rushing things, then that's even worse for Miller fans...to see a great comic creator put out poor quality books for the sake of his "style" is a bad thing, IMO.

Well, again, I'm not real clear where people are coming up with the "poor quality" comments.

And I didn't make my "commercialism" comment clear enough: I think DC and the media overhyped these books to death. Miller is putting out what he wants and that's fine...he's welcome to do so. I don't think he's selling out so much as DC is milking this as much as possible.

Now that I agree with. But then again, that's the nature of the business - of course they're going to milk it.

But DK2 is so much different from TDKR that the advertising really didn't explain what to expect.

I don't agree. I mean, every interview I read with thee DC big-wigs went on and on about how different this was from TDKR, and every interview I've read with Miller said the same thing. I'm not sure what else they could have done to prepare anyone other than sticking a big red banner on the covers saying "This is different from TDRK!"

Personally, I would have preferred better draftsmanship if this book were to be so much different from TDKR. Sorry: the whole book is evidence that Miller rushed through this. He's better than this. ;)

Have you looked at his other recent work though? It's all looking like this. I don't think he's necesarily "better" than this - this is just what he is now.

mgibson72

02-21-2002, 02:00 PM

The great thing about comics is that there's something for everybody. I'm glad that Clay really likes DK2 and I'm sorry I don't like it more. What Miller's career is doing reminds me a lot of what Byrne has gone through: a real degradation in quality.

I used to love Byrne's work with X-Men and the FF and Alpha Flight. But by the time he got to Wonder Woman, it really turned me off.

The same is happening with DK2. It may be Miller's style that has evolved but who was to know that was Luthor until he was called that by other characters in the book? Last time I'll say this (promise!): this book looks sloppy and the coloring doesn't help. Paint Shop Pro 1.0 does not a great comic make. Any of the standard Batbooks out today are masterpieces compared to DK2. And Phil Noto will be a phenomenal creator if he can get away from Disney! http://www.notoart.com

Clayface

02-21-2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Salvor

Nah, I was referring to what you said he did, ie praise his new style. What I'm saying is: he wasn't going to assert his new books were bad. Promoting means you praise your work, not the contrary!

I'm confused. I'm still not getting what you were trying to say there.

Spending time on it doesn't necessarily mean working on it. I say he rushed the art and the storytelling, but he might have needed some time to draw up the whole thing (as regards the different steps of the story, the preliminary designs...)

Again, I'm not quite following you there. All I know is that he was given as long as he wanted to work on - DC refused to set any release dates so that Miller could have all the time he wanted and needed to work on it.

Anyone else?? Here we go:

Birdboy: Wow! I'm still having a wee bit of trouble following the story line, but this issue made alot of things clearer for me.

Who admitted that the reason he was confused was because he doesn't follow the mainstream comics, and thus didn't know who many of the character were. And who also, from his statements, obviously didn't pick up some of the major plot points from the first issue.

Tracer: I am disappointed. The story seemed thrown together and erratic.

Erractic I can agree with - but again, that doesn't mean its incomprehensible. Since Tracer doesn't go into much more detail, I can't really comment anymore.

Kathy Kane: As for the plot it is a bit hard to follow

Kathy's confusion came from, apparently, not understanding where the telepathy between WW and Supes came from. That I can agree with - but this wasn't due to incomprehensible plot - it came from a lack of explanation of what these characters have been through over the years.

She also doesn't understand why Bats wants to take out Supes - which is painfully obvious from TDKR.

So you've got three comments out of three pages. But the rest seem to understand the story just fine.

and so on... just check out the DKSA talkback thread on this board and you'll see.

Well, the storytelling wasn't "incomprehensible" per se, but it seemed more than weird at times: so many heroes appearing out of nowhere (like Black Canary, the Creeper...), characters being in places you have a real hard time recognizing... of course, this wouldn't happen had backgrounds been made. So much for that "new style" huh?

Yes, there are questions about the backstory of the characters - that I agree with. But the story itself isn't confusing.

Oh, and you call "forgoing backgrounds" a new "style"? Please, I'd rather call it laziness.

Why? Becuse it doesn't fit the "standards" that art classes teach? :rolleyes:

Yes, it is a style. Look at the different style of painters and artists otside of the field of comics - some go into incredible detail, some use minimal and simplistic shapes. They're considered different styles - why is it any different in the comic industry?

