Jump to content

Talk:Frank Miller/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Awards

I think it would be appropriate to list awards he or his work might have recieved, especially if said awards are notable within the comic field. I found out he won a Reuben award in 1991 from the National Cartoonist Society wikipage. Also, on the back of one of my sin city comics it says the original "The Hard Goodbye" won the National Cartoonist award for Best New Comic of 1992, so there might be some discreprency there amongst the two. Perhaps some research is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looongview (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Frank Miller

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

OK, the solution chosen was Frank Miller (1898-1949). Cumbersome title, butI guess it'd work...
Either that, or call them Frank_Miller_(comic_books) and Frank_Miller_(comic_strips) WaxTadpole (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does he live now?

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

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

He and his wife Lynn Varley live in the West 50's, in what used to be known as Hell's Kitchen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.228.225 (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Robocop comics

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

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

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

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

The DGA controversy

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

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

When did Frank marry Lynn?

Anyone know?


Not sure. They are apparently divorced now. --Molon Labe 00:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are NOT divorced.

They ARE divorced now. They are. Google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.92.133 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to find any good references for date of marriage – I found a few notes that they met in 1983, and they worked together since Ronin (1984), with some vague suggestions that they married in the 1980s. They divorced in 2005; this is widely stated, but it took some digging to find a good reference; put in this edit (and a few earlier ones). Simply, Miller and Varley appear to have been private about their marriage, hence dearth of sources. His current partner is (at least as of 2011) is Kimberly Halliburton Cox, and they’ve frequently appeared in public (on the red carpet, e.g., The Spirit premiere), and she mentions him on her twitter feed, so the relationship is by no means a secret. Hope this helps, and please continue to add (referenced) details!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dark Knight Strikes Again

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

Miller has its share of crappy comics alright

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

The article shouldn't post an opinion one way or another, whether his work is "good" or "bad". If there are citable sources criticizing some of his work, that could be considered fair play. - DynSkeet * Talk 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, could be fair play? Of course it's fair play. I'm getting really tired of a double standard where positive comments can be vague and with no citation but negative comments might be erased even with exhaustive citation.
Fandom is really a sign of cultural decadence, in wich the phenomennon you describe happends freely in Wikipedia. Articles related to merchandiseable products are truly the hardest to keep clean, or to try to keep at bay. For example, for every little crappy character that World of Warcraft has, there is a full article about it, wich is impossible to try to erase or merge because whenever there is a voting process every fan votes "KEEP", same thing for Star Wars. And while articles like those flourish from out of nowhere, historical articles rust for lack of schollars, with the exception of politics, where youll always find students and wackos to keep an article mighty updated.

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

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

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

some bias

I think there needs to be some citation to the following


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

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

No its true Miller dosent hate Superman but he hate how he's all powerful so he likes to show Supermans weak side in his comics.

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

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

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

New Pic

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

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

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

Here is the Rised Eyebrow one you wanted: http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Profiles/20061007/244.miller.frank.100606.jpg

Heres one at a convention or somthing: http://z.about.com/d/horror/1/0/1/q/FrankMiller_500.jpg


Lack of criticisms

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

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


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

Its like Miller himself is an unaknowleged casualty of 9/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.0.98 (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Outspoken Politics Missing

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

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

"Hated of Islam?" Cute -NoOne

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

I've been reading Miller since the late 80's and his politics have turned 180 degrees to the right. I suggest reading the article on the bottom of the page, conserning what he said about "who" and "what" America is fighting. I have to say my opinon of him has taken a negative turn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.228.225 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


i don't see any need to reify the politics of blacklisting in this wikipedia article. 18:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.223.108 (talk)

