Why does everyone ignore that All-star B&R is satire?

[literally exaggerated]

I'm curious how so many readers have missed this.

His last major Batman related work was the Dark Knight Strikes Again, which was 100% parody. Like, completely over the top, ridiculous lampooning of everything from the culture of the times to the nature of superheroes to the absurd lengths which Miller's imitators had taken his ideas. And somehow, 95% of the readership missed it. Took it on serious terms, and, finding it utterly ridiculous, promptly declared it trash. Even now, LONG after Miller has gone on record repeatedly stating the book was a parody, almost pure satire, most readers ignore this. Because its not a good serious Batman story.

Now along comes All-star Batman and Robin, and its the EXACT SAME sort of thing. 100% goofy, over the top ridiculousness. Repetitive dialogue which reads exactly like someone lampooning the conventions of their own style. People spouting off ludicrous one-liners that work primarily to highlight their own ridiculousnesss. I mean, "What are you dense? Are you retarted or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the Goddamn Batman!". Are their honestly people who think this is intended to be taken seriously at 100% face value? Its year two and Batman is in a freaking flying car, going on sprees where he murders cops and stuffing rats into a 12 year old boy's face, while all the while the 12 year old sits their rolling his eyes all, "man, this is so queer, you're such a ridiculous tool".

Its obviously satire, especially when you look at all the similarities in tone it shares with DKSA. At cons, Miller, while not outright stating that its 100% parody, has said that Batman's characterization is intended both as a commentary on the sort of character Batman has become in the wake of DKR (and why Miller feels its been taken too far), and that its not intended to be taken entirely seriously. Something not meant to be taken seriously that works as a critique of its subject matter? There's a word for that...oh yeah, SATIRE!

Now, DKSA had some serious elements to it as well, and so does ASB&R. Specifically, Miller is attempting to highlight the necessity of Robin. This story is pretty obviously going to be about, not how Batman morphs Robin into his psychotic protege, but how Robin morphs Batman into a heroic figure. Without Robin, Batman becomes a psycho, an absurdist clint eastwood out of a film noir gone wrong, and then Robin shows up and basically says, "man, chill out, this is some ridiculous bullshit and no one's buying it, and you need to become a hero." Because if that wasn't what Miller was intending, he would have Robin take Batman seriously, be afraid or traumatized by him. But he's not, he sees him for the joke he is (making him far more perceptive than most fans, apparently). In essence, Miller is showing why the abandonment of Robin and all he represents (heroism, light, fun, family and camaraderie) in favor of a grimmer, "more realistic" Batman doesn't improve the character, it destroys him.

Thats what ASB&R is about, and it worries me that most of the readership seems to be not only sorely lacking in even the most basic skills pertinent to literary interpretation, but also demonstrate no understanding of the concepts of irony, metatextual or symbolic humor/story elements, or of the nature of satire or parody.

Now, just because its satire, doesn't mean its GOOD satire. I'm not saying everyone has to like this book, or even that its necessarily that good. Its been 5 issues and all they've done is take a drive, and while a couple of moments made me laugh out loud (the "I'm the Goddamn Batman" line made me spit my coffee all over that book the first time I read it), there have been a bunch of weak moments. Its pretty flawed, and if Miller doesn't inject some action, or at least some new humor into it pretty soon its going to fall apart.

Those are all legitimate criticisms of the book, and their are others. But reading it as a serious Batman story and criticising it for falling short is not one of them. This book is satire, its a joke. To argue otherwise is to indicate that you really don't understand what satire is beyond its absolutely most obvious form (and if thats the case, here's a hint: "a modest proposal" wasn't meant to be taken seriously either. Oh and Scream? the wes Craven horror movie, that was satire too in case you failed to miss that). You can argue whether its a good joke or a bad joke, but arguing that its not a joke at all is absurd.

[Alan2099]

Oh, this is a joke alright. I'm sure you won't find anybody that disagres with that.

The thing is Satire or not, it's neither funny nor entertaining. The best thing you could probably say for it is that it's summed up best as Miller saying, "People have said I'm ruined batman, so this is me ruining Batman!"

[Yoda]

I think a lot of fans take themselves, Batman and comic books too seriously and therefore see this as some kind of slap to the face by Miller. Which is ridiculous. I'm enjoying it for what it is.

[literally exaggerated]

Yeah, I fail to see how Miller is runining Batman, because this isn't canonical Batman. He's an entirely separate character, so if instead of wanting to tell a serious detective or action story, Miller wants to lampoon the character and make metatextual commentary about the necessity of certain elements, whats wrong with that?

[Yoda]

Yeah, I fail to see how Miller is runining Batman, because this isn't canonical Batman. He's an entirely separate character, so if instead of wanting to tell a serious detective or action story, Miller wants to lampoon the character and make metatextual commentary about the necessity of certain elements, whats wrong with that?

Nothing at all. It's pretty funny, the latest issue was actually more of a decent story than just being insane, and Jim Lee's art is gorgeous. No one is ruining Batman, and i really don't understand the people who get offended by it.

[The Foreigner]

Thats what ASB&R is about, and it worries me that most of the readership seems to be not only sorely lacking in even the most basic skills pertinent to literary interpretation, but also demonstrate no understanding of the concepts of irony, metatextual or symbolic humor/story elements, or of the nature of satire or parody.

I don't care. It's still terribly written.

[OverMaster]

Yeah, I fail to see how Miller is runining Batman, because this isn't canonical Batman. He's an entirely separate character, so if instead of wanting to tell a serious detective or action story, Miller wants to lampoon the character and make metatextual commentary about the necessity of certain elements, whats wrong with that?

So? On that perspective, Joel Schumacher didn't ruin Batman in 'Batman and Robin' either because he wasn't dealing with the Canon Batman. But he still ruined it, just like Miller is doing now.

No matter if it is parody, it is still bad, lame parody and deserves to be bashed as such. Not to mention, to such a story, a different art style would have been way better suited. With an Aragones or Kyle Baker drawing, the ugly clash between the plot's idiocy and the realism of Lee's art would have been avoided. But of course, it wouldn't have sold the same way...

[Paul Dee]

So? On that perspective, Joel Schumacher didn't ruin Batman in 'Batman and Robin' either because he wasn't dealing with the Canon Batman. But he still ruined it, just like Miller is doing now.

That's different though - he ruined the series of Batman movies by taking them in a different direction which betrayed the vision of the first two. Miller hasn't done this, he's just created his own world with differently written characters. A better analogy would be if ASB&R had run for about 10 issues, brilliantly written by someone else. Miller then takes over and writes Batman like he is at the minute. Then the Schumacher comparison works.

[Yoda]

So? On that perspective, Joel Schumacher didn't ruin Batman in 'Batman and Robin' either because he wasn't dealing with the Canon Batman. But he still ruined it, just like Miller is doing now.

No he didn't. He "ruined" the Batman film series. But Batman Begins fixed that. Miller's Batman isn't ruining anything. It's not ruining the Batman Comics, it's certainly not ruining the Batman movies. How, exactly is it ruining anything at all?

[curefreak]

couldnt one also presume that the schumacher batman and robin films were supposed to be a satire too?

[foxfire]

I think the "All-Star" label is a reason why. If someone who knew nothing about Batman wanted to read a great story, picking up a title called "All-Star Batman" probably would be a safe bet to read a great Batman story. If it was another random Bat-mini series no one would care.

[Gary Joyce]

Well i'm gonna wait til something actually happens in the book before deciding wether its trash or not.

[Evan Waters]

Because there is no indication of such in the text.

In Swift's A MODEST PROPOSAL, if you read closely, there are a couple of big "giveaway" passages that indicate to the reader that he's not being serious. In one place he sarcastically dismisses an actual solution to the problem, in another he suggests that the landlords have already effectively devoured the adults of Ireland and such ought to have first pick of the children. Those are hints of what he's actually talking about.

Where is that in ASB&R?

[The Foreigner]

I'm curious how so many readers have missed this.

His last major Batman related work was the Dark Knight Strikes Again, which was 100% parody. Like, completely over the top, ridiculous lampooning of everything from the culture of the times to the nature of superheroes to the absurd lengths which Miller's imitators had taken his ideas. And somehow, 95% of the readership missed it. Took it on serious terms, and, finding it utterly ridiculous, promptly declared it trash. Even now, LONG after Miller has gone on record repeatedly stating the book was a parody, almost pure satire, most readers ignore this. Because its not a good serious Batman story.

No, it's not a good story period. Dark Knight Strikes Again had one-dimensional characters, a plot with zero suspense, deus ex machina explanations, and a surprise villain who came out of nowhere. I don't care if it's a parody or a satire or whatever-- Apply those storytelling flubs to ANY story, and it's going to be dumb.


Now along comes All-star Batman and Robin, and its the EXACT SAME sort of thing. 100% goofy, over the top ridiculousness. Repetitive dialogue which reads exactly like someone lampooning the conventions of their own style.
People spouting off ludicrous one-liners that work primarily to highlight their own ridiculousnesss. I mean, "What are you dense? Are you retarted or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the Goddamn Batman!".

Poorly written garbage is poorly written garbage, satire or not.


Are their honestly people who think this is intended to be taken seriously at 100% face value?

Not really.

Its year two and Batman is in a freaking flying car, going on sprees where he murders cops and stuffing rats into a 12 year old boy's face, while all the while the 12 year old sits their rolling his eyes all, "man, this is so queer, you're such a ridiculous tool".

Which is really stupid.


Its obviously satire,

It's obviously poorly written as well.

especially when you look at all the similarities in tone it shares with DKSA. At cons, Miller, while not outright stating that its 100% parody, has said that Batman's characterization is intended both as a commentary on the sort of character Batman has become in the wake of DKR (and why Miller feels its been taken too far), and that its not intended to be taken entirely seriously. Something not meant to be taken seriously that works as a critique of its subject matter? There's a word for that...oh yeah, SATIRE!