Clayface

02-21-2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by mgibson72
The great thing about comics is that there's something for everybody. I'm glad that Clay really likes DK2 and I'm sorry I don't like it more.

Actually, the funny thing is, I'm rather disappointed in DK2 so far. I'm just not agree with the "reasons" people are giving for not liking it - claiming that it was rushed, or sloppy, etc. I think the biggest backlash is coming from the people that are disappointed that its different from TDKR, and nothing more. So, I'm trying to drag it out of people what exactly it is they don't like baout it, instead of using lazy terms like "rushed".

The same is happening with DK2. It may be Miller's style that has evolved but who was to know that was Luthor until he was called that by other characters in the book?

But the thing is, I believe that was done intentionally - your'e supposed to be confused as to who it is until someone calls him by name.

Last time I'll say this (promise!): this book looks sloppy and the coloring doesn't help. Paint Shop Pro 1.0 does not a great comic make.

That's just a matter of opinion though. Personally, I love the coloring in this series.

Any of the standard Batbooks out today are masterpieces compared to DK2.

Uhhhh, have you read Azrael or Legends lately? *shudders*
;)

Salvor

02-21-2002, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Clayface

Why? Becuse it doesn't fit the "standards" that art classes teach? :rolleyes:
Yes, it is a style. Look at the different style of painters and artists otside of the field of comics - some go into incredible detail, some use minimal and simplistic shapes. They're considered different styles - why is it any different in the comic industry?
[/B]
You should know something about me... as a French guy, I read many French and Belgian albums. Many many albums. In fact I've been reading bandes-dessinées since... I can't remember when I first started! So no need to teach me what a different style is: every American artist will tell you the European "bd"s display far more creativity than American comics. Because we don't have an industry here, we have unique artists: they write themselves, pencil themselves, ink themselves, do the lettering themselves (mostly)... and each has a very special style that's either simple or intricate (you might heave heard of Giraud/Moebius, Sfar, Loisel...).

So the "standards" you refer to? I don't care about them. Which explains why I buy very few comics. Most of them look either ugly or alike... (hmm, I said "most of", some are still tremendous)

Anyway whether the sequel is DIFFERENT than the original series or not, who cares? The QUALITY is lower. Way lower. For all the reasons we've been discussing. Doing without backgrounds could be looked upon as a style as long as it adds something to the story or the art itself. To me it plagued them more than anything else.

Take Matisse. Simpler than that, you die :) But then again, the simplicity is a means for Matisse to convey his feelings, to get accross his ideas through the picture.On the contrary the simplicity in TDKSA seems to blur Miller's ideas.

Besides, comics are no pictures. Wrong argument man :)
There are rules to make a comic. Not standard rules thrust by the Comics Authority, but basic rules to make a scene clear, to draw a striking action scene, et caetera. Any artist can tell you that: when you do a comic you need to tell a story. A painter doesn't always have to do so.

TO GO BACK ON THE "LAZY RUSHED TERM": What's lazy about it? Again I did NOT say the comic itself was rushed. But at least the art is. Example: page 5. Man on the upper left. Don't tell me Miller spent more than 30 seconds on that one. Page 32, last panel: have you ever seen a more ludicrous-looking Superman? Ultimate exampe: page 46. You can't do any uglier than that. I'm afraid it takes more than a couple of strokes to make a good drawing.
And there are dozens of other examples but now, I am getting lazy. :)

One last thing: your "3 comments in 3 pages" statement. a bit childish huh? Of course others made similar (and admittedly less explicit) comments upon the book. If you check out the thread closer, you'll see even James affirmed he'd need the 3 books to get the whole story.

Phew... "and I'm spent"...

Clayface

02-21-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Salvor

So the "standards" you refer to? I don't care about them.

Ahhh, but you do! Further down you talk abot the "rules" of comic making.

Anyway whether the sequel is DIFFERENT than the original series or not, who cares? The QUALITY is lower. Way lower. For all the reasons we've been discussing. Doing without backgrounds could be looked upon as a style as long as it adds something to the story or the art itself. To me it plagued them more than anything else.

To me, I think it added a lot actually. I prefer little or no backgrounds - just enough to know where you are and that's it. Otherwise, things get cluttered. So, to me, Miller's lack of backgrounds make the reading experience much more enjoyable.

