Tuesday
Jan302007
Flashback: Ep 24 Frank Miller
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 ;)
Flaco and his long time friends, Jody and Robert, discuss Frank Miller.
Runtime: hour minutes seconds
The Dollar Bin audio player requires javascript to work. Please enable javascript or use the download link below to listen to our show.
Reader Comments (15)
I really liked the show a lot. Flaco's buddies are fun to listen too and show that they have a great understanding of comics as a medium and an art form. I'd love to hear more shows with them in it.
Just keep em off the comments section. Am I right? Huh? Huh..? OK. See ya.
Thanks for having me. I had a great time and hope I can contribute again in the future.
I would like to talk to Flaco or anyone really about the idea of using superheroes as political voices or I guess more specifically the idea of using superheroes in ways they were or weren't originally intended. For example. Captain America was created almost specifically as a political figure and Bucky as a response to Nazi youth and as mentioned in the podcast punched out Hitler. That doesn't exist anymore in a super paranoid and safe corporate world with rare exception. I think Batman: Holy Terror is one of those exceptions.
It seems guys that are very liberally minded (like myself) are irritated by Frank's use of the character for his own seemingly right wing views but if he had been using Batman in a story where he fights American corruption and corporate war mongering they wouldn't bat an eye and even praise him for it but it is still a selfish political use of the character.
Also I am speaking outside of the realms of sales here. This isn't about "who are you selling this to" it's about people feeling like telling stories that are different from their own views of the character somehow destroy the character. Flaco's reaction to Holy Terror isn't really based on sales, it's based on the idea that "it's just wrong". Like if I were to tell a story where Batman and Superman were lovers, Paul Levitz would freak out that I had destroyed the characters and what they mean just like what eventually happend with the Authority and what just happened with the Boys and neither of those books were cancelled because of sales. It would seem that someone is in fact interested in seeing Kermit as a heroine addict. I guess on some level I feel like not using these charcters in any and every which way they can used to tell good stories is a disservice and that is in fact what is destroying the characters. Why isn't there room for everyone's interpretation and why do we feel so defensive over the use of them? Sorry if that doesn't make any sense. Just trying to start conversation. I think it is completely fascinating.
I see your point (I think). It seems like writers/creators write stories for characters like Superman and Batman based on how they've been written in the past, not wanting to veer from the status quo? It's almost as if the big two companies have this safe zone that their characters can react within.
Flaco had mentioned that he was reading an issue of Superman that focused on whether Superman was getting radiation cancer. Obviously, Superman wasn't going to die but the use of such a "real" world problem made Flaco really worried for him.
Didn't Marvel have some of there characters helping to clean-up and search for survivors in the aftermath of 9-11? I like to read comics like that.
Am I making sense hear or am I totally off the mark with what you were asking about?
Sort of. To address your comments first.
The big two companies do have a safe zone. But it isn't imposed by writers and artists. Some writers and artists are very clever in finding ways to discuss politics subversively. But there are definitely places you can't go in a Superman comic or a Captain America comic.
Regarding the Superman issue that Flaco read. Radiation poisoning is a real world problem but not a political one anymore really. It was an issue in that a lot of cases were by-products of the atomic bomb blast in Japan but "radiation poisoning is bad" is a pretty safe thing to say these days.
The 9/11 stuff again is reflective of widely held political beliefs and is again politically safe. They were almost obligated to do those books even though I know the enthusiasm to do them was genuine.
Basically I'm asking this:
Is it okay for super hero stories to comment on controversial political issues? Or should the two remain separate?
Why haven't we seen Captain America punch out Osama Bin Laden? I'm not saying I want to see that personally I'm just asking.
Why can't someone tell an amazing What If... story about Captain America and Bucky as lovers back in the trenches of World War II?
Why does the idea of Batman fighting Al Queda make some people angry?
Some people would say that seeing a character do something they don't agree with politically would tarnish the character. But does it really? Is there enough room for left wing Cap and right wing Cap?
That's a lot of questions. I don't know. Pick one.
Here's another example.
A Superman writer uses Superman to aid in Hurricane Katrina relief. This is a safe issue to comment on. We can all agree that hurricanes are bad.
A Superman writer uses Superman to tell a story about our current controversial immigration situation using real world examples and scenarios. Never happen. Why?
I have some stuff to say about it myself but I just want to hear what other people think. Thanks.
I get what you are saying now, and the answer is pretty simple. Politics.