Claiming the story to be a "satire" and "parody" (Which are two entirely different things, by the way) is no excuse to deliver a crappy story.


Now, DKSA had some serious elements to it as well, and so does ASB&R. Specifically, Miller is attempting to highlight the necessity of Robin. This story is pretty obviously going to be about, not how Batman morphs Robin into his psychotic protege, but how Robin morphs Batman into a heroic figure.

Unfortunately, Batman is such a murderous, unlikeable psycho, I could care less what he "morphs" into.


Without Robin, Batman becomes a psycho, an absurdist clint eastwood out of a film noir gone wrong, and then Robin shows up and basically says, "man, chill out, this is some ridiculous bullshit and no one's buying it, and you need to become a hero." Because if that wasn't what Miller was intending, he would have Robin take Batman seriously, be afraid or traumatized by him. But he's not, he sees him for the joke he is (making him far more perceptive than most fans, apparently). In essence, Miller is showing why the abandonment of Robin and all he represents (heroism, light, fun, family and camaraderie) in favor of a grimmer, "more realistic" Batman doesn't improve the character, it destroys him.

It also destroys any enjoyment of reading ASB&R.


Thats what ASB&R is about,

So?


and it worries me that most of the readership seems to be not only sorely lacking in even the most basic skills pertinent to literary interpretation, but also demonstrate no understanding of the concepts of irony, metatextual or symbolic humor/story elements, or of the nature of satire or parody.

Stop assuming that "most of the readership" is somehow below you because they think the story sucks. I'm an English major.


Now, just because its satire, doesn't mean its GOOD satire.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!


I'm not saying everyone has to like this book, or even that its necessarily that good. Its been 5 issues and all they've done is take a drive, and while a couple of moments made me laugh out loud (the "I'm the Goddamn Batman" line made me spit my coffee all over that book the first time I read it), there have been a bunch of weak moments. Its pretty flawed, and if Miller doesn't inject some action, or at least some new humor into it pretty soon its going to fall apart.

Pretty flawed: Understatement of the year.


Those are all legitimate criticisms of the book, and their are others. But reading it as a serious Batman story and criticising it for falling short is not one of them. This book is satire, its a joke. To argue otherwise is to indicate that you really don't understand what satire is beyond its absolutely most obvious form (and if thats the case, here's a hint: "a modest proposal" wasn't meant to be taken seriously either. Oh and Scream? the wes Craven horror movie, that was satire too in case you failed to miss that). You can argue whether its a good joke or a bad joke, but arguing that its not a joke at all is absurd.

And nobody has done so. You're the one making assumptions about people making assumptions.

Yes, it's satire. We get it; it's a parody. Whatever. It's still terrible.

[curefreak]

you also have to remember that not everyone is intreniscally familiar with frank miller,
to understand that this is a parody you even say if someone is familiar with his work that they would understand.

[literally exaggerated]

Because there is no indication of such in the text.

In Swift's A MODEST PROPOSAL, if you read closely, there are a couple of big "giveaway" passages that indicate to the reader that he's not being serious. In one place he sarcastically dismisses an actual solution to the problem, in another he suggests that the landlords have already effectively devoured the adults of Ireland and such ought to have first pick of the children. Those are hints of what he's actually talking about.

Where is that in ASB&R?

Robin is EXACTLY that. He's a 12 year old kid who's just had his parents murdered in front of him, been kidnapped by a raving nutcase and taken to a cave somewhere where said nutcase is trying to feed him rats. He should be terrified, traumatized, enraged.

Instead he's just been rolling his eyes at how completely ludicrous Batman is. He's not scared of him or impressed by him, but makes it clear he considers this entire thing "totally gay" and like "some lame Clint Eastwood impression". He doesn't take Batman, or indeed his entire situation, anywhere near as seriously as he would were this story intended to be taken at face value. He's just been rolling his eyes the whole time, just as aware as the readers are how full of bullshit Bats is.

[curefreak]

Robin is EXACTLY that. He's a 12 year old kid who's just had his parents murdered in front of him, been kidnapped by a raving nutcase and taken to a cave somewhere where said nutcase is trying to feed him rats. He should be terrified, traumatized, enraged.

Instead he's just been rolling his eyes at how completely ludicrous Batman is. He's not scared of him or impressed by him, but makes it clear he considers this entire thing "totally gay" and like "some lame Clint Eastwood impression". He doesn't take Batman, or indeed his entire situation, anywhere near as seriously as he would were this story intended to be taken at face value. He's just been rolling his eyes the whole time, just as aware as the readers are how full of bullshit Bats is.
i dont think understanding its a satire helps to appreciate or even understand the book.

[literally exaggerated]

No, it's not a good story period. Dark Knight Strikes Again had one-dimensional characters, a plot with zero suspense, deus ex machina explanations, and a surprise villain who came out of nowhere. I don't care if it's a parody or a satire or whatever-- Apply those storytelling flubs to ANY story, and it's going to be dumb.

No. Satire does NOT have to follow the qualitative conventions of more straightforward storytelling. "A Modest Proposal" is absolutely logically stupid and apart from its form, were it intended seriously, would be a ridiculously terrible essay. Dr. Strangelove's plot makes almost no sense and would again be absolutely terrible were the story intended to be taken at face value.


Poorly written garbage is poorly written garbage, satire or not.

Sure, but the standards for poorly written conventional storytelling and poorly written satire are entirely different. Conventional storytelling relies on having believable characters, setting, plot, etc. It has to have real movement and pathos. Satire has to do two things, be funny, and critique the topic at hand. It doesn't have to be exciting to have realistic believable characters, indeed, many of the greatest satires of all time do not.


Claiming the story to be a "satire" and "parody" (Which are two entirely different things, by the way) is no excuse to deliver a crappy story.

Actually it is, provided the satire is funny and a solid critique. Most satires, when judged as if they were intended to be taken seriously, are absolute garbage. Catch-22 for example, is absolutely hilarious and an effective critique of the nature of war, but if someone somehow missed that it was intended humorously it would read like an absolutely preposterous, jumbled mess of a war story with almost no believable characters or plot elements and maybe one or two moments of real pathos, if that.


Unfortunately, Batman is such a murderous, unlikeable psycho, I could care less what he "morphs" into.

Many protagonists in satires are psychotic, evil, or otherwise deeply messed up. see: patrick bateman in American Psycho.


It also destroys any enjoyment of reading ASB&R.

As a straightforward story, of course, but IMO not as a joke or even as a critique of the role of Robin.


Stop assuming that "most of the readership" is somehow below you because they think the story sucks. I'm an English major.

Congratulations.


And nobody has done so. You're the one making assumptions about people making assumptions.

In this thread alone several people have already disputed the notion that its intentionally satirical.

Yes, it's satire. We get it; it's a parody. Whatever. It's still terrible.

Thats fine. like I said, if you realize its satire and just find it unfunny or uninspired, thats one thing. its the idea that Miller is somehow intending to write a serious Batman story that strikes me as ridiculous.

[Evan Waters]

Robin is EXACTLY that. He's a 12 year old kid who's just had his parents murdered in front of him, been kidnapped by a raving nutcase and taken to a cave somewhere where said nutcase is trying to feed him rats. He should be terrified, traumatized, enraged.

Instead he's just been rolling his eyes at how completely ludicrous Batman is. He's not scared of him or impressed by him, but makes it clear he considers this entire thing "totally gay" and like "some lame Clint Eastwood impression". He doesn't take Batman, or indeed his entire situation, anywhere near as seriously as he would were this story intended to be taken at face value. He's just been rolling his eyes the whole time, just as aware as the readers are how full of bullshit Bats is.

And how are we sure that's not just bad characterization?

[literally exaggerated]

And how are we sure that's not just bad characterization?

Because it reads exactly like his more satirical characters in DKSA and nothing at all like characters whose pathos and pain he intends to be taken seriously (like in Sin City). If he was writing this story 100% seriously, Robin would be a wreck. In fact, knowing Miller he'd already be on his way to becoming a psycho, plotting the deaths of the people who killed his parents, having long, ultradark inner monologues about his inner agony.

Instead his pain gets like two lines, and the rest of the time he exists purely to point out that this entire situation is clearly a joke. Even the worst fanfiction writers, if trying to handle the trauma of a small boy in a realistic way, wouldn't have him rolling his eyes all the time and calling Batman totally queer.

[curefreak]

robin "saving"batman in itself is not an original story its been told many different times before and im still not buying it by the way.

[Nefarius]

It looks to me that every time a Miller story turns into a crap,Frank says it is a satyrical work.....

[curefreak]

Because it reads exactly like his more satirical characters in DKSA and nothing at all like characters whose pathos and pain he intends to be taken seriously (like in Sin City). If he was writing this story 100% seriously, Robin would be a wreck. In fact, knowing Miller he'd already be on his way to becoming a psycho, plotting the deaths of the people who killed his parents, having long, ultradark inner monologues about his inner agony.

Instead his pain gets like two lines, and the rest of the time he exists purely to point out that this entire situation is clearly a joke. Even the worst fanfiction writers, if trying to handle the trauma of a small boy in a realistic way, wouldn't have him rolling his eyes all the time and calling Batman totally queer.
maybe he has weird coping mechanisms?

[curefreak]

It looks to me that every time a Miller story turns into a crap,Frank says it is a satyrical work.....
why am i not surprised? its a good escape rout for people wanting one it seems.

[literally exaggerated]

i dont think understanding its a satire helps to appreciate or even understand the book.

It certainly does. It doesn't mean you'll like it, but I can guarantee any attempts to read it a serious Batman story will result in you hating it.

This thread is filled with criticisms of people essentially criticising it the way they would if it were intended to be a serious Batman story. its being judged on its faithfulness to the characters and canon, its ability to craft serious, believable characters and situations and tell a ripping good story out of it.