Besides, comics are no pictures. Wrong argument man :)
There are rules to make a comic. Not standard rules thrust by the Comics Authority, but basic rules to make a scene clear, to draw a striking action scene, et caetera. Any artist can tell you that: when you do a comic you need to tell a story. A painter doesn't always have to do so.

And a story can't be told without backgrounds (picture backgrounds, I mean, not character backgrounds)? I don't follow that logic at all.

TO GO BACK ON THE "LAZY RUSHED TERM": What's lazy about it? Again I did NOT say the comic itself was rushed. But at least the art is. Example: page 5. Man on the upper left. Don't tell me Miller spent more than 30 seconds on that one. Page 32, last panel: have you ever seen a more ludicrous-looking Superman? Ultimate example: page 46. You can't do any uglier than that. I'm afraid it takes more than a couple of strokes to make a good drawing.
And there are dozens of other examples but now, I am getting lazy. :)

I can't comment on these specific examples right now, since I'm at work and don't have the issue in front of me. I don't argue that some of the art is bad - there are panels that make my stomach churn. But that doesn't mean that the panel was rushed - it just means that Frank's not the perfect artist so many fanboys make him out to be. The reality is, the guy has a major problem drawing battle damage on characters - especially their faces. For some reason, he feels this odd need to draw line after line after line to try and express the image of a bruise or swelling.

One last thing: your "3 comments in 3 pages" statement. a bit childish huh?

And what's childish about it? Its the truth, is it not?

Of course others made similar (and admittedly less explicit) comments upon the book.

As I said in my last post to you, any other comments made were in regards to character's backgrounds, not confusion of the plot.

If you check out the thread closer, you'll see even James affirmed he'd need the 3 books to get the whole story.

You're misunderstanding what he's saying there. He didn't say the story was confusing. His comments were in regard to how self-contained each issue is. In TDKR each issue was, in a way, its own little story - each issue stood on its own, and had some sort of closure or ending point. James' comments are in regard to the fact that DK2 is really just one story broken up into three parts - thus the fact that he needs the 3 books to get the whole story and tomake a final judgement. Just as Borg4of3 pointed out earlier in this very thread.

mgibson72

02-21-2002, 04:07 PM

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Back to your corners, guys! ;)

Clay: I would love to know, after all of this, why YOU were disappointed in DK2. If not for the reasons that we're giving here, then what?

Uhhhh, have you read Azrael or Legends lately? *shudders*

You got me there...! ;) I was primarily talking about Detective and Batman. Those covers are great.

mgibson72

02-21-2002, 04:36 PM

But that doesn't mean that the panel was rushed - it just means that Frank's not the perfect artist so many fanboys make him out to be. The reality is, the guy has a major problem drawing battle damage on characters - especially their faces.

Miller has put out some amazing work in his career and DK2 doesn't even come close to what he's done even in the past five years. Sin City and 300 were incredible! Terms that are being batted around like "rushed" and "sloppy" aren't lazy, Clay--they're accurate. At least when it comes to comics. Comics are a storytelling medium and the art has to be recognizable enough to tell a story. If we're talking impressionism or deconstructism that's one thing, but comics are definitely another. I've seen some great books that use some pretty funky techniques but they have all told a story well. I don't see that here. But before you blow me away with a rebuttal, Clay, realize this is all opinion! :cool:

One other thing: if some noname artist put this stuff out, we would all agree on how poor this book turned out. But because it's Frank Miller and he's hit a number of home runs in the past, we're supposed to accept that this is his "style". That this simply is how he creates now. Rubbish.

Sugar Daddy

02-21-2002, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Salvor

(I was visiting some Drawing Board the other day and certain reknown artists felt like pointing out some startling mistakes in the storytelling... and I'm afraid Miller almost stand out as an amateur!)

Do u remember the link? And also, whats the big deal with the quoting thing Clayface did? I'm confused. School is too much these days.

Clayface

02-21-2002, 08:57 PM

To touch back on Salvor's comments again:

Originally posted by Salvor

TO GO BACK ON THE "LAZY RUSHED TERM": What's lazy about it? Again I did NOT say the comic itself was rushed. But at least the art is. Example: page 5. Man on the upper left. Don't tell me Miller spent more than 30 seconds on that one. Page 32, last panel: have you ever seen a more ludicrous-looking Superman? Ultimate example: page 46. You can't do any uglier than that.

Page 5, man on the upper left: a characature of a well know media "star" - he didn't need to spend any more time to get the joke across.