Turned 180 degrees? I don't know, he always struck me as somewhat libertarian, especially in his Batman books in the 80s. Also, just because you are supportive of the Iraq War doesn't mean that you lean completely right. You can vote Republican and yet be anti-war or vote Democrat and be anti-abortion. Not everyone is completely right or left and zombified by every issue their political party takes a stance one. Many are middle ground, and thats probably the way it should be. This interview doesn't prove his political stance eithier way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he definitely didn't turn 180 degrees. As it is, the politics section of this entry is painfully limited and skewed. In Dark Knight Returns Miller lampooned Reagan. But in Elektra Assassin the main villain was a phony liberal politician (and his Republican rival was shown to be pathetic as well). I'm not sure calling him a "libertarian" is correct either, though, since most libertarians aren't as hawkish as Miller seemed in the late '00s. Miller's politics have always been a mixed bag; in recent years he's seemed a lot more strident and has provided a lot of hawkish soundbytes, so it's easy for some people to think of him as a neocon...provided those people don't know much about Miller, history, or Miller's past history. The politics section of this entry needs a lot of work. A more nuanced overview is needed, not an entry that only regurgitates one semi-recent "shocking" quotation from him. 66.82.9.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

What are his influences ?

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

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

If you don't just call me.

Tgunn2 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

we forgot gil kane here:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=192

the sentence from the article: (about DKSA)

What I want to bring back to superheroes with this project is a sense of play. Things have gotten so dreary. The heroes have gotten so ugly that even their muscles have muscles. The elegance of Gil Kane is gone. You don't see the sheer joy of Green Lantern's power ring. The magic of somebody like the Flash-somebody who's able to move so fast that you can't see him move-is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.226.149 (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Frank Miller's politics?!

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

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

<redacted>

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

NOTE TO THE PREVIOUS POSTERS: <redacted>

-Troy.

Actually, Moore is an anarchist. <redacted> And Moore never said anything as stupid as "My SIN CITY heroes are knights in dirty, blood-caked armor. They bring justice to a world that gives them no medals, no praise, no reward. That world, that CITY, often kills them for their brave service" [2] or
"Let's finally talk about the enemy. Somebody--for some reason, nobody seems to be talking about who we're up against, uh, and the sixth-century barbarism they actually represent. These people saw peoples' heads off. They enslave women, they genetically mutilate their daughters. Um, they, they, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. Um, I'm speaking into a microphone that never could've been a product of their culture. And I'm living in a city where 3,000 of my neighbors were killed by, uh, thieves of airplanes they never could've built." [3] or my favorite
"Nobody questions why we, uh, after Pearl Harbor, attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism. We’re doing the same thing now."
"INTERVIEWER: Well, they did declare war on us, by the way."
"Yeah, but what I mean is--so did Iraq." [4]
GeorgeBP 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Wow! So miller really thinks the sunni regime of saddam hussain was secretly allied with the sharia law extremist al-quaeda? While most of the islamic world (and, apparently most westerners outside the US) knew them to be deadly enemies of one another? I saw similar stuff from alice cooper of all people, when questioned about dubiousness the sunni/al-quaeda relationship, and W's rationale for invasion, he cut the (australian) interviewer off, said something like "yeah, they are all the same over there, everyone knows that". I guess miller really is becoming some kinda nazi in his old age, what a crying shame, really, i loved him when i was a kid.. 

(from above) "Yeah, but what I mean is--so did Iraq."

- that's just total delusion, isn't it? Does he mean the WTC attacks were Iraq's declaration of war on the US? Clash of cultures is right, miller is apparently at odds with all humans who own a brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.77.97 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


--Superheroes, Miller asserted, are "folk heroes. How can a folk hero have nothing to do with folk?" These days, he continued, we're "now in a clash of civilizations," and "superheroes should be front and center."-- Publisher's Weekly, Feb. 28 2006