Which is pretty much like if everyone was going nuts because Catch-22 totally didn't handle the military realistically, failed to flesh out its characters in any real way, had a plot that was totally disjointed and largely nonsensical, and ultimately failed to inject even a shred of realism, believability or internal consistency into the story.

All of which is true. But it doesn't matter. Because Catch-22 is a satire. its not supposed to do any of those things. Its supposed to be funny, and its supposed to use that humor to critique the madness of war and idiocy of military bureaucracy. So those are the terms you judge it on, and on those terms, its a masterpiece. Its absolutely hysterical and uses that hilarity to highlight the madness of war.

So STOP judging ASB&R on whether its a good story with good characters, and start judging it on the terms that make any sense. Is it funny, and is it a good critique?

Now, I'm not entirely sure the answer to either of those is yes. Its funny in parts, but has a LOT of worthless parts, and the critique is VERY heavy-handed (which is what makes it all the more worrisome that many don't seem to pick up on it).

Like I said, its entirely possible to judge it as a satire and find it wanting, but its absolute idiocy to judge it as a serious story.

[curefreak]

It certainly does. It doesn't mean you'll like it, but I can guarantee any attempts to read it a serious Batman story will result in you hating it.

This thread is filled with criticisms of people essentially criticising it the way they would if it were intended to be a serious Batman story. its being judged on its faithfulness to the characters and canon, its ability to craft serious, believable characters and situations and tell a ripping good story out of it.

Which is pretty much like if everyone was going nuts because Catch-22 totally didn't handle the military realistically, failed to flesh out its characters in any real way, had a plot that was totally disjointed and largely nonsensical, and ultimately failed to inject even a shred of realism, believability or internal consistency into the story.

All of which is true. But it doesn't matter. Because Catch-22 is a satire. its not supposed to do any of those things. Its supposed to be funny, and its supposed to use that humor to critique the madness of war and idiocy of military bureaucracy. So those are the terms you judge it on, and on those terms, its a masterpiece. Its absolutely hysterical and uses that hilarity to highlight the madness of war.

So STOP judging ASB&R on whether its a good story with good characters, and start judging it on the terms that make any sense. Is it funny, and is it a good critique?

Now, I'm not entirely sure the answer to either of those is yes. Its funny in parts, but has a LOT of worthless parts, and the critique is VERY heavy-handed (which is what makes it all the more worrisome that many don't seem to pick up on it).

Like I said, its entirely possible to judge it as a satire and find it wanting, but its absolute idiocy to judge it as a serious story.
i dont think it really matters wich way you look at it cause it still sucks eggs.
and i think people would be able to handle the satirerical (sp?) nature if it wasnt drawn so realistically.
just look at justice league international thats an obvious one if ive ever seen one and it works well within that boundry mostly cause it doesnt try and pretend to look serious.

[literally exaggerated]

and i think people would be able to handle the satirerical (sp?) nature if it wasnt drawn so realistically.
just look at justice league international thats an obvious one if ive ever seen one and it works well within that boundry mostly cause it doesnt try and pretend to look serious.

I sort of agree. i understand why lee was selected, because his art, filled as it is with square-jawed posing "badasses" and tits and ass and all that 90's stuff that ASB&R exists to critique, is a thematic fit. its like picking Samuel L. jackson to star in Snakes on a Plane, his association with his own charicature and over-the-top action movies makes him a perfect fit because he would typically star in a movie like that, only slightly less ridiculous and intended seriously.

But I don't think Lee was the best choice they could have gone with. Liefield would have been much better IMO, because his art is even more absurdly over the top and indelibly tied to 90's cliches. Imagine Batman drawn like this http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/92/150px-Liefeld_captain_america.jpg

It would be sheer comedy gold, and IMO work much better to emphasise the intentionally satirical elements of the work.

[curefreak]

I sort of agree. i understand why lee was selected, because his art, filled as it is with square-jawed posing "badasses" and tits and ass and all that 90's stuff that ASB&R exists to critique, is a thematic fit. its like picking Samuel L. jackson to star in Snakes on a Plane, his association with his own charicature and over-the-top action movies makes him a perfect fit because he would typically star in a movie like that, only slightly less ridiculous and intended seriously.

But I don't think Lee was the best choice they could have gone with. Liefield would have been much better IMO, because his art is even more absurdly over the top and indelibly tied to 90's cliches. Imagine Batman drawn like this http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/92/150px-Liefeld_captain_america.jpg

It would be sheer comedy gold, and IMO work much better to emphasise the intentionally satirical elements of the work.
ill never get tired of that picture (sigh) why doesnt he work on superman is hes so obsessed with pectoral muscles?
i think you have a point about why lee was choosen but my only experience with him was hush wich was very serious.
and everything ive read about frank miller was that he wrote really dark comics so i came in expecting a dark and serious comic.

[literally exaggerated]

and everything ive read about frank miller was that he wrote really dark comics so i came in expecting a dark and serious comic.

I think thats the biggest problem. DC advertised this as an iconic story by a master writer and master artist, and so people essentially went in expecting, well, like All-star Superman only with Batman. A return to iconic, essential elements outside of canon as an opportunity for one of the defining Batman writers to write some great mystery and action stories with a great artist.

Had they instead called it their "comedy line" and advertised it as a well-known satirist pairing up with an overthetop artist to deliver a goody, satirical take on the dark Knight, I think people would be a LOT happier with it.

Its more a problem of expectations than anything else, IMO.

[Black Atom]

It certainly does. It doesn't mean you'll like it, but I can guarantee any attempts to read it a serious Batman story will result in you hating it.

This thread is filled with criticisms of people essentially criticising it the way they would if it were intended to be a serious Batman story. its being judged on its faithfulness to the characters and canon, its ability to craft serious, believable characters and situations and tell a ripping good story out of it.

Which is pretty much like if everyone was going nuts because Catch-22 totally didn't handle the military realistically, failed to flesh out its characters in any real way, had a plot that was totally disjointed and largely nonsensical, and ultimately failed to inject even a shred of realism, believability or internal consistency into the story.

All of which is true. But it doesn't matter. Because Catch-22 is a satire. its not supposed to do any of those things. Its supposed to be funny, and its supposed to use that humor to critique the madness of war and idiocy of military bureaucracy. So those are the terms you judge it on, and on those terms, its a masterpiece. Its absolutely hysterical and uses that hilarity to highlight the madness of war.

So STOP judging ASB&R on whether its a good story with good characters, and start judging it on the terms that make any sense. Is it funny, and is it a good critique?

Now, I'm not entirely sure the answer to either of those is yes. Its funny in parts, but has a LOT of worthless parts, and the critique is VERY heavy-handed (which is what makes it all the more worrisome that many don't seem to pick up on it).

Like I said, its entirely possible to judge it as a satire and find it wanting, but its absolute idiocy to judge it as a serious story.

That's harsh, considering the series was spearheaded as a sort of Ultimate knock-off and aimed at a mainstream, non-comics reading audience upon which a satire would be completely lost. To say nothing of the fact that Jim Lee is providing super-realistic artwork that dilutes any satirical effect the book supposedly has ("supposedly" because I'm just as willing to believe that Frank Miller has simply lost his fudgin marbles).

Besides that, it's frankly just not that good. Satire or not, it's shit.

[curefreak]

I think thats the biggest problem. DC advertised this as an iconic story by a master writer and master artist, and so people essentially went in expecting, well, like All-star Superman only with Batman. A return to iconic, essential elements outside of canon as an opportunity for one of the defining Batman writers to write some great mystery and action stories with a great artist.

Had they instead called it their "comedy line" and advertised it as a well-known satirist pairing up with an overthetop artist to deliver a goody, satirical take on the dark Knight, I think people would be a LOT happier with it.

Its more a problem of expectations than anything else, IMO.
you might have a point there all i know is i heard frank miller and jim lee and i just thought thats a match made in batman gothic heaven,
i was expecting something along the lines of batman begins at least.

[curefreak]

That's harsh, considering the series was spearheaded as a sort of Ultimate knock-off and aimed at a mainstream, non-comics reading audience upon which a satire would be completely lost. To say nothing of the fact that Jim Lee is providing super-realistic artwork that dilutes any satirical effect the book supposedly has ("supposedly" because I'm just as willing to believe that Frank Miller has simply lost his fudgin marbles).

Besides that, it's frankly just not that good. Satire or not, it's shit.
im with him:D

[curefreak]

one of the annoying things about dc is that they not only have to press the reset button every ten years or so on the dc universe but they keep trying to find new ways to tell the same origin story over and over.

[literally exaggerated]

That's harsh, considering the series was spearheaded as a sort of Ultimate knock-off and aimed at a mainstream, non-comics reading audience upon which a satire would be completely lost.

Like I said, marketing was a huge problem with this book. DC completely mislead virtually their entire readership in the way they advertised the book. I don't think Miller really cares what his intended audience was supposed to be, I think he just wanted to get his thoughts out about what people had done with Batman post-DKR and use the opportunity to poke grand fun at it all.

To say nothing of the fact that Jim Lee is providing super-realistic artwork that dilutes any satirical effect the book supposedly has ("supposedly" because I'm just as willing to believe that Frank Miller has simply lost his fudgin marbles).

Again, Jim Lee was pretty obviously selected because he's indelibly associated with exactly the sort of book Miller is lampooning, just like Samuel L. Jackson was picked for Snakes on a Plane because he's associated with his own charicature and over-the-top movies like that. But I think he was ultimately not an ideal choice, because he's not really over the top ENOUGH. They should have gone with Liefield, whose particular style would have suited the ton of the book PERFECTLY and jacked up the humor by about 500%.

I'm also kinda surprised that none of the anti-ASB&R crew have pointed out a pretty obvious flaw in the satire, and thats the timing. Miller is putting this book out at precisely the same time as the rest of DC is waking up and realizing that that ridiculous charicature of Batman doesn't work, and are thus getting rid of him. As such, the very thing Miller is mocking and critiquing doesn't seem to really exist in any current comics now that Morrison and Dini are writing.