Page 32, last panel: Can't really say - I don't read Superman comics, but it doesn't look bad to me.

Page 46: I'm not sure what you mean - that's actually one of my favorite pages of issue #2.

Now, for what I consider some bad panels in the issue:

Page 19, the first two panels - the guy looks like he's been horribly scared all over his face. I'm sure this wasn't the intended look.

Page 21, last panel: Superman doesn't look like he's been beat up - he looks like he'sbeen turned into a black man, and an ugly one at that! This illustrates my point that Miller just can't draw "battle damage".

Page 22: Supes again, for the same reasons.

Page 50, the Superman panels: What's up with his face there?

Any of the Martian Manhunter/Ape boy hybrid pics - man, that's just wrong.

Panels that I think absolutely rock in this issue:

The women on pages 1, 2, 3, and 4. Va-va-va-voom!

Page 6,7,8, 9, 10, and 11: awesome shots of the Batmobile/Batplane.

Page 19, last panel: great WW shot.

Page 21, the Wonder Woman shots: very cool, and I love the beaten, hunched over Supes in the background.

Page 23, Wonder Woman: another great WW shot.

Page 26: awesome, thought the misproportioned Superman hands are a bit creepy.

Page 28, 29 and 30: very powerful shots.

Page 35, the manga shot: too funny.

Page 39: fantastic silloutte shot.

Pages 44, 45, and 46: Probably my favorite scenes in the issue, other than the ending.

Page 48, first panel: love the giant frog!!!! Having frogs as pets, I've sort of got a thing for frogs.

Page 59, the whole thing, 60, 61: just some really cool eye candy.

Page 65: great shots, in classic action hero poses.

Page 68, the whole thing: I just really like the Hawk-kids designs.

Pages 76, 77, 78: just great ending shots.

For me, there;s far more good than bad to the art in this issue.

Clayface

02-21-2002, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by mgibson72
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Back to your corners, guys! ;)

Awwwwww man! You're no fun! ;)

Clay: I would love to know, after all of this, why YOU were disappointed in DK2. If not for the reasons that we're giving here, then what?

Oh, I agree with some of what has been said here. As I said above, some of the art bugs me. And I think things like the telepathy issue needed to be addressed. The biggst issue for me is that this isn't really a Batman story, which is what I was epxecting. It's a JL story, in essence, and I've never cared for those sorts of stories. I also don't like the fact that the villians are Luthor and Brainiac - both Superman villains. I prefer the Batman villians personally. Again, Luthor and Brainiac make it feel like a JL story, not a Batman story.

You got me there...! ;) I was primarily talking about Detective and Batman. Those covers are great.

Yes they are, and I agree that Detective and Batman are better than DK2. I'd say Gotham Knights is also better - I'm really enjoying Devin Grayson's stories there, epsecially this week's issue. I enjoyed this week's issue so much, that I'm planning on writing in to the editors about it - something I've never done before.

Clayface

02-21-2002, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by mgibson72

Miller has put out some amazing work in his career and DK2 doesn't even come close to what he's done even in the past five years. Sin City and 300 were incredible!

I don't necessarily agree. I think there were plenty of similar panles in Hell and Back. Unfortunately, I think that Lynn Varleys coloring on DK2 is making the bad panels stand out, rather than making them fit in more.

Terms that are being batted around like "rushed" and "sloppy" aren't lazy, Clay--they're accurate.

They may be accurate (in your opinion), but they're also lazy. Those terms are vague. Sloppy can mean so many things, and to just call it that without expanding on your thoughts is incredibly "lazy". Its the equivalent of saying "it sucks". Thus my attempt, over many posts, to draw out the meaning of "sloppy" from you. Use sloppy all you want, as long as you (1) define what you mean by sloppy, and (2) give examples of that sloppiness. The early posts in this thread didn't do this.

One other thing: if some noname artist put this stuff out, we would all agree on how poor this book turned out.

Speak for yourself! If this book came out from no-name artist, I'd feel basically the same about it - some things in it work for me, some don't.

But because it's Frank Miller and he's hit a number of home runs in the past, we're supposed to accept that this is his "style". That this simply is how he creates now. Rubbish.