It would be asking the companies of these characters to pick a side on these issues. For one, Cap and Bucky as lovers would be extremely sensitive and quite possibly cause a media frenzy. Certain activitists, organizations an communities would bring Marvel underfire for support of the gay community and more than likely result in a lot of bad press... maybe. Maybe it would be just enough press for it to catapult Marvel and bring in new readers, creators and ideas for better stories.
Batman fighting Al Queda would seem to trivialize current events. If a story like this is done I think it would be important for Batman and the writer NOT to solve the problem. Brian Azzarello addressed (in a small manner) in his Story "For Tomorrow" (art by Jim Lee and Scott Williams) where Superman talks about how he can "swoop in" to enemy countries, take their guns but they would just pick up rocks and continue to fight. Showing that his involvement doesn't necessarily mean the end.
The scenarios you are referring to are too extreme. It would mean that the companies would have to allow themselves to be seen as standing on a certain side of the fence. Companies such as Marvel and DC need to remain neutral. Why? I think its because real people work at these companies and they have to keep their best interests at heart. Stories of such political power are best addressed (I think) by independent creators and companies with characters that could easily be seen as representing our main stream counterparts.
Your turn.
Yeah, I agree "Batman fighting Al Queda would seem to trivialize current events." We, unfortunately, have real people over there fighting real people. And it would be great if we had a Batman who could fly over there and defeat our "enemy" for us. Whoo! But we don't. I guess I'm going to have to see Frank's approach before I really give a heart felt comment on this, but on the surface I think its a bad idea. Not only does it trivialize the efforts of real people out there, but I think it puts Batman in a situation that wouldn't exist in the DCU. Do you think any of this Iraq War, "War on Terror," stuff we even have a chance in the DCU? When was the last time you saw a successful use of an everyman army in a comic. They're always there for backup, or they are shooting at Meta Humans that laugh in their faces. Batman exists in a world way beyond criminals like Osama Bin Laden. He has the Joker to deal with. Now if the Joker knocked down the WTC and batman was going after him would people feel differently about it? I think so. I'm pretty sure I would. And that is what characters like the Joker are for. They are there to represent bad men in the real world while keeping real faces out of the picture and keeping this a "healthy" fantasy.
Oh, and I was going somewhere completely different with this until it got me thinking about the DCU vs. Real World thing. Batman does what Batman does. He is Batman. Thats what he does. I think if you want to go after bin Laden then you write a new character for the job. One who characteristically would do such a think. One not part of an established DCU.
Kris:
If Marvel published a story where Capt A and Bucky were lovers, you know what would happen? Nothing. Nothing would happen. The world would have one more interesting and different take on the character and that's all. But it is our fear of what might happen that prevents it from happening and that will always hinder these characters from being all they can.
Why does it matter if Captain America punches out Osama Bin laden in one writer's version? Can't some other writer do a story where he punches out W? Instead of having no politics, why not represent any and all politics. I'm not talking about furthering a political agenda, I'm talking about telling the best stories possible and consequences be damned.
Like if someone were to say, "Captain America wouldn't do that." They're really saying that their version of Captain America in there minds wouldn't do that and that's fine, but why should that stop someone else from telling a story that disagrees with their interpretation. Why not just say, "That's not something that my version of Captain America would do." and move on instead of defaming the attempt to do something different as "wrong".
Also. Kris could you explain this to me?
"Companies such as Marvel and DC need to remain neutral. Why? I think its because real people work at these companies and they have to keep their best interests at heart."
Why is it okay for smaller companies to pursue this stuff but not Marvel and DC?
By the way, that scene in "For Tomorrow" is the coolest Superman moment I have ever seen.
Kris and Adam:
How does Holy Terror trivialize current events? It seems that Frank is trying to emphasize them and show the power and importance of them. Literally help to inpsire troops over seas to win the good fight? How is that trivializing?
Here's a quote from Frank on the matter.
"Superman punched out Hitler. So did [Marvel Comics'] Captain America," (Frank) said. "That's one of the things they're there for. … These are our folk heroes. It just seems silly to chase around the Riddler when you've got al Qaeda out there."
Also you mention that there should be another character used for this sort of thing instead of Batman. Why does it matter if it's Batman or some other made up character? How does using the Batman character tarnish the character in any way?
By the way if I hadn't noted this I am speaking specifically about stories that are out of continuity.
You guys are awesome.
On another note, does anyone have any thoughts on some of Frank's books that we didn't talk about? I know he did Martha Washington with Dave GIbbons, Elektra: Assassin with Bill Sienkiewicz, Bad Boy with Simon Bisley for Oni Press.