If Winick had just taken over the book, I think this would be a very necessary critique, and probably a funnier one as well. But timing is everything, and this book is in the unfortunate position of lampooning something everyone has already realized is shit. It'd be like if someone wrote Animal Farm again, out of the context of the Cold War its worthless.

[Black Atom]

Again, Jim Lee was pretty obviously selected because he's indelibly associated with exactly the sort of book Miller is lampooning, just like Samuel L. Jackson was picked for Snakes on a Plane because he's associated with his own charicature and over-the-top movies like that. But I think he was ultimately not an ideal choice, because he's not really over the top ENOUGH. They should have gone with Liefield, whose particular style would have suited the ton of the book PERFECTLY and jacked up the humor by about 500%.


That would be hilarious. In fact, I'd probably read that!

[Paul Dee]

Again, Jim Lee was pretty obviously selected because he's indelibly associated with exactly the sort of book Miller is lampooning, just like Samuel L. Jackson was picked for Snakes on a Plane because he's associated with his own charicature and over-the-top movies like that.

Well, no. Jackson was picked for "Pacific Air Flight 121" (as it was originally known) purely just to be in an action film. the movie was then changed to Snakes on a Plane at Jackson's request (apparently) and the parody aspect was turned up after it became an internet phenomenon. Jackson wasn't originally cast to parody his previous roles; it just ended up like that.

[Evan Waters]

Here's the story I've heard- The script was called SNAKES ON A PLANE as a placeholder, Sam Jackson liked the title and signed on, later they wanted to change it to Pacific Flight whatever and Jackson said "Hell no, I signed on to do SNAKES ON A PLANE!"

[Paul Dee]

Yeah, sorry I didn't make that clear. 'Snakes on a Plane' was the title of the script but it was always going to be "Pacific Air Flight 121". Jackson wanted it to be changed as above. The point is though it was never meant to be a silly parody as such.

[The Batman]

I'm curious how so many readers have missed this.

His last major Batman related work was the Dark Knight Strikes Again, which was 100% parody. Like, completely over the top, ridiculous lampooning of everything from the culture of the times to the nature of superheroes to the absurd lengths which Miller's imitators had taken his ideas. And somehow, 95% of the readership missed it. Took it on serious terms, and, finding it utterly ridiculous, promptly declared it trash. Even now, LONG after Miller has gone on record repeatedly stating the book was a parody, almost pure satire, most readers ignore this. Because its not a good serious Batman story.

Now along comes All-star Batman and Robin, and its the EXACT SAME sort of thing. 100% goofy, over the top ridiculousness. Repetitive dialogue which reads exactly like someone lampooning the conventions of their own style. People spouting off ludicrous one-liners that work primarily to highlight their own ridiculousnesss. I mean, "What are you dense? Are you retarted or something? Who the hell do you think I am? I'm the Goddamn Batman!". Are their honestly people who think this is intended to be taken seriously at 100% face value? Its year two and Batman is in a freaking flying car, going on sprees where he murders cops and stuffing rats into a 12 year old boy's face, while all the while the 12 year old sits their rolling his eyes all, "man, this is so queer, you're such a ridiculous tool".

Its obviously satire, especially when you look at all the similarities in tone it shares with DKSA. At cons, Miller, while not outright stating that its 100% parody, has said that Batman's characterization is intended both as a commentary on the sort of character Batman has become in the wake of DKR (and why Miller feels its been taken too far), and that its not intended to be taken entirely seriously. Something not meant to be taken seriously that works as a critique of its subject matter? There's a word for that...oh yeah, SATIRE!

Now, DKSA had some serious elements to it as well, and so does ASB&R. Specifically, Miller is attempting to highlight the necessity of Robin. This story is pretty obviously going to be about, not how Batman morphs Robin into his psychotic protege, but how Robin morphs Batman into a heroic figure. Without Robin, Batman becomes a psycho, an absurdist clint eastwood out of a film noir gone wrong, and then Robin shows up and basically says, "man, chill out, this is some ridiculous bullshit and no one's buying it, and you need to become a hero." Because if that wasn't what Miller was intending, he would have Robin take Batman seriously, be afraid or traumatized by him. But he's not, he sees him for the joke he is (making him far more perceptive than most fans, apparently). In essence, Miller is showing why the abandonment of Robin and all he represents (heroism, light, fun, family and camaraderie) in favor of a grimmer, "more realistic" Batman doesn't improve the character, it destroys him.

Thats what ASB&R is about, and it worries me that most of the readership seems to be not only sorely lacking in even the most basic skills pertinent to literary interpretation, but also demonstrate no understanding of the concepts of irony, metatextual or symbolic humor/story elements, or of the nature of satire or parody.

Now, just because its satire, doesn't mean its GOOD satire. I'm not saying everyone has to like this book, or even that its necessarily that good. Its been 5 issues and all they've done is take a drive, and while a couple of moments made me laugh out loud (the "I'm the Goddamn Batman" line made me spit my coffee all over that book the first time I read it), there have been a bunch of weak moments. Its pretty flawed, and if Miller doesn't inject some action, or at least some new humor into it pretty soon its going to fall apart.

Those are all legitimate criticisms of the book, and their are others. But reading it as a serious Batman story and criticising it for falling short is not one of them. This book is satire, its a joke. To argue otherwise is to indicate that you really don't understand what satire is beyond its absolutely most obvious form (and if thats the case, here's a hint: "a modest proposal" wasn't meant to be taken seriously either. Oh and Scream? the wes Craven horror movie, that was satire too in case you failed to miss that). You can argue whether its a good joke or a bad joke, but arguing that its not a joke at all is absurd.

i would have to agree with most of this. ASB&R isn't without it's flaws to be sure, most noticable is the horrible pacing of the book which has had Batman and Dick Grayson driving to the Batcave for about three issues now and a whole issue devoted to a Black Canary fight scene. that being said there's alot that's funny and entertaining and enjoyable, to me anyway, about this story. i like the way that Miller has created an over the top hilarious tough guy act for Batman and shown how human and fragile he actually is underneath and how it seems that of everyone Dick Grayson is the one to see that most clearly. i enjoy the way Miller is showing us the impact Dick Grayson will have on Batman, not necessarily making him more lighthearted but definately more human by offering a balance or counterpoint that it seems that no one else will be able to. and i enjoy some of the silver agey craziness of the book, the super h igh tech Batcave and the infinitely transforming Batmobile.

it's easy to make fun of this book and it's fun to make fun of this book and i don't begrudge anyone that. hell, i even do it myself often enough. but it's not anywhere near as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

[Magneto_X]

Yeah, I fail to see how Miller is runining Batman, because this isn't canonical Batman. He's an entirely separate character, so if instead of wanting to tell a serious detective or action story, Miller wants to lampoon the character and make metatextual commentary about the necessity of certain elements, whats wrong with that?

He's making fun of the character that made him an industry legend*?

This makes sense to you?

Miller seriously needs to read books by Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams to see how good satire is done.

* sure his DD run got him on the map but DKR sealed him as an industry powerhouse

[Damo]

Saying that something is satire does not mean that it has to be good, no matter what. Perhaps this is intended to be satire. It's still crap, in my opinion. Made worse by the waste of talent. Miller is capable of far better, and he's wasting Lee's time on this rubbish. Moreover, "All Star" doesn't sound to me like the ideal book to put satire in. When I first heard about the book I did indeed think it would be a great book to recommend to people trying to get to know the character without any continuity or anything. Now... I wouldn't recommend this book to my enemies.

But I'm honestly not sold on the idea that this is satire. Many of the things I find worst about it were there in previous Miller works, to a lesser degree. Like some others, I think it could be satire, but I'm equally willing to believe that Miller has just plain lost his everlovin' mind, and doesn't give a damn what he writes any more. It's harsh, but then again, Frank likes harsh doesn't he?

[Maestro]

Miller is writing another Batman story, about terrorism. I wonder if that will be "satire" too

[Paul Dee]

Miller is writing another Batman story, about terrorism. I wonder if that will be "satire" too


He's referred to it as as 'propaganda piece' in the past.

[Gilda Dent]

No. Satire does NOT have to follow the qualitative conventions of more straightforward storytelling. "A Modest Proposal" is absolutely logically stupid and apart from its form, were it intended seriously, would be a ridiculously terrible essay.

I disagree. "A Modest Proposal" works as well as it does because it is coldly, perfectly logical. It's pure pragmatism taken to the extreme to demonstrate the flaws in the system as it existed at the time, and it works as well as it does as satire precisely because it works well on the surface level. Gulliver's Travels likewise works as satire precisely because it works at the surface level.

Dr. Strangelove's plot makes almost no sense and would again be absolutely terrible were the story intended to be taken at face value.

I disagree with this also. Dr. Strangelove has essentially the same plot as Fail Safe, a pretty decent thriller from around the same time.

The best satire works both on the surface level and on the subtext level. Starship Troopers is a movie that I think works as satire because it's first a fairly decent example of the type of movie that it's satirizing. Robocop works as a straightforward sci-fi action movie, and the anti-corporate, anti-bureaucracy subtext is all the more effective because of this.

For satire to be truly effective, it has to at least be able to pass on the surface level as that which it is purporting to satirize. ASB&R fails in this regard.

Gilda

[Your Imaginary Pal]

The fact that not much has happened in these 5 issues is what bothers me, a complete issue dedicated to the Black Canary is absurd, ok it was like 5 pages, not the whole issue, but it still took away from the whole ALL STAR BATMAN & ROBIN idea.

Maybe thats just me though.

[literally exaggerated]

I disagree with this also. Dr. Strangelove has essentially the same plot as Fail Safe, a pretty decent thriller from around the same time.

Perhaps, but it nevertheless contained no characters who really worked as anything more than jokes, very little believable dialogue, and a number of purely absurdist plot points.

If Dr. Strangelove wasn't funny, it would be terrible, because whatever other plot points it may contain it is devoid of the interiority of story and character which good straightforward tales demand.

