...So that's why this story is often regarded as a parody. This seems too ridiculous to be intentional, even for someone as off his rocker as Frank Miller
"OK, Jim, I'm shameless. Let's go with an ASS SHOT. Panties detailed. Balloons from above. She's walking, restless as always. We can't take our eyes off her. Especially since she's got one fine ass."
That never fails to astound me every time I hear it. Never fails to shock people every time I point it out or read that bit of script to them when discussing this comic.
The bit where he says "it'll drive them crazy, Jim", reminds me of a note Gaiman wrote on a short story he was writing, where he'd interviewed a model who did shoots for pornographic magazines. Answering on whether she felt exploited, she said that no, she was getting paid; it was the people who bought the magazines who were getting exploited.
Not a point with which I entirely agree, but pertinent when you look at this stuff. It's not just demeaning; it's demeaning in order to make a buck.
Icon, sorry to bother you, but on entirely unrelated notes how do you do that thing where text other than 'read more' accompanies a cut? I've been fiddling with that for a while and can't seem to get it right.
YUP. Frank Miller, consummate professional. I couldn't read the narration without hearing Linkara's voice; I only saw that review once, and it was still enough to be burned into my memory.
And seriously, who walks around in underwear AND high heels at the same time? Outside of fucking porn?
Yes, but in a rather sad way, it does always deliver: that is, ASBAR never loses its cringe-worthy potential. At least in my opinion, it's gained its own kind of bizarre inertia, serving as a milestone in Miller's creative and personal breakdown. Frank's crumbling, and we're getting hit by the debris.
Speaking of which, I do not remember if we've ever discussed what this rough spot means for Lee, but I must admit that he never struck me as especially sensitive, to say the least: the sort of fellow that only cares for the bottom line, IMHO. Even more so when women or minorities are involved.
Edit: kudos to captainbellman for the Gaiman anedocte and its implications in context. Well put - the boys are out to make a buck indeed.
As icon_uk pointed out, the story gets more out of whack down the road, roaring straight through and way past self-parody territory. I know some look at it in a "so bad, it's so good" fashion, but for me, it never gets there.
I might be in a minority on this, but I think this story would've been better served if *anyone except Lee* was on art. Miller's style in general - even back when he was the "good" Miller - calls for art that's rough, grimy, and at least a little off-kilter (like Bill Can't-Spell-His-Name's stuff in the Elektra mini).
Lee's style is literally none of those things; with every passing year, his art becomes THE face of DC Comics.
Could it have salvaged this script? Probably not. But I think it would've at least helped people accept/write this off as just another nutty little detour in Millar's bibliography - his "Batman Returns", so to speak, not hold it up an abject and utter failure of a Batman story.
Also, I might add that Jim Lee's grasp of human anatomy is horribly tenuous here. Maybe you don't notice because of the size of the images, but Vicky's thighs are apparently three times the length of her head. The same disproportionality goes for the whole Grayson family...including Dick!
Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.
Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-08 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 06:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-08 10:06 pm (UTC)- Frank Miller, everybody.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-08 10:45 pm (UTC)That never fails to astound me every time I hear it. Never fails to shock people every time I point it out or read that bit of script to them when discussing this comic.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 09:47 am (UTC)Not a point with which I entirely agree, but pertinent when you look at this stuff. It's not just demeaning; it's demeaning in order to make a buck.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 05:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 09:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 02:25 pm (UTC)So instead of [cut] use [cut text="The words you want to appear instead of the Read More bit"]
using < and > instead of [ and ] of course
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 02:32 pm (UTC)Going to do my first post here in a bit, wanted that extra jazz.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 03:02 pm (UTC)And seriously, who walks around in underwear AND high heels at the same time? Outside of fucking porn?
no subject
Date: 2016-01-08 10:42 pm (UTC)o.0
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 01:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 01:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 11:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 02:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 10:21 am (UTC)Speaking of which, I do not remember if we've ever discussed what this rough spot means for Lee, but I must admit that he never struck me as especially sensitive, to say the least: the sort of fellow that only cares for the bottom line, IMHO. Even more so when women or minorities are involved.
Edit: kudos to
As
I know some look at it in a "so bad, it's so good" fashion, but for me, it never gets there.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 06:54 pm (UTC)Lee's style is literally none of those things; with every passing year, his art becomes THE face of DC Comics.
Could it have salvaged this script? Probably not. But I think it would've at least helped people accept/write this off as just another nutty little detour in Millar's bibliography - his "Batman Returns", so to speak, not hold it up an abject and utter failure of a Batman story.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 09:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 09:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 04:39 pm (UTC)And that's their good points!
no subject
Date: 2016-01-09 03:06 pm (UTC)