The term "clash of civilizations" was a term coined by neoconservative historian Bernard Lewis. A man who is veneered by the likes of our Iraq policy makers in Washington: Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Abrams, etc... Miller is a Neocon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.228.225 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


well, then i guess pin a yellow star on him and enter his name on "the list" then.
"clash of civilizations" is from samuel huntington, by the way, who was not only not a neocon, but who authored the phrase in his counter-thesis to the neocon, francis fukuyama's book, "end of history".
it doesn't take brains or facts to wage a campaign of ritualistic defamation, though. you just need to freeze your target's name as a malediction. these are the politics of the pogrom and the blacklist. if we all felt we could get away with formulations as tendentious as the one you offered above, mccarthy could never had been condemned, because any one who ever uttered the word, "worker" could easily have been shown to be, not merely a progressive, but stalin himself. congrats on being monomaniacal and zealous enough to apply this nonsense to ... a comic book artist. i mean, geez. 18:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.223.108 (talk)

Good point there: Of course a comic book artist can have his own personal views on a subject without having to be put into a line of labelled political activists. So just don't try to label him. But on the other hand Frank Miller's suggestions in movies like Sin City and others, his search for the good ones defeating the bad ones, his attempts to identify the bad ones in the real world (Al Quaida, Irag, all Muslims, or whatever might fit into that picture) stand pretty well in line with a conservative praise for the Lonely Avenger like Rambo (II), Frank Bauer, John Hartigan or Marv, who gives a shit about any complicated bureaucratic system and just kills the now unmasked bad one. After he tortured him. Whether he is a political thinker or rather has his private views that at some point turn political, Frank Miller produces mass media, and thereby stands in a frontline of the post 9/11-discourse in the United States. And with his works and his comments he takes a strong position there. That should be mentioned here.--JakobvS (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh: Now I've just read a German interview with him. There he describes war as the natural state of men. And there can be just wars. But the just and good ones there are the good ones because they aim the real evil ones. And Miller further says that the Iraq war did NOT aim at the real evil ones, as according to Miller also Miller once believed it to do, and thereby was a failure in the big battle against the real bad ones. I don't know how important that is for the article. If you want, put it in context and cite it from here: [[5]].--JakobvS (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Noncompliant, POV, OR and other tags

Wow, where to begin.

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

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

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

POV is unlikely to disappear...

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

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

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

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


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

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

Neutrality dispute tags...

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


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

I think the only part that I think is not neutral is "Things would be much different in 1986 as Miller reached a peak of creativity that would redefine one of the industry's oldest characters." So I will comment it.

--QuicksilverPhoenix 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

is he jewish ?

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

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

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

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

Because the movie 300 is anti-Iranian war propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.184.38.93 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"2000 onwards" section

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

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

I'm removing the "Controversy" section

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

I'm starting a Criticism section with proper citations. A gx7 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nihilism

The first paragraph refers to Frank Miller as a nihilist, stating his writing to depict life as pointless. Where I could certainly see how this may be true, is their any confirmation of this stated anywhere? 24.24.94.123 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Daredevil and Early 80's section...

It is mentioned in the Daredevil and early 1980's section that Frank Miller's darker style was informed by Japanese Manga. This seems unlikely, as Miller was given a job on Daredevil with some level of creative control in 1979, and Anime and Manga weren't brought to America in earnest until the mid-80's, and were themselves largely inspired by European and American comics and films. Irregardless, this statement needs references.CaptnSpandex 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the long tradition of Japanese pictorial story telling (kamishibai, kibyoushi, ukiyo-e, and akahon) in Japan, it seems likely that a significant something about was is Manga was not inspired by European and American comics and films. They may have been "largely" inspired by Western comics and films and "largerly" by something else. At the same time, unless Frank Miller had been actively importing commercially untranslated Japanese manga, he would not have been exposed to them in 1979. Is there any evidence to suggest that he did so indulge?--Timtak 15:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Scott McCloud mentioned Japanese imports were available in New York in the seventies and Miller stated that when he first came across Love Wolf and Cub, it was in the original Japanese and he didn't understand at first you read them back to front. So, there is no need to wait for their translation in the mid-80s for the influence to start. --Leocomix (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