Some Satire works on the surface level, but there is a LOT of it that is far too absurdist to work on any level beyond the humorous, critical or farcical.

[literally exaggerated]

But I'm honestly not sold on the idea that this is satire. Many of the things I find worst about it were there in previous Miller works, to a lesser degree. Like some others, I think it could be satire, but I'm equally willing to believe that Miller has just plain lost his everlovin' mind, and doesn't give a damn what he writes any more. It's harsh, but then again, Frank likes harsh doesn't he?

Part of that is because Miller is partially lampooning the style he created, and part of it is because a lot of his previous stuff is satirical as well. Not just DKSA, which is nothing but, but even DKR is filled with satirical elements in with the serious stuff.

But I mostly agree with you, even as satire its mediocre and getting worse.

[PrimalScream]

Also i think ASB&RTBW as well as all the AS comics were meant to be a fresh take on the character for people not up to date on the continuity and this is what frank miller gives us?! I think we just expected more.
Also allstar superman isn't a bad book-they've went in a good direction where as frank has went off the flipping road.
Might as well enjoy it for what it is-utter trash with cheapened sincity humor.

[Paul Dee]

Also i think ASB&RTBW as well as all the AS comics were meant to be a fresh take on the character for people not up to date on the continuity and this is what frank miller gives us?! I think we just expected more.

Oh, don't say that. Don't put the blame on the fans. It's all Miller's fault for turning out this shite.


How do the numerous plot-holes fit into Miller's satire then? That can't be anything other than sloppy writing surely?




The thing that annoys me most about ASB&R is that there are flashes of good ideas in the whole thing. Batman piping Bach through the Batcave, Superman only being able to leap large distances and not fly etc. But the writing and (lack of ) plot really make these small things irrelevant.

[cactusmaac]

I think thats the biggest problem. DC advertised this as an iconic story by a master writer and master artist, and so people essentially went in expecting, well, like All-star Superman only with Batman. A return to iconic, essential elements outside of canon as an opportunity for one of the defining Batman writers to write some great mystery and action stories with a great artist.

Had they instead called it their "comedy line" and advertised it as a well-known satirist pairing up with an overthetop artist to deliver a goody, satirical take on the dark Knight, I think people would be a LOT happier with it.

Its more a problem of expectations than anything else, IMO.

It's a problem of a company letting a writer do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of previous plans and audience expectations, because they know he'll sell loads of units in any case.

It's somewhat curious why DC went this route. Obviously DC know that Miller+Lee+Batman=$$$$$ but they've really damaged ASBAR's chances of being the Ultimates equivalent for the casual comics reader.

[curefreak]

The fact that not much has happened in these 5 issues is what bothers me, a complete issue dedicated to the Black Canary is absurd, ok it was like 5 pages, not the whole issue, but it still took away from the whole ALL STAR BATMAN & ROBIN idea.

Maybe thats just me though.
im still wondering what she has to do with anything besides more t&a.

[Constantine Drakon]

I have what I believe to be an equally valid question. Why do some people choose to excuse poor writing simply because it's satire?

[literally exaggerated]

Because they think its funny. I mean, thats the reason I buy it, and the reason I'm considering dropping it is because it hasn't been all that funny recently. I thought it got off to a promising start, but from like issue 3 onward there really hasn't been anything new thats worth laughing at.

[literally exaggerated]

I have a job. I'm a paid intern at an engineering firm, where technically I should be proofreading a bunch of shit, but I've managed to manipulate each of my bosses into thinking I'm working on a project for the other. So in actuality I get paid to do nothing at all, which is pretty cool.

I have a superiority complex because I'm really, really smart, and self-absorbed enough to generally value my talents over the accomplishments of others.

nothing like kicking a man when hes done to prove youre masculinity....

Its fine. I like talking Batman, but I also love an opportunity to talk about myself, so either way we go is cool with me.

[Young Avenger]

I see calling All-Star Batman a satire is taking the easy way out. Trying to disguise that it sucks. "Hey man, do you really think I would write crap this bad on purpose? Nah, the whole thing is a joke."

[Magneto_X]

I have a job. I'm a paid intern at an engineering firm, where technically I should be proofreading a bunch of shit, but I've managed to manipulate each of my bosses into thinking I'm working on a project for the other. So in actuality I get paid to do nothing at all, which is pretty cool.


Until you get caught. Then you'll be getting fired or if they keep you your credibility goes down the drain and you'll get demoted/punished.

[OverMaster]

I know I'm not a Mod or anything, but could we go back to debating the book instead of each other?

[literally exaggerated]

I agree. If anyone wants to PM me, or even start a thread to discuss my personality or lifestyle, feel free. Like I said, I love talking about me.

But, this is a thread about Batman, so lets keep it at least in the ballpark of that topic.

[Apathy Boy]

I see calling All-Star Batman a satire is taking the easy way out. Trying to disguise that it sucks. "Hey man, do you really think I would write crap this bad on purpose? Nah, the whole thing is a joke."I think it's fair to say that ALL-STAR BATMAN sucks, but it's important for people to realize what the comic is so they can make the proper criticisms (e.g. "Miller isn't as funny as he thinks he is" or "Whatever he's trying to make fun of isn't all that obvious" as opposed to "Miller doesn't realize what he's making a mockery of the character!").

Miller quite obviously realizes he's mocking these characters. If "I'm the goddamn Batman" didn't make that abundantly clear, his Black Canary hooker cover did. It's fine if people don't think it's funny, but it boggles my mind that some people actually think he's being serious.

Come to think of it, how much "serious" writing has the man done in the last 10 years? SIN CITY, SPAWN/BATMAN and DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN all strike me as being pretty tongue-in-cheek.

[Effect]

It could very well be, (answering the opening post), that fans just don't care or even want satire when they read Batman or a comic of their choosing. They want entertaining stories about Batman being Batman.

Now had they (DC and the writer) made it clear as to what type of book and what the writer was actually doing from the very start I doubt you'd have all the negative complaints against All Star B&R. Cause they didn't do that, then all the trash talking and bashing that the writer, DC, and the comic gets is deserved and the writer and DC should just accept and deal with it. They tried something new, didn't bother to explain themselves in the comic to readers and explain what people were buying so let them deal with the backlash. That will teach them not to do it again or if they do to better explain themselves.

I don't have a problem with the bashing. I have no problem at all with parodies or satire, as long as I understand that's what I"m getting ahead of time and I"m not under a false impression of what I'm spending my money on. Yet when mislead as to what I could very well be getting I'll bitch and bash and insult right along with the best of them and I wouldn't give a damn as to how bad the writer feels about it.

[Alan2099]

I think that if you had put Simon Bisley on the art and called the book, "the Megolmaniacal Batman" it would have much less complaints. Then people would have relized what they were getting.

[Alex Dragon]

I don't know if I even buy into the whole "satire" thing. I've read satire before and the satire I've read before makes my laugh for a whole set of different reasons than I'm laughing at All Star Batman.

Literally Exaggerated...If you see this as "satire" do you think that Miller's SIN CITY is "satire" also? What I see Miller doing on ALL STAR BATMAN is basically Batman meets Sin City.

If Miller is intentionally doing satire then I really wish he'd stop and write some good straight forward stuff again. Yeah, yeah, DARK KNIGHT had an impact on comics, we know, we know get over yourself and write some good stuff to show you can do great superhero stuff without falling back on the "grim and gritty" stuff if it bothers so much. It's a shame that someone like Miller who's a big name and has the ability to get non-comics readers to pick up his stuff does stupid stuff like this when gets these high profile prjects. A non-comics reader who hears that Miller is supposedly a living legend and one of comics greats picks up the stuff Miller's done in the past few years for DC will probably walk away thinking comics are just bad dopey junk.

If Miller is doing "satire" I don't get what he's trying to prove at this point anyway. If he's trying to say comics are too "dark" or that stories are badly written or whatever he's going didn't he supposedly make that point with DKSB already (I'm still not totally convinced that was "satire" either) why waste our time with it again? Why do this type of thing in a book that's supposed to be a pure uncluttered version of the characters?

Personally, I think Miller is just afraid of failing to live up to his past work and does these books this way so comparisons won't be made. I also think Miller isn't as versatile as many people seem to think he is and is really only great at doing a certain type of story.

[cactusmaac]

I don't think he's past it.

He's been in the position for years now where no editor's been able to tell him he's half-assing it.

[dancj]

I haven't read ASB+R yeat (waiting for the trade), but I'd be very surpised if it isn't a comedy based simply on the fact that almost everything Miller writes is a comedy. The only things I can think of offhand that weren't obviously comedies were Batman: Year One and his Daredevil work.

The rest:
The Dark Knight Returns
The Dark Knight Strikes Again
Sin City
Martha Washington
Hard Boiled
Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot
300
Tales to Offend
Ronin....

All comedies

[Jaye]

Three people have been temp banned for absolutely unecessary and rude comments in this thread.

If you have a problem with someone, my only advice is to use the ignore function, it can be found in the user profiles.

Be civil, and stick to the topic.

[tymac]

I think that Effect has nailed it. Whether ASBAR is a parody or not is irrelevant, it isn't what it was hyped to be, and that's the problem most people have with it.

If I recall correctly, this book was supposed to be an "iconic" Batman in tales unhampered by continuity to showcase the character for new readers, and give older readers a more "classsic" Batman. It wasn't supposed to be a 12-part satire on superheroes.

People were expecting a book similar to what All-Star Superman is, and are disappointed not to get it.

[trickster]

If this is satire than my name is duck (and it isn't). Those "wha...huh" books from Marvel are satire, "Solo" is satire. This is just a guy winging it and trying to see how far he can go with his incoherent rambling. DKSA satyrized the society of the eighties, at least to my humble understanding. What the hell is ASBR supposed to satyrize? But hey, apart from the dialogue, hopefully the story will catch up. I must admit I did laugh at Superman running errands for Batman. :D

[literally exaggerated]

late 90's Batdick comics.