Again, I don't agree. I think its just the opposite, actually. I think that he's got so much to live up to after TDKR that people aren't giving him a fair shake with DK2. Everyone expected a carbon copy of TDKR, but yet wanted it different enough so that he wasn't just repeating what he did in the first series. I give him props for being brave enough to try doing what he wanted to do, rather than necessarily just giving the fans the version they wanted.

Salvor

02-22-2002, 04:44 AM

Now what's the point of quoting when you only point out some cropped sentences which you use in your own interest?

First I disagree on most of your "awesome" panels! The women shots at the beginning?? I'd rather check out earlier Sin City tales, where women don't look like Hobbits. The Superman on page 26 looks bad. His hands are all screwed and he's made up of what, 3 or 4 lines? I prefer Miller's detailed style. Those powerful shots on page 65? Hobbits again. Giant frog? *cough Ronin cough*. And a pretty shoddy Ronin homage, if you ask me. And the whole would-be Joker scene was absolutely horrible! How can you say it was one of your favorite scenes of the book??

I'm sorry but I guess we don't have have the same tastes artwise.

Then please stop telling me how I feel and what I think when I say the exact opposite. Ya know, you seem to have this tendency to be willing to speak for others (for James for instance... he said he was confused by the single book , so draw whatever conclusion you want, he still said it -- sorry for involving you in this Jim). As for the "standards", when I said there were rules, I specified those rules were basic, ie considered as necessary to -quote- tell a story -unquote-. A comic HAS to tell a story. It's an essence. If it doesn't, well it's pointless. Hence the technical constraints, with which the authors can play.

You make out that "little or no background" works fine. Maybe for you but you're not normal, you're a bunch of clay! :) I mean, let's be realistic for a minute, the best artists are those who can manage to provide non-"cluttered" things. This is one of the constraints I hinted at earlier. Artists who just give up backgrounds to bypass this contraint, well I call them lazy (or non talented) ppl.

Because to my mind it looks bad. You may like it but I don't. Then again little background might be the solution here. See pages 3,7,8,9, or 67. But overall the minimum amount of backgrounds is always required to tell a superhero story.

Oh yeah, btw, I'm not saying some other genres of comic books can't afford forgoing them. But in a superhero comic, amid the story there's the action, and any action scene is all the more enjoyable as it is anchored in a background with which the characters interact. Example: Batman jumping out of the batmobile at the beginning, or bursting ino the window at Luthor's.

Salvor

02-22-2002, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Clayface

Again, I don't agree. I think its just the opposite, actually. I think that he's got so much to live up to after TDKR that people aren't giving him a fair shake with DK2. Everyone expected a carbon copy of TDKR, but yet wanted it different enough so that he wasn't just repeating what he did in the first series. I give him props for being brave enough to try doing what he wanted to do, rather than necessarily just giving the fans the version they wanted.
[/B]
Man speak for YOURSELF. You're not people, you're one single person. I've been following Miller's work for years now. He's always impressed me. With Ronin, Sin City, 300, those hilarious Lance Blastoff stories... now I've never tried to compare the new DK with the original one, but it's still bad. Why can't you accept the fact that many don't like the book because it's just bad??

Surprise can be good. Change can be good. But here it's not. Plain and simple.

BTW just wanted to add that one of my major complaints about the book is that it's not a Batman story. Glad to see we agree on this particular point.

Clayface

02-22-2002, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Salvor
Now what's the point of quoting when you only point out some cropped sentences which you use in your own interest?

:confused:

You seem to be the only one that has any problem with my quoting. I took the sentences that were directly relevant to the conversation. I could very easily have left the entire paragraphs in, and all of my comments remain the same and are still valid. Excuse me for not cluttering things with the non-relevant sentences. :rolleyes:

First I disagree on most of your "awesome" panels!

Fair enough, and you just prove my point further. Its all subjective and all opinion. Your examples of bad art that "prove" Miller rushed through things, are just you opinions on what you like and don't like - not proof of any carelessness on Miller's part.

I'm sorry but I guess we don't have have the same tastes artwise.

Obviously.

Then please stop telling me how I feel and what I think when I say the exact opposite.

Where am I telling you how you feel or what you think? Specific examples please.

Ya know, you seem to have this tendency to be willing to speak for others (for James for instance... he said he was confused by the single book , so draw whatever conclusion you want, he still said it -- sorry for involving you in this Jim).

How am I speaking for others?

How am I speaking for James? Go back and re-read his post, and you'll see that that's what he said, and that's what he meant. He's also said the exact same thing in other posts on the DK2 topic. I'm not putting words in his mouth - I'm telling you what he's said himself. If he's got a problem with what I've said, I'm sure he'll come in and correct me, and if he does, I'll gladly say I was wrong and apologize.

As for the "standards", when I said there were rules, I specified those rules were basic, ie considered as necessary to -quote- tell a story -unquote-. A comic HAS to tell a story. It's an essence. If it doesn't, well it's pointless. Hence the technical constraints, with which the authors can play.

And I don't agree on the constraints you've so boldly laid on the comics community. I feel that that Miller's lack of backgrounds in his images doesn't in any way change the story-telling ability of his art.

You make out that "little or no background" works fine. Maybe for you but you're not normal, you're a bunch of clay! :) I mean, let's be realistic for a minute, the best artists are those who can manage to provide non-"cluttered" things.

And doesn't Miller do just that in this issue? I believe so.

This is one of the constraints I hinted at earlier. Artists who just give up backgrounds to bypass this contraint, well I call them lazy (or non talented) ppl.

Like I said, I don't think its a valid constraint you're imposing.

Clayface

02-22-2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Salvor

Man speak for YOURSELF.

What did I say there that is not valid?

People did want something that was similar to TDKR. Read any of the threads pre- or post-release of the first issue. People were afraid it would be a carbon-copy of TDKR - again, go back and read the pre-release threads.
The first series is so hyped and built up in people's minds that Miller had a lot to live up to.

You're not people, you're one single person. I've been following Miller's work for years now. He's always impressed me.

So have I - I've been following it since TDKR originally came out. And I've not always been impressed. Ronin's art didn't impress me all that much - its rather like what we're seeing in DK2, IMO. Most of the Sin City books were fantastic. I hated 300 - bored me to tears, but then again, I'm not a history buff in the least. And the Martha Washington stuff doesn't interest me at all.
I'd put DK2, storywise, above 300 and Martha Washington. I'd put it art-wise down with Ronin.

Why can't you accept the fact that many don't like the book because it's just bad??

It's bad in your opinion. And if that's why you don't like it, I don't have any problem with that - I never have. My problem, from the start of this thread, has been the silly comments implying that Miller is purposefully thumbing his nose at the comic community. Or that he's not putting his heart and soul into the project - who are you to judge that? Just because he's producing a work you don't like doesn't mean that he's not giving his all to it, and, IMO, its rather conceited of you to say otherwise. If you don't like his work, that's fine - state it, and give specific examples of what you don't like (which is what you're finally doing in recent posts). But don't go around personally insulting the man himself.

Surprise can be good. Change can be good. But here it's not. Plain and simple.

Again, in your opinion.

BTW just wanted to add that one of my major complaints about the book is that it's not a Batman story. Glad to see we agree on this particular point.

Oh, absolutely. Like I said, I'm not a fan of big superhero team up books - I don't read much in the way of superhero books other than the Batman titles in fact. And the reason I enjoy Batman stories is because of his "loner" tendencies. TDKR did a good job in keeping those tendencies prevalent, while still alllowing him to work with partners like Carrie. But this one has just become too much of a superhero team-up story for my tastes.

Salvor

02-22-2002, 10:23 AM

Well it was fun while it lasted but today I've got work to do so let's be brief :)

Example of you telling me what I think?

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Salvor

So the "standards" you refer to? I don't care about them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahhh, but you do! Further down you talk abot the "rules" of comic making."

I "DO"? How "conceited" of you is that?

Example of my problem with your quoting? The same. I spent more than 2 paragraphs explaining what I thought about these "standards" and you totally overlooked them, only mentioning one single cropped quote.
I don't have a problem with your quoting per se. Actually it's very efficient. But sometimes misleading and quite unfair.

The constraints I so "boldly lay"? I'm not cocky enough I'm afraid, so I didn't make them up. They're part of the basic advice every single artist I've met (Jean Giraud, Lewis Trondheim, Mike Manley, Shane Glines, Ronnie del Carmen, Bret Blevins, Paul Rivoche, and so many others) gave me.

"People did want something that was similar to TDKR. Read any of the threads pre- or post-release of the first issue. People were afraid it would be a carbon-copy of TDKR - again, go back and read the pre-release threads.
The first series is so hyped and built up in people's minds that Miller had a lot to live up to. "

I remember these posts perfectly. And many were hoping to be actually surprised. Is it what you call "expecting something similar"? :confused:

"My problem, from the start of this thread, has been the silly comments implying that Miller is purposefully thumbing his nose at the comic community. Or that he's not putting his heart and soul into the project - who are you to judge that? Just because he's producing a work you don't like doesn't mean that he's not giving his all to it, and, IMO, its rather conceited of you to say otherwise."

Now I can agree on that. My words were rushed themselves :) Then again I don't think I insulted Miller. On the contrary I felt sorry for him when I saw how bad the book was (IN MY OPINION). So I guess this "theory" was a way to avert my eyes from the truth: he 's become an artist I dislike.

You know, there's nothing silly about those comments. Miler himself has entailed them. I mean, when he worked for Darkhorse, he used to denounce very harshly DC and Marvel's "comic community". And, well, he didn't seem to care much for the men working for them (you should be aware of this, considering he used to mention his scorn towards them in most of Sin City's letter columns). So let's cut the lecturing please.

Besides I'm sure he'd be glad to hear about my "consiracy theory". He's a big fan of conspiracies isn't he? :rolleyes:

Salvor

02-22-2002, 10:25 AM

Man, that wasn't brief at all...

Clayface

02-22-2002, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Salvor

Example of you telling me what I think?

...

I "DO"? How "conceited" of you is that?

There's nothing conceited about it, nor was I telling you what you think. I was pointing out a contradiction in two of your statements in the same thread. First, you stated that you didn't care about teh standards. Then, a couple paragraphs later you try to make a point that depends on the "standard" of having backgrounds to tell a story. Because of this contradiction, I was pointing out that you must beleive in some sort of standard, or your later argument did not hold.

Example of my problem with your quoting? The same. I spent more than 2 paragraphs explaining what I thought about these "standards" and you totally overlooked them, only mentioning one single cropped quote.

I skipped those statements, because I didn't have anything to disagree with you about on that. What you said about them was fine - my comment was focusing on the apparent contradiction in your statements - a long statement about how you don't care about standards, and then a statement in which you rip on Miller for not following the "standard" of backgrounds.

I edited out the stuff inbetween to make my point - first I showed your comment about not caring about standards. Then I said you do, and then to back up the idea that you do, I showed the paragraph in which you discuss the standard of backgrounds and how its important to you.

The constraints I so "boldly lay"? I'm not cocky enough I'm afraid, so I didn't make them up. They're part of the basic advice every single artist I've met (Jean Giraud, Lewis Trondheim, Mike Manley, Shane Glines, Ronnie del Carmen, Bret Blevins, Paul Rivoche, and so many others) gave me.

And these are the only people that can decide what's good? These are the only valid viewpoints? Because they say it, it must be so?

I remember these posts perfectly. And many were hoping to be actually surprised. Is it what you call "expecting something similar"? :confused:

Hoping and expecting are two different things. Seemed to me that people were expecting it to be similar to TDKR, but hoping that it would be different.

So I guess this "theory" was a way to avert my eyes from the truth: he 's become an artist I dislike.

Now that statement I don't have any problem with! ;)

This was the whole reason i jumped in the argument - I thought comments like that weren't fair, and were avoiding the real reasons for the displeasure in the work.

You know, there's nothing silly about those comments. Miler himself has entailed them.

Doesn't mean they're not silly. I never particularly cared for Miller's grandstanding on issues in this way either.

So let's cut the lecturing please.

But its the only thing I'm good at!!! ;)

Sugar Daddy

02-22-2002, 07:07 PM

Let's stop critiquing each other. Every post is that individual posters own opinion! Let it be.

Salvor

02-23-2002, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Clayface

And these are the only people that can decide what's good? These are the only valid viewpoints? Because they say it, it must be so?

Not because they say it, but because they are professionals who have learnt and taught art. You do know art is not inborn, right? It usually takes years to learn how to draw and to find one's own style.

Originally posted by Clayface

Now that statement I don't have any problem with! ;)

This was the whole reason i jumped in the argument - I thought comments like that weren't fair, and were avoiding the real reasons for the displeasure in the work.

Doesn't mean they're not silly. I never particularly cared for Miller's grandstanding on issues in this way either.

But its the only thing I'm good at!!! ;)

Well Clay I don't know about you but I think we've reached a point where we can agree to disagree... sort of.

...

That was fun ;)