If you're a fan of Frank's this site has supposedly a complete list of everything he's ever done. Every cover, pinup, everything so check it out if you get a chance. It's pretty cool. You really get a sense for how much Frank really has done.
http://moebiusgraphics.com/
So, would the Cap and Bucky lover story be done just because it would get a rise out of people. What would it bring to the character. Honestly, I don't think its in character of Cap and Bucky to be lovers. Seems like it would just be a story that is so shocking that the actual quality of the writing would be over-shadowed.
It seems like you are assuming that anything should be fair game for someone to write about a character. I think that's absurd. It's not about what "your version" of Captian America would do, it's about what Marvel's Captain America would do. I think it's Marvel's call on what happens to Cap. Who knows, maybe someone did offer to write a story of Cap and Bucky as lovers but it got turned down because the collected minds at Marvel didn't want to publish a story like that because to them Cap and Bucky wouldn't have that kind of relationship.
To answer your question, "Why is it okay for smaller companies to pursue this stuff but not Marvel and DC?"
Because most smaller companies don't have established characters that are as big and connected to American (even World) culture like the characters from the Big Two. Smaller companies have more liberties with their properties because of less involvement from investors, committees, multiple artists and writers. In general, smaller companies' employ creators that more than likely own the copyright to the characters they are using to tell a story. Larger companies and properties result in more people having a voice and say in the development of said properties.
I never read Holy Terror but I can say this... I could care less about Batman or Captain America punching Bin Laden or chasing Al Queda. If I want to read about that I'll pick up a newspaper. When I read comics I want to escape from everyday reality. Having enemies like that in comics would make me not want to read them. That said though, DMZ is one of my favorite comics I'm reading. Why? I empathize with the main character, Matt Roth, not because it represents a reality we live in. This is the only comic I read that could possibly happen in real life.
This is fun. We could almost read this outloud when we are done and make it a podcast. AWESOME.
"So, would the Cap and Bucky lover story be done just because it would get a rise out of people."
Absolutely not. That would be shock rock and not a good story and that's not what I'm talking about. I am assuming that the story being told would be a good story that's worth telling and not based on someone's agenda.
"It seems like you are assuming that anything should be fair game for someone to write about a character. I think that’s absurd."
Why? What do you care if someone writes an out of continuity "What if..." story that deviates from pre-existing assumptions about the character? This is probably closest to what I'm trying to ask.
"It’s not about what “your version” of Captian America would do,"
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying to you, Kris.
"it’s about what Marvel’s Captain America would do."
How does an OUT-OF-CONTINUITY story threaten the "real" Captain America in any way?
"I think it’s Marvel’s call on what happens to Cap."
They do own the characters, yes.
"Who knows, maybe someone did offer to write a story of Cap and Bucky as lovers but it got turned down because the collected minds at Marvel didn’t want to publish a story like that because to them Cap and Bucky wouldn’t have that kind of relationship."
That's based on a singular continuity version of Cap. Clearly there's room for other interpretations not just the continuity Cap. But yes, Marvel would not publish it even if the story was awesome. This is because they would worry that it would tarnish the character in the minds of the consumer. Why are they worried about that? Would it happen? Why?
You are right that it is easier for small companies to address this sort of thing but my question is why is it "okay" for small and not for big companies. The vibe that I'm getting is that using major superheroes to comment on politics in out-of-continuity stories is morally reprehensible and irresponsible, like there's a "wrongness" to it. I am just trying to examine what that is.
"Having enemies like that in comics would make me not want to read them."
Cool. So you're saying that when Batman: Holy Terror comes out you're going to stop reading comics.
A. That's not true. B. Why does it make you so upset that you would take it out on, not only the medium, but the character and company?
DMZ is the amazing. I also love the crap out of that book. But if you like it so much why not support more books like it that address real world political issues?
Basically. All I'm saying is that we as readers can be real... uh... wimps sometimes when it comes to "people f'n with Batman!", but it's that same close-mindedness that robs us of better stories. It's like Mom took away the toys because we just fight with them, which I think is a shame.
Hell yes. Good times.
I really liked this show guys. Kudos to all involved, even Flaco.
And I like Jody's idea of a discussion/possible show about superheroes in "real world" situations, especially when it goes against type or pc.
[...] shoutout to our buddy, Jody, a long time best friend to Flaco, and a loyal listener, commenter and guest host of the show. It’s his birthday today. So, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, [...]