[trickster]

late 90's Batdick comics.

If you mean the post Cataclysm, "Fugitive" Batman, then I fail to see the need to satyrize that. That was a pretty good whodunnit (how do you spell this?) thriller. Besides, since this book is supposed to bring in new readers unfamiliar with comics, is this the impression you want thrust upon them? Even the most unsophisticated reader, would go "what the hell is this nonsense?" Not to mention that people who have seen the movie (Batman Begins, IMO the only thing the other movies had in common with Batman was the title) who'd have picked up the book would find very little resemblance between the two Batmen.

But hey, like I said, the story seems to have some interesting stuff in store. Hopefully. It's just that some things in the books are inexcusable (How long have they been driving in that car? And I take issue more with the pedophilia implications than with him ramming the cops' cars, like some people do).

[cadmium_blimp]

Maybe the people who are just getting into comic books will do a little bit of research before just going off and buying one.

[curefreak]

Maybe the people who are just getting into comic books will do a little bit of research before just going off and buying one. thats a very optimistic ideal .

[cadmium_blimp]

Well, hopefully they will. Some will, at least, since I have. And if I have then surely others have/will.

[Alan2099]

Maybe the people who are just getting into comic books will do a little bit of research before just going off and buying one.
I know when i was just getting into comics I did absolutly NO research. I picked up a Spider-Woman comic because i saw her costume and thought it had something to do with Venom.

I got an Avengers West Coast because it had a shiny cover with superheroes fighting the Devil.

I knew NOTHING about these books beforehand.

[curefreak]

Well, hopefully they will. Some will, at least, since I have. And if I have then surely others have/will.
well doing research now would tell you that the book most likely sucks but there was no evidence when it was announced that this book would come out this way.

[cadmium_blimp]

It would probably also tell them that that wouldn't be a good place to start no matter what their opinion might be of it later.

[The Shadow]

Poorly written garbage is poorly written garbage, satire or not.

Claiming the story to be a "satire" and "parody" (Which are two entirely different things, by the way) is no excuse to deliver a crappy story.


It's still terrible.
Perfectly sums up my thoughts as well.

[trickster]

thats a very optimistic ideal .

To say the least. I fail to see how research comes into this anyway. We're talking buying entertainment, not buying a car.

[cadmium_blimp]

To say the least. I fail to see how research comes into this anyway. We're talking buying entertainment, not buying a car.
Aside from one being more expensive than the other, what's the difference? Why not do a little research and find out where the best place to start is?

[Alex Dragon]

Well, hopefully they will. Some will, at least, since I have. And if I have then surely others have/will.

What type of "reseach" did you do exactly? It's easy to come up with theories now on what the book is at this point and what Miller's supposedly trying to do but when the book was orginally announced it seems that people totally familiar with comics, Batman and Frank Miller didn't even see this coming.

Why would anyone need to do "reseach"? It was announced that Frank Miller who many consider one of comics greatest talents and wrote Batman's DARK KNIGHT RETURNS who many consider one of the greatest Batman stories ever is writing a new series from DC that ignores all the years of dense continuity and shows Batman in his purest form. That's not something you look at and decide you need to "research".

[cadmium_blimp]

After I saw "Batman Begins" I became interested in the Batman comics. So...I got on the internet and just looked around. There isn't really much to it.

[Alan2099]

and how many other people do you think do that rather than just grab a book off the stands?

Better question is WHY should they have to do that?

[Leslie Lee III]

According to Jim Lee (you know, that guy) in ASBR Miller is giving the characters real personalities, so calling it satire is off-base as well as expecting Robin to magically morph Batman into something different. Batman knows he's Batman and realizes that's pretty awesome. He acts like he's a kid in a candy store. I get that, and I enjoy it.

[geordiesteve]

Totally agree with others and the Shadow, it's still very poor, whatever they're trying to pawn it off as.

As Erik Larson said in his latest One Fan's Opinion, best way to show dislike of it is to stop buying the crap. I dropped it after issue 3, sold my copies to someone gullible for less money than I bought them for and still feel that I got the better deal since they ended up holding the brown stuff when the music stopped. :)

[Fish Sauce]

and how many other people do you think do that rather than just grab a book off the stands?

Better question is WHY should they have to do that?

I had a look around before buying them mainly because I knew that there were arcs, continuity etc. that I would have to work out before buying anything and I wanted to know what would be easiest to get into, as well as which characters appealed to me. Plus there's the fact that comic shops are fairly specialised, so the staff should be able to help you.

But on the other hand I agree, people shouldn't have to do that.

[fanboy d]

the all-star line was never touted as satirical but a reincarnation of the classic archetypes dc has created.

anyways i think all-star b&r is good :D

[The Punished]

I think the expectations of the fans about the creative team is different from the message the creative team is delivering to the fans. When everyone first heard Frank Miller/Jim Lee it was orgasmic for most fanboys.

To deliver a good story you can't always take the easy path. I think Frank is writing this in this style to seperate it from any previous incarnations of the team. Besides a unification storyline whereby Robin understands why Batman is as demanding as he is ---completely setup by this storyline.

Thereby producing yet another story arc for some team and generating interest in the book even more.

[curefreak]

I think the expectations of the fans about the creative team is different from the message the creative team is delivering to the fans. When everyone first heard Frank Miller/Jim Lee it was orgasmic for most fanboys.

To deliver a good story you can't always take the easy path. I think Frank is writing this in this style to seperate it from any previous incarnations of the team. Besides a unification storyline whereby Robin understands why Batman is as demanding as he is ---completely setup by this storyline.

Thereby producing yet another story arc for some team and generating interest in the book even more.
i think youre trying to hard to rationlize the horridness of it.

[Alex Dragon]

To deliver a good story you can't always take the easy path. I think Frank is writing this in this style to seperate it from any previous incarnations of the team. Besides a unification storyline whereby Robin understands why Batman is as demanding as he is ---completely setup by this storyline.


From what I understand and I even think it was mentioned several times is that this is "Millerverse" Batman. This is the same Batman from BATMAN: YEAR ONE and is a continuation of that story and this is the same Batman who will become the Batman from Dark Knight. He really isn't handling the character differently. The problem for me isn't that this Batman is different than the regular DCU Batman it's much much more about how bad the story is on so many levels.

[jaguarshark]

Originally posted by Alex Dragon
This is the same Batman from BATMAN: YEAR ONE and is a continuation of that story and this is the same Batman who will become the Batman from Dark Knight. He really isn't handling the character differently.

Dude, I think I'm finally on this title's wavelength- I really enjoyed the last issue and I think I see where this is going- but I can't say that this is the same Batman from 'Year One'.

I would argue that aside from Catwoman the prostitute, 'Year One' is the most traditional Batman story Miller has written, and the one that best fits into the non-Miller canon. 'ASB&R', 'DKSA' and, to a lesser extent, 'DKR', are much more firmly placed in the lovably crazy Miller-noir canon.

[Pól Rua]

Aside from one being more expensive than the other, what's the difference? Why not do a little research and find out where the best place to start is?

Whether or not you 'do a bit of research' is not a valid excuse for 'bait-and-switch' advertising.
And besides, do we REALLY need to be alienating new comics readers? hrm?

[David Atkins]

Dude, I think I'm finally on this title's wavelength- I really enjoyed the last issue and I think I see where this is going- but I can't say that this is the same Batman from 'Year One'.

I may be mis-remembering, but I believe it was said in an interview with Frank Miller that it is a sort of 'unofficial' sequal to 'Year One.'

[TonyJaymz03]

re. ASB&R: Whether its satire or not, it sucks. Not funny. Waste of time. And a HUGE letdown. I was expecting ALL STAR, I expected stories that felt classic and where you didn't need to know the entire history to get. This is why I still get AS Superman(which is also why I started getting more Superman comics in general)

re. "Research": While smart, most people aren't going to do research. I got half my friends hooked oncomics just because they where with me when I went to the comic shop, saw a comic with a cover or title that popped out to them, and bought it. Now they've done research, done all that, etc. but most new readers, comics come on a whim.

[curefreak]

interesting review from ign:http://comics.ign.com/articles/685/685820p1.html

[jaguarshark]

Originally posted by Lord_Fireface
I may be mis-remembering, but I believe it was said in an interview with Frank Miller that it is a sort of 'unofficial' sequal to 'Year One.'

Yeah, he definitely said something like that. But, you know, Miller and DC say a lot of things.

[curefreak]

i think miller has become a one trick pony...

[Leslie Lee III]

Did someone say this comic wasn't funny?

"What are you stupid? Are you retarded? I'm the goddamn Batman!" is about the funniest thing I've ever read. And, before someone says it, it was intentionally funny. If you didn't pick up on that, your sense of humor might be broken.

[JR EWING]

It's not satire it's caca.

[The Foreigner]

Did someone say this comic wasn't funny?

"What are you stupid? Are you retarded? I'm the goddamn Batman!" is about the funniest thing I've ever read. And, before someone says it, it was intentionally funny. If you didn't pick up on that, your sense of humor might be broken.

No, it's stupid. Intentional or not, it's not funny.

[David Atkins]

No, it's stupid.

Actually, that line, specifically, is HILARIOUS and has sold an issue or two of the series to me, provided I can actually at some point FIND it.

[SpecialAgentPunk]

Did someone say this comic wasn't funny?

"What are you stupid? Are you retarded? I'm the goddamn Batman!" is about the funniest thing I've ever read. And, before someone says it, it was intentionally funny. If you didn't pick up on that, your sense of humor might be broken.

...Then I better go fix it.

I think Blue Comedy TV is funnier than this, and I can't believe I just said that. I don't think the word 'comedy' should ever be associated with those hillbillies.


Maybe into the second issue I realized Miller's intent of writing this as a joke or satire. I now realize the joke was on me: to waste my money. You got me.

Satire is directed towards a problem or state with the hope of shedding light. Robin saving Batman is not new, and I've only been a Batman fan for about a year. And there isn't a big consensus of fans that declare Batdick is the best Batman ever. Nor is there any real world figure, whether in politics or athletics, who needs this lesson (maybe Tyson? probably in entertainment: Frank Miller)

Strangelove was satire of the fears of its time. Huck was satire of human savagery and disregard. ASBRBW is useless. What is its message? Why is it important? Why should anyone read it, and nod their head in agreement if its not necessary?

[btw, Jim Lee as an artist conflicts the idea that the comic is a satire too though, since Lee's a giant in the Batman titles, ala Hush. So instead of a 'I'm making fun of my own work,' if that's the case, it comes across as another ordinary Batman title with not bad but stupid dialogue.]

Batman's character did lean towards the arrogant asshole depiction lately, but never enough to actually make it matter to the series. So Frank walks in, the old and outdated guy that he is, thinking everyone will look at him. Everyone will pinch his cheeks and make goo-goo sounds and say, 'Good drawing. Good story. Good boy.'

[geordiesteve]

I agree that it's total rubbish, it's not funny, or satire. I sent DC an email highlighting my many problems with this title and stopped buying it, the two strongest ways I know of communicating my dislike the book.

By myself what will it accomplish? Well it saves me a few pounds, but apart from that, not a lot. However, if lots of other people contacted DC too, something might happen, no guarentees. But there again, Didio said keep sending me those letters, look at what happened with Manhunter, it came back from the beyond.

[jackups]

The one Miller Bat book which is canon is Batman:Year One!

The rest are put in franks dc uiverse!
the dark knight returns isnt canon anymore but might of been before tim drake came along!The best canon robin origin is the Loeb one in dark victory!

[karaokefanboy]

Satire is usually satire for satire's sake. To insist that this book is satire and attempting to establish the serious validity of Robin's character is justifying the weakness of one or both of those elements. Now, if Dick was some sort of straight man to every other characters' tough-as-nails melodrama, I'd get it. But he's just as over the top as everyone else, which leads me to believe that Frank hasn't actually talked to a 12-year-old since he was one.

The one thing I have thought of re: the three issue car ride is, is Frank commenting on Marvel's Ultimate line, specifically how Bendis took five issues to accomplish what Lee/Ditko did in 15 pages? If Miller is trying to satirize the genre, that's something else entirely.

Although I understand that, with five issues leading up to his inevitable death, we as readers can actually like Uncle Ben and feel for Peter's loss when that time comes. A decent idea in a complete retelling of the origin. A lesson in character Miller might benefit from.

[jackups]

Nah Miller is better than Bendis!:D

[DarkCrisis]

All Star was originally marketed as "The Iconic Batman" and instead we got this crap.

[jackups]

I agree!
Im going to go now and bury myself using Hellboy Comics!:D

[Gary Joyce]

Do you think millers trying to set up batman to be like in DKR maybe thats why he hasnt heard from dick for 7 years as of DKR dick released all thoose repressed memories.

[ducklord]

A Not-Terribly Original Epiphany: Miller's All-Star Batman is the 21st century version of Adam West's Batman - A bufoonish, overblown extrapolation of the character as currently portrayed in comic books.

Of course, West's version was funnier :)
Mike

[Leslie Lee III]

Again, I must say Jim Lee himself said that Miller was attempting to give the character's a real personality. That's not necessarily satire, but it is definitely going to be funny to see the icons act like normal, everyday people with their everyday hangups and issues.

[Person Man]

Do you think millers trying to set up batman to be like in DKR maybe thats why he hasnt heard from dick for 7 years as of DKR dick released all thoose repressed memories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Knight_Universe

The article seems to be up for deletion, but I think it might explain stuff. Then again, that doesn't much excuse this series for being crap.

[the goddamn batman]

So, I got a 7 day ban for the sh!t I talked on this thread.

I just wanted to say sorry to anyone and everyone that I might have offended.

So, sorry.:)

[Pól Rua]

Did someone say this comic wasn't funny?

"What are you stupid? Are you retarded? I'm the goddamn Batman!" is about the funniest thing I've ever read. And, before someone says it, it was intentionally funny. If you didn't pick up on that, your sense of humor might be broken.

That's a pretty funny line.
But one REALLY funny line doesn't make a funny comic book.

[curefreak]

So, I got a 7 day ban for the sh!t I talked on this thread.

I just wanted to say sorry to anyone and everyone that I might have offended.

So, sorry.:)
did you die and have to be reincarnated?

[Jeff-E]

Part of the problem with this is that when something is satire people are supposed to know it's satire, otherwise you get ASB&R, which just leaves fans scratching their heads asking "What the f^%k am I reading". The other problem with this is it turns in to a joke that only the people writing it think is funny and becomes a slap in the face to those who don't get it, which is a d%ck move on the writers part. Plus no matter what it's just not a good read. I picked it up after hearing the famous line "I'm the goddam Batman", I realized then it had to be a joke, I purchased issues 1 and 3 (they were out of issue 2) after reading them I thought this has to be a joke, no one would really intend this to be a legit comic. However it did teach me one thing, the store I shop at has a no return policy, yes I attempted to get my money back.
.
Just dumb curiosity, is this title going to be cancelled, or are they going to get Frank off of it and do something with it? Also was it Frank Miller or Alan Moore who recently stated that all American comics suck?

[curefreak]

Part of the problem with this is that when something is satire people are supposed to know it's satire, otherwise you get ASB&R, which just leaves fans scratching their heads asking "What the f^%k am I reading". The other problem with this is it turns in to a joke that only the people writing it think is funny and becomes a slap in the face to those who don't get it, which is a d%ck move on the writers part. Plus no matter what it's just not a good read. I picked it up after hearing the famous line "I'm the goddam Batman", I realized then it had to be a joke, I purchased issues 1 and 3 (they were out of issue 2) after reading them I thought this has to be a joke, no one would really intend this to be a legit comic. However it did teach me one thing, the store I shop at has a no return policy, yes I attempted to get my money back.
.
Just dumb curiosity, is this title going to be cancelled, or are they going to get Frank off of it and do something with it? Also was it Frank Miller or Alan Moore who recently stated that all American comics suck?the title according to you and everything ive seen is selling surprisingly well so maybe people are buying it so they can have something to make fun of/complain about.

[Jeff-E]

the title according to you and everything ive seen is selling surprisingly well so maybe people are buying it so they can have something to make fun of/complain about.

I've only bought the 2 issues. That was enough for me, I've flipped through the others at the store but I actually refuse to buy it. Also I can't help but wonder if this wasn't intended as satire, it just turns out that Frank had two good tricks up his sleeve i.e. DK, and DD, and he's tried to recapture his former glory and when he fails he says, "Oh, it's supposed to be like that it's satire.". Kind of like a kid who trips, falls, and then says "I meant to do that".

[curefreak]

I've only bought the 2 issues. That was enough for me, I've flipped through the others at the store but I actually refuse to buy it. Also I can't help but wonder if this wasn't intended as satire, it just turns out that Frank had two good tricks up his sleeve i.e. DK, and DD, and he's tried to recapture his former glory and when he fails he says, "Oh, it's supposed to be like that it's satire.". Kind of like a kid who trips, falls, and then says "I meant to do that".
i agree with you for the most part("especially the oh i meant to do that part") except i didnt like the artwork on dark returns so i havent actually read it (pls dont shoot me):o

[the goddamn batman]

did you die and have to be reincarnated?


I don't get it, what?

[Jeff-E]

i agree with you for the most part("especially the oh i meant to do that part") except i didnt like the artwork on dark returns so i havent actually read it (pls dont shoot me):o


I had to force myself to read it. I agree with you on the art.

[curefreak]

I don't get it, what?
just a joke you said you were banned for a couple of days and for me that would be torture.

[curefreak]

I had to force myself to read it. I agree with you on the art.
im glad someone agrees with me on this, i hate crappy artwork more than storytelling.

[Jeff-E]

im glad someone agrees with me on this, i hate crappy artwork more than storytelling.

This is what kills me about Hellboy, I love the stories, but I'm not a fan of Mignola's art. Same with DK (obviously the story needed to be cleaned up a bit) but it was a really good concept, but the art was dreadfull.
.

[curefreak]

This is what kills me about Hellboy, I love the stories, but I'm not a fan of Mignola's art. Same with DK (obviously the story needed to be cleaned up a bit) but it was a really good concept, but the art was dreadfull.
.
thats why you stick with the movie version:p

[the goddamn batman]

just a joke you said you were banned for a couple of days and for me that would be torture.


oh, no not really. I mostly lurk around for about 15 min every few days. scan for news I missed.

Not much into the message board community. I post a few other places but drawing and the lady friend keep me occupied enough as it is. I'm rendering some paintings, which can take some time, right now. So, I'm killing that time.

[curefreak]

oh, no not really. I mostly lurk around for about 15 min every few days. scan for news I missed.

Not much into the message board community. I post a few other places but drawing and the lady friend keep me occupied enough as it is. I'm rendering some paintings, which can take some time, right now. So, I'm killing that time.
dont kill time its not nice:(

[the goddamn batman]

Time is not my friend, so whenever I get the chance I kill the hell out of it!:evilsmile

[curefreak]

Time is not my friend, so whenever I get the chance I kill the hell out of it!:evilsmile
poor time we knew him well:(

[dancj]

This is what kills me about Hellboy, I love the stories, but I'm not a fan of Mignola's art.

The thing that kills Hellboy for me is the stories. The art is sublime.

As for DKR, I hated the art when I first saw it (at age 15 when I thought Curt Swan was the be-all and end-all) but it grew on me and now I love the art in it.

[Jeff-E]

When I first read ASB&R I just knew it had to be a joke. However after going back and reading all my FM stuff, (which this post inspired me to do) I do not think it's satire anymore. I think it is the child scenario. FM in my opinion made a coulple of good stories than when he tried again he fell on his face. To cover this act he said "Oh, I meant to do that this is satire."