300

Shouldn't there be something in the article about 300? It was one of his major works in the 90s and the film adaptation was an enormous success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.101.82 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree!--Timtak 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)--


It's surprising that there hasn't been a section on 300 yet. I agree that there should be a feature in the article concerning the box office hit. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BatmanOutline.jpg

Image:BatmanOutline.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

intro

Introduction paragraph was vandalised, i have removed vandalism and edited it slightly, but needs to be majorly rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.48.254 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's the Anti-Arab Comments

A lot of people hate Miller because of those Anti Arab comments he made from NPR. Those comments have to be in there. The actual interview is referenced in the political stance section, but nevertheless this article comes out too PRO-Miller without showing those comments. Its like having an Imus article without mentioning Nappy Headed Ho's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.31 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now let's hope the usual Miller fanboys don't run in and delete it to keep the article censored as usual. -- LGagnon 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to anonymous that the line "Although this may have been a reference to Al-Qaeda's declaration of jihad on the United States" is just your speculation. As far as I know, Wikipedia is not here to do speculation or apologetics for fans. I'm deleting this until a good reason to keep it is given. -- LGagnon 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. There is a big lack of references throuout the biography and a number of sections flagged as being original research and/or missing sources. So it fails and needs a quite a bit of work to address the problems. When the assessments are over I'll come back and flag the statements that really need sourcing so they can start to be addressed. This is an important article so is a priority for improvement. (Emperor (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Is he Irish?

I was just wondering if he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.141.46 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Little is known about his ethnicity. I assume you asked here because there is little to nothing on the net on that matter, and that is true. Based on what I can dig up, he grew up in a little Catholic town in Vermont, and is still a practicing Catholic. Nothing on his ethnicity, but the surname Miller is most common in people of Scottish descent, but can also come from someone whose ancestors have Anglosized a German, Spanish, or Italian surname when they lived in America. There are plenty of Catholic-Americans of German and Italian descent here in America. This is a place to start, hope this helps. --Jtd00123 (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the below quote - yes, he is Irish - from [6] - Obviously, Frank Miller agrees with Jackson's love for The Spirit as a character, and cites his long friendship with Denny Colt's late creator, Will Eisner. "My relationship with Will Eisner was a long and abiding one where we argued incessantly,” Miller explained. “The very first time he saw one of my pages, he told me what was wrong with it, and we kept arguing ever since. It was the classic 'Irish Catholic meets the Bronx Jew.' All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reaction

This section only criticizes his work. It doesn't document his work on Daredevil (Man Without Fear/Born Again ect.), Dark Knight Returns and other works that are Critically Acclaimed. I'm all criticism., but don't you think it should be a little more balanced? The Mans body of Work is only rivaled by Alan Moore really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.91.171 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

More Critical Reaction

Agreed -- critical means both positive and negative. This is a common misunderstanding (see Amazon's "Most helpful positive review / Most helpful critical review" for an embarrassing example). Further to the point, there is a difference between opinion and criticism. One is helpful, one isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.1.50 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Moore is amazing, Miller's only good things are from Batman, Wolverine, Daredevil/Elektra, Marv, and Ronin. Spirit was an abomination. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Political stance

My comment was "Very badly quoted", how could "deletion of cited material" possibly an adequate explanation for reverting me? Please explain yourself. --91.55.208.202 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in case someone needs help here: The cited material was rubbish, that's why I deleted it. Better now? --91.55.208.202 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the quote false, is it made up, did he never actually speak those words? If this is not the case, then you have no reason to remove it. The full quotations are in the 2nd of the two citations, so I am confident it is correct. You have to prove, not simply allege, that the material is "rubbish," as you claim. You have utterly failed to do so. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Read the quote again, slower this time. The text I removed was puzzled together in random order: The result is indeed that Wikipedia displayed a text that Miller never said.
If you think that stuff should remain in articles unless someone proves it to be incorrect, you are sadly mistaken. No, it's up to you to prove it. A simple text comparison should suffice. Ask your teacher for help if necessary. --91.55.208.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC).
So, it needs to be edited, not deleted in its entirety. You clearly have a very nasty and unhelpful attitude. I have nothing further to say to you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You are the one slamming the door in my face by semiprotecting you user page.
Anyway, edit it then. Until you do, don't put misinformation in Wikipedia. --91.55.208.202 (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I found this article on WP:3O. I'll do my best to try to give a neutral and useful view on the dispute. User:91.55.208.202, deleting an entire section of an article, while WP:BOLD, is not a good way to improve the encyclopedia (see WP:RUBBISH: the remedy for poorly written text is cleanup, not deletion). In the future, please bring such issues up on the talk page, or make an attempt to edit the text in question, instead of deleting it wholesale without warning.

That said, I compared the article to the source, and there is indeed a couple of problems with this section. The <blockquote> or {{quote}} is probably not appropriate to use in this case, since you are discarding large portions of the interview, instead of quoting an entire section of text verbatim (see WP:QUOTE). It would be better to directly write about his views in this section of the article, supported by using some in-line quotations from the interview. However, make sure not to violate WP:OR in the process: remember that Wikipedia can only state information that have been already stated elsewhere. Mildly MadTC 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. While I could have picked a better remedy, removing a misleading section can only be better than leaving it in the article.
I am not sure that I would be the right person to fix that section. Like many other people, Miller wildly mixes actions against terrorist with the war in Iraq, which is just not factual. The cleanup would have to sort out which remark belongs to which topic or topics, and I don't think it can be done without OR. Leaving it in an uncertainty cloud as it is the worst solution, because it's OR masked as a direct quote. Mildly Mad, please remove the section from the article until it's clean.
Please do also address the matter of multiple personal attacks.
Again, thanks for your time. --91.55.248.112 (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not someone's opinions are "factual" is not up to the judgment of WP users; what someone believes is what they believe. I agree that one cannot formulate a relevant opinion on the Iraq war or terrorism based on that interview alone without WP:OR and WP:SYN, but there are other opinions in the interview that could be mentioned. However, "Very badly quoted" (as you said in your original edit summary) is not a reason to remove the quote in question (see WP:PRESERVE); immediate deletion under WP:BLP doesn't really apply here, since the information is not defamatory. Both editors need to use the talk page to discuss how to improve that section (or decide whether to remove it) rather than engaging in an WP:EDITWAR.
As for the alleged "personal attacks," I don't see any. While User:RepublicanJacobite probably shouldn't have labeled your edits vandalism so quickly (see WP:AGF), that's not a personal attack. If you don't want your work mercilessly edited, then don't edit Wikipedia. Mildly MadTC 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt the believe, I only doubt the factuality. Anway, the article currently displays a misleading quote. I suggest you change that, since...
I really lost my motiviation to help if slanderous remarks (and I'm talking about in-wiki slander) are acceptable. Have a nice day! --91.55.248.112 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Section break

I changed the title of this discussion to more accurately reflect the issues at hand, which is whether the political stance section is a correct and accurate statement of Frank Miller's views. I appreciate the comments made above by Mildly Mad and I intend to make some of the changes he suggests. However, I believe a wider discussion needs to take place on these issues, rather than the tit-for-tat argument between myself and the anonymous editor. To that end, I added the expand-section template to that section hoping to elicit some ideas for appropriate content. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchmen sequel

APRIL FOOL'S DAY!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.75.77.35 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan! This edit seems to indicate that the IP has lost interest in the article, so you might need to shop around for some additional input on the article (I'm not sure how many editors are active on this page). Happy editing! Mildly MadTC 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope that others will respond, since this was an active talk page in the past. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Critical Reaction/ Criticism

Hi, I made some contributions under the section "Critical reaction" and user Friginator reverted my changes stating "Dopn't need that many quotes, and that's hardly a knowledgable source. (TW))". The source that I mentioned was from Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/09/holy-terror-frank-miller/). Can anyone tell me how Wired is not a knowledgeable source? Darknight0x (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, first you could say it's because calling something "propaganda" when it's advertised as propaganda isn't legitimate criticism. Being offended at something billed as offensive isn't notable. The Wired blog post you're citing (which is really more about politics than the book itself) has very little importance to the context we're dealing with. And even ignoring that--what relevance does a "Wired" blog have in the area of comic books? And what relevance does one review have to a biographical article?
And even ignoring that, if we're including the Wired blog post, it shouldn't be quoted verbatim in the section. Maybe a sentence or two, but it's really of small importance to Frank Miller's life and career (which, remember, is what this page is supposed to be about). Friginator (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the phrase "propaganda" was not rightly used but that does not mean certain views exhibited in the graphic novel are not true. I for one have already read it, like all of Miller's works. Also the source presented is reviewing/ criticizing Miller's work and it does not mean that it is not notable. There are other sources to that have put forth their reviews/ criticisms which one can find out there (i.e. David Brothers @ comicsalliance.com is one that also comes to mind quickly).
Also the words "notable" or "knowledgeable" carry different connotations and just stating that the source is not any of those without given the proper context can be interpreted as someone's own point of view in my honest opinion.
Correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding and reading the comments above on this page, one can deduce that criticism is taken as a harshly toward Miller's work and is removed from his page, which surprisingly what some of his books seem to encourage it. I think we should allow criticism towards any work no matter who it may be, include Miller's. Darknight0x (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Frank and Will Eisner

  • (This is a suggestion in how to improve the article on Frank Miller. I think Frank's political views are very important since most of his writing involves political gesture in the form of vigilanteism and such. So this comment (below) that I posted (and Tenebrae removed) was put here to see if anyone was interested in working this into the article).
  • Frank and Will Eisner were, if not "friends," pretty chummy. The Publication "Eisner/Miller" is an interesting read. It's actually just the transcription of a day they spent together.
  • Frank made it very public that he would never work for Marvel again if they resurrected Elektra after he killed her. They did and Frank cried foul and sited Artist Integrity etc... Which makes it very interesting that Frank virtually ignored the Original Character of The Spirit and Denny Colt when he wrote and directed the Movie The Spirit.
  • ISBN-10 1569717559

Albabe (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Albabe, here, has just gone to my talk page to make a baseless accusation intended to chill speech he disagrees with. The new lead he puts in italics here paints his previous essaying as wanting to discuss Miller's political views, and yet the post I removed for irrelevant fan-forum talk clearly and blatantly has nothing to do with politics. All he's posted are his own essaying thoughts about whether Frank Miller and Will Eisner are friends or not, and some POV claim that Miller is a hypocrite. This has nothing to do with improving the article; he's just giving his opinions about Miller. Everyone's entitled to give their opinions, but he should go find a fan site to do this in. This page is for talk about improving the article. Albabe's opinion on whether Miller and Eisner were friends and whether Miller is hypocritical are just POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

There was an la times article today with new info

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices and Wikipedia:Signatures, please sign posts with four tildes (~). Thanks Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive of older posts on the talk page

As several of the posts on this page are rather old, it would be good to move them to an archive page. Everything would still be available for viewing but it would "clean up" the talk page for current topics. Mtminchi08 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the MiszaBot/Archive to this page as it has been over several months with no objections to the archiving suggestion. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism?

It's not hard to fine. You talk about Frank Miller in a comics forum & the topic will hit all 3 points.

  • Frank Miller is a sexist writer. He writes all woman out so be prostitutes.
  • Working on Sin City somehow ruined his ability to write decent DC hero comics that don't immediately get panned by readers.
  • His art really went downhill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan Moore's Opinