Talk:Frank Miller

There was an la times article today with new info

Other Frank Miller

There is another cartoonist named Frank Miller. He wrote and drew the comic "Barney Baxter", I think... If there were two pages, How would we solve that problem? call the other Frank_Miller_2 or something?

OK, the solution chosen was Frank Miller (1898-1949). Cumbersome title, butI guess it'd work...

Where does he live now?

In the early Daredevil comics, and in TDKR, there is a palpable NYC feel to things. Then Miller moved LA and Sin City (and Hard Boiled) had a total LA feel. Anyone know where he is now? If he's doing Holy Terror! my guess is NYC.

According to Miller in the introduction to "Eisner/Miller", as of 2005, Miller lives in New York City.128.107.248.220 12:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Robocop comics

I was positive the Robocop comics were originally published by Dark Horse. I know they've had crossovers with other DH properties (like Robocop vs. Terminator). — Gwalla | Talk 01:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There were a number of RoboCop comics. Marvel Comics had the first license and was also responsible for the first cartoon. When they lost the license, around the time of RoboCop 3, Dark Horse picked it up and did a number of crossovers with other licensed characters like Terminator (RoboCop vs. Terminator was written by Miller and drawn by Walter Simonson). A full list of each company's RoboCop comics can be found here [1]. While a RoboCop 3 comic was made by Dark Horse, it was an adaptation of the movie written by Steven Grant. Years later, Avatar Press aqquired the license and Grant directly adapted Miller's RoboCop 2 screenplay as "Frank Miller's RoboCop".

— Revenger | Talk 01:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. — Gwalla | Talk 22:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The DGA controversy

A lot more could be said about the controversy over Miller's "co-director" credit but I feel much of it isn't relevant in this article. It certainly had nothing to do with Miller's non-membership in the DGA, at least not according to Rodriguez or Miller in every interview I've heard. --feitclub 06:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

DGA rules are simple: only one director may be credited on a film. Robert Rodriguez has stated in numerous interviews, as well as on the supplemental material of the "Sin City" DVD, that he wanted Miller listed as "co-director." The only way to do this was for Rodriguez to resign from the DGA. Dougom 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

When did Frank marry Lynn?

Anyone know?

---

Not sure.  They are apparently divorced now.

--Molon Labe 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are NOT divorced.

Dark Knight Strikes Again

There seems to be a problem with the line "Miller's repetition of these particular themes, and especially his use of them here, have caused some fans to question the writer/artist's apparent preoccupation with them." over whether it is POV. As it's written, it is to me and seems more fitting on a message board. However, there should be mention of Miller's recent work being more exploitative without good reason but we shouldn't slip into speculation.Logan1138 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Miller has its share of crappy comics alright

How about that Spawn comic he wrote?... how about all the spawns he wrote?, Miller can write some pretty plotless nonsense from time to time ("All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder", for example ). Should it be mentioned here?

The article shouldn't post an opinion one way or another, whether his work is "good" or "bad". If there are citable sources criticizing some of his work, that could be considered fair play. - DynSkeet * Talk 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, could be fair play? Of course it's fair play. I'm getting really tired of a double standard where positive comments can be vague and with no citation but negative comments might be erased even with exhaustive citation.

Fandom is really a sign of cultural decadence, in wich the phenomennon you describe happends freely in Wikipedia. Articles related to merchandiseable products are truly the hardest to keep clean, or to try to keep at bay. For example, for every little crappy character that World of Warcraft has, there is a full article about it, wich is impossible to try to erase or merge because whenever there is a voting process every fan votes "KEEP", same thing for Star Wars. And while articles like those flourish from out of nowhere, historical articles rust for lack of schollars, with the exception of politics, where youll always find students and wackos to keep an article mighty updated.

---

I'm a pretty big fan of Frank Miller, but I have to agree that he's written his share of material that is, depending upon your tastes, either flat-out drek or (if you happen to like it) light, escapist material that, admittedly can make no claim to being high art. I thought the mentioned Spawn/Batman comic was a lot of fun but really can't consider it the zenith of comic art.

This is all irrelevant, though. Articles about artists should maintain neutrality and not devolve into either a boot-licking fan review or some foaming-at-the-mouth denounciation of the artist in question. What's the point of doing otherwise when all that means is that the article itself will become an ever-changing mass of controversial statements that are quickly removed, while the talk page becomes nothing but another internet forum peopled by hotheaded partisans of their own overheated, overcooked opinions? Not that I don't enjoy a good rant now and then, but Wikipedia is not the place for it.

--Molon Labe 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

some bias

I think there needs to be some citation to the following

Miller is known for his hatred against the Superman character and is known to write him getting beaten up.

sure miller has gotten supes beaten up a couple of times, but i don't think it's nessicarily becasue of hatred. this statement seems pretty biased to me.

Miller has a great love for the Superman character, even if his ideaology is more in line with Batman's. CmdrClow 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the statement you quote is biased and unsourced, I do believe Miller has a vehement dislike of the Superman character. Show me one instance where he's put Superman in his comics and not taken the opportunity to take the piss out of him. The appearances in ASB&R are the worst yet. Seb Patrick 08:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Key point here... you " believe". It is your opinion which is yours and not fact. There in lies the problem. Just because you think it seems he does not like the character does not make it so.

New Pic

Please someone get a new pic, that one seems squashed and makes his head look like a melon. Elijya 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Youre right, and another thing why is the same picture used twice on the intro section AND the trivia section? Nathen

I rather like a picure of him on the red carpet, giving the 'ol one eyebrow raise. I haven't been able to find it at the moment, but I suggest substituting this one instead. http://www.coolfotodudes.com/sin_city/dsc_3025.jpg I'd change the picture on the page myself, however, my knowledge of code is somewhat limited when it comes to wikipedia. Just a thought...

Lack of criticisms

For a guy who's been called a <redacted> on the blogosphere and has even been suggested to be a coward by Grant Morrison in an interview, I'm surprised there's no criticism of him in the article relating to these views. -- LGagnon 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you take the damn stress about it and write it!, try to see how much it'll stay in here before it gets erased or euphemized by fans.

$Insertformulahere$

His lines of thoughts are very apparent in his letters and interviews: "For the first time in my life, I know how it feels to face an existential menace. They want us to die." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5784518 and it has a reflection even in his recent works: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5219392 I think that September 11th has kind of opened the way to these type of simplistic thinkers who otherwise would not have been in mainstream media and I think that it is indeed unfortunate.

Outspoken Politics Missing

For example, Frank Miller is quoted by Publisher's Weekly responding to the Mohommed Cartoon conflicts: "The harsh truth is that we're facing an enemy that keeps telling us what they are and what they want," declared Miller, adding that people refuse to believe it. "They have made it plain they want to exterminate the Jews, to bring down the West, to achieve world dominion," then comparing them to Nazis in the 30s. -unsigned

Yeah, the article does give some insight as to his politics, or at least his hatred of Islam. The article quotes him as saying "I don't care how the hell you vote," and he can't seem to decide if he wants to front cool and apathetic or to really spout off. Interesting article. Jerimee 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hated of Islam?" Cute -NoOne

There's more of his political outlook in an NPR interview. His politics are also bound up in the reception of the film 300, e.g. in this MSNBC article. -unsigned

What are his influences ?

I read in a book that Will Eisner and His work influenced Miller in his comics and on a website thatThe Spirit story "Showdown with the octopus" inspired Miller in his work in Daredevil.

Can we add an "Influences" section in the article?

If you don't just call me.

Tgunn2 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Frank Miller's politics?!

<redacted> Jerimee 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

<redacted> 68.215.50.127 05:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

<redacted>

<redacted> 72.144.71.193 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO THE PREVIOUS POSTERS: <redacted>

-Troy.

Actually, Moore is an anarchist. <redacted> And Moore never said anything as stupid as "My SIN CITY heroes are knights in dirty, blood-caked armor. They bring justice to a world that gives them no medals, no praise, no reward. That world, that CITY, often kills them for their brave service" [2] or

"Let's finally talk about the enemy. Somebody--for some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, uh, and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent. These people saw peoples' heads off. They enslave women, they genetically mutilate their daughters. Um, they, they, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. Um, I'm speaking into a microphone that never could've been a product of their culture. And I'm living in a city where 3,000 of my neighbors were killed by, uh, thieves of airplanes they never could've built." [3] or my favorite

"Nobody questions why we, uh, after Pearl Harbor, attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism. We’re doing the same thing now."

"INTERVIEWER: Well, they did declare war on us, by the way."

"Yeah, but what I mean is--so did Iraq." [4]

GeorgeBP 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Noncompliant, POV, OR and other tags

Wow, where to begin.

Sources. There are only three of them, and they all pertain to announcements about upcoming works. There is not one to support the claims about the quality of his work, the impact and influence it's had, or the rather glowing tone the entire article takes. Which brings us to...

Neutral Point of View. The vast majority is overly positive and reads more like an authorized biography than an encyclopedia. Looking through the talk page there are points that could be raised in the article itself; reactions from others in the industry, critical reviews of his work and the like.

I'm not sure the article can be salvaged without a major rewrite, quite honestly. I'm hoping somebody more familiar with his track record can make the attempt. CovenantD 19:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

POV is unlikely to disappear...

I think that if critical analysis of an artist's body of work is considered appropriate material for inclusion in an encyclopedia article, then certainly a mention of Frank Miller's politics is relevant since he certainly seems to show some political opinion in his work.

That being said, I think that the elimination of the POV of whoever writes said analysis is likely to be something of an impossibility, or nearly so. The perception of Miller's politics I write is going to depend upon the politics of the critic, obviously. Any criticism of Miller's politics will take a form affected by my politics, criticism written by person A will be shaped by A's politics, critism from B will be affected by their politics, and so forth. I'm not claiming the impossibility of a substantial amount of objectivity, but I do believe that with so charged a topic as politics and so (currently) controversial a subject as Frank Miller that analysis of the political aspects of his work are likely to be, inevitably, an ongoing source of dispute.

None of which suggests the thing ought not be done anyway.

--Molon Labe 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...after reviewing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I think that critical analysis of an artist's work - at least, criticism that would be worth doing - would likely violate the rules Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even poor, superficial criticism is going to involve the author reading the material being criticized and synthesizing his own original opinion on the stuff, which would inevitably at least partially be disagreed with by somebody, which would prompt a defense from the original author...which of course devolves into a soapbox situation. I think it might be wise to steer clear of any but the most superficial and uncontroversial criticism of Miller's politics in his art or his public statements. Perhaps in the case of a blatantly political work like the in-progress Holy Terror one could quote (and cite) a comment from Miller about his politics and how it manifests itself artistically, but speculation about some alleged hatred of Islam on the part of Frank Miller would be clearly over the line sans a public statement on the part of Miller saying that he hates Islam.

--Molon Labe 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tags...

The sections titled Daredevil and the early 1980s and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and the late 1980s both have the neutrality dispute tag added to them. I can't tell quite why, since skimming both sections shows no fanboyish content; I saw nothing in either section that a critic that positively loathed Miller's work should disagree with. They both seemed to contain nothing other than factual information and seemingly uncontroversial descriptions of the material in question.

--Molon Labe 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

is he jewish ?

that's the question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.167.163.17 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Why?--Molon Labe 01:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In a word, "No." If you need me to, I will dig up a source.Dougom 17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

He's Catholic, he mentioned it in his eulogy of Jack Kirby, who is Jewish. And this matters why?

"2000 onwards" section

Given the large Hollywood interest in Miller's work, I think this section needs some serious rewrite. I can think of several ways to do it--separating out Miller's post-90's comics work from his Hollywood work, for example, and creating a new section that focusing on Hollywood. But I wanted to toss it open for discussion before I did anything, well, that radical. Dougom 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead. This article needs a lot of work, and that sounds like a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the "Controversy" section

There's nothing wrong with having a "Controversy" section, as Miller's work is very controversial, but there are NO citations for any of it (just look at the citation tags), it uses weasel words ("many feel" "some think" "it has been said" etc.), and it all seems to be Original Research. You can't just use such derogatory language towards a man and hide behind "some say." The article essentially calls him a fascist, racist, psychopath and everything else short of a pedophile. Get some sources and reputable citations, tone down the POV and OR, then put the "Controversy" section back up. Childe Roland of Gilead 17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)