[dancj]

But practically everything he writes is a comedy. Why do people think that just this once he's only pretending it's a comedy?

[Hellcow]

But practically everything he writes is a comedy. Why do people think that just this once he's only pretending it's a comedy?


Because you can read it at comedy, and it fails as comedy. You can read it as drama, and it fails as drama.

Some people laugh at how bad it is, and other people defend Frank by saying that it was Franks intention to make it bad (for laughs). But even if he meant for it to be bad for laughs, it still fails.

[jackups]

I think Mignolas Art and storys are great!

Althought at 13 it did take em a while to get used to the messy art of Frank!

[Gilda Dent]

But practically everything he writes is a comedy. Why do people think that just this once he's only pretending it's a comedy?

I disagree. Most of what he writes is drama with comedic elements. There are comedic moments in Ronin, The Dark Knight Returns, and Sin City, but for the most part those are drama's played with just a little tounge-in-cheek.

GILDA

[ducklord]

Heck, I might even be willing to concede the possibility that MOST of Miller's work is some sort of sophistimacated satire that most of us mere mortals just don't understand, rather than the half-noirish/half-over-the-top-action-movie most of it appears to be (some works like, say, Batman: Year One, are so bloody straightforward I defy anyone to put forth the "It's a satire, don't you philistines get it?" analysis with regards to it... but I digress). Even so, that just makes ASB&R an even sadder exercise, doesn't it? I mean, if Miller really HAS been doing satire all these years, you'd like to think that he'd be getting progressively better at it, no? Or is ASB&R (not to mention most of DKSA) an attempt by Miller to consciously dumb down his act for us room-temperature IQ rubes?

Have I just joined of the League of Fanboy Armchair Psychoanalysts (LoFAP)? Cripes.


Mike.

[Jeff-E]

I'm not trying to offend anyone here, and if I have in any of my posts I do apologize. Now, is anyone enjoying this title? This thread (atleast as much as I have read) seems to be bashing ASB&RTBW, are there people out there who enjoy the comic? If so what do you like about it... I'm really just curious here. I liked the No Man's Land arc and collected the entire arc, but after that (TO ME) Bat's went down hill. I tried to collect and read him and couldn't, that's why this title disappointed me so (part of the reason) I was hoping for something new, not "satire" though I no longer believe it was intended as such.

[Jaye]

I'm not trying to offend anyone here, and if I have in any of my posts I do apologize. Now, is anyone enjoying this title? This thread (atleast as much as I have read) seems to be bashing ASB&RTBW, are there people out there who enjoy the comic? If so what do you like about it... I'm really just curious here. I liked the No Man's Land arc and collected the entire arc, but after that (TO ME) Bat's went down hill. I tried to collect and read him and couldn't, that's why this title disappointed me so (part of the reason) I was hoping for something new, not "satire" though I no longer believe it was intended as such.


Check out this recent thread and poll (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=125434) for opinions.

[Alex Dragon]

I'm not trying to offend anyone here, and if I have in any of my posts I do apologize. Now, is anyone enjoying this title? This thread (atleast as much as I have read) seems to be bashing ASB&RTBW, are there people out there who enjoy the comic? If so what do you like about it... I'm really just curious here. I liked the No Man's Land arc and collected the entire arc, but after that (TO ME) Bat's went down hill. I tried to collect and read him and couldn't, that's why this title disappointed me so (part of the reason) I was hoping for something new, not "satire" though I no longer believe it was intended as such.

I actually enjoy it for Jim lee's art and I laugh out loud at how bad it is (not because it's supposedly satire). It's not something I can't wait to see. When it comes out I pick it up and if they never did another issue I wouldn't care. 90% of the reason I buy the book is for Lee's art. If Miller was doing the art I wouldn't even pick it up to thumb through it.

[curefreak]

I actually enjoy it for Jim lee's art and I laugh out loud at how bad it is (not because it's supposedly satire). It's not something I can't wait to see. When it comes out I pick it up and if they never did another issue I wouldn't care. 90% of the reason I buy the book is for Lee's art. If Miller was doing the art I wouldn't even pick it up to thumb through it.
im personally curious how far hes gonna go with this whole batdick idea,
and im also curious how if ever hes gonna tie this whole thing up.

[dancj]

Because you can read it at comedy, and it fails as comedy. You can read it as drama, and it fails as drama.

Some people laugh at how bad it is, and other people defend Frank by saying that it was Franks intention to make it bad (for laughs). But even if he meant for it to be bad for laughs, it still fails.

I'm not arguing whether it's good or not - I haven't read it yet, but just because you feel it fails as a comedy doesn't mean that it wasn't originally intended to be one.

(some works like, say, Batman: Year One, are so bloody straightforward I defy anyone to put forth the "It's a satire, don't you philistines get it?" analysis with regards to it... but I digress).

Batman Year One is one of Miller's few works that I wouldn't call comedy. That and most of his Daredevil stuff. Other than those two I think That Yellow Bastard is about the only other ting that applies (though with TYB, merely setting it in Sin City gives it a certain amount of comedy value).

Interestingly enough the only three straight FM works I can think of are three of his best.

Even so, that just makes ASB&R an even sadder exercise, doesn't it? I mean, if Miller really HAS been doing satire all these years, you'd like to think that he'd be getting progressively better at it, no?

Better or worse is very subjective. I think more than anything else, he's past the point where he cares how many people he pleases and he does work that amuses him. I guess how much you enjoy it or not depends on how much your sense of humour is in line with his. I enjoyed DKSA so I'm holding out hope for ASB+R

[ducklord]

<snip>
I guess how much you enjoy it or not depends on how much your sense of humour is in line with his. I enjoyed DKSA so I'm holding out hope for ASB+R

You're a stronger man than moi :)

Personally, I gave a lot of leeway to what Miller was trying to do in DKSA, right up until the final issue. At that point I think he, in perhaps the most literal sense of the phrase, "lost the plot."

ASB+R? I'm in it now purely for the mockery. Petty and financially stoopid, I know, but I'm whimiscal that way.

Mike.

[Chudy]

I think that problem with All-Star is that Miller was lying all the time. He said: "You'll see connections with YO and DKR". I ask: Where is it.

If Miller would say: "I will do parody", I would accept it.

Now I feel very dissapointed.

[dancj]

I think that problem with All-Star is that Miller was lying all the time. He said: "You'll see connections with YO and DKR". I ask: Where is it.

If Miller would say: "I will do parody", I would accept it.

Now I feel very dissapointed.

The obvious one that springs to mind is that Miller introduces Sarah Essen in Year One and in TDKR, Gordon's wife is called Sarah

[Doesitmatter]

Maybe because satire should be funny.

[Guts/Batman]

It may be satire but it still isn't of high quality, I think. It's almost self mocking. It goes absolutely nowhere.

Plus, I'm not huge on Jim Lee. So that's why I have stopped.

[the goddamn batman]

I'll give you that it hasn't gone anywhere... yet. But, to say that it goes no where sounds like you've read the whole thing. Which you have not.

Either way, I've mainly lost intrest due to the delays. I've got Dini on Tech, what else do I really need?

I have to agree that Franks serious works are the best. Y1, 300 and TYB are my favorites (DKR % Family Values are up there too. Also more serious in tone.)

[Sparda]

Probably the reason for the delays is Miller learned the errors of his crap work and is trying to write new scripts and better storyline for this to make up to the fans. Honestly is there any way Miller could get redemption and get back to his glory days?

Why is Jim lee even bothering with this?

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I've heard rumours to the effect that Frank Miller gets upwards of 2000 dollars a page to write ASB&R. Enough people buy it because it's Frank Miller and Jim Lee to justify the expense.

I'm actually enjoying the farcical nature of the book and incorporated the "I'm the Goddamned Batman" into everyday speech...to annoy the hell out of people.

[the goddamn batman]

Probably the reason for the delays is Miller learned the errors of his crap work and is trying to write new scripts and better storyline for this to make up to the fans.

Nope. Frank does not care what you think. Sorry. He's said time and time again that he doesn't do it to make us happy.

Why is Jim lee even bothering with this?

He really isn't. Jim is the reason the book is late. He's a busy guy, and looks like most other things have taken priority.

[glennsim]

I disagree. "A Modest Proposal" works as well as it does because it is coldly, perfectly logical. It's pure pragmatism taken to the extreme to demonstrate the flaws in the system as it existed at the time, and it works as well as it does as satire precisely because it works well on the surface level. Gulliver's Travels likewise works as satire precisely because it works at the surface level.



I disagree with this also. Dr. Strangelove has essentially the same plot as Fail Safe, a pretty decent thriller from around the same time.

The best satire works both on the surface level and on the subtext level. Starship Troopers is a movie that I think works as satire because it's first a fairly decent example of the type of movie that it's satirizing. Robocop works as a straightforward sci-fi action movie, and the anti-corporate, anti-bureaucracy subtext is all the more effective because of this.

For satire to be truly effective, it has to at least be able to pass on the surface level as that which it is purporting to satirize. ASB&R fails in this regard.

Gilda

Not to disagree, but to seek clarity:

"Robin Hood: Men In Tights" is a pretty lousy Robin Hood movie. Does that make it a bad satire? Or is it a parody, which is different.

And if so, couldn't ASB&R be more a parody, where it does't have to pass for the real thing?

[Guts/Batman]

I'll give you that it hasn't gone anywhere... yet. But, to say that it goes no where sounds like you've read the whole thing. Which you have not.

I only meant that I stopped buying? ;)

I read it at the store. It takes about 30 second to read.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Not to disagree, but to seek clarity:

"Robin Hood: Men In Tights" is a pretty lousy Robin Hood movie. Does that make it a bad satire? Or is it a parody, which is different.

And if so, couldn't ASB&R be more a parody, where it does't have to pass for the real thing?

There's no such thing as bad satire.

Think about that.

Keep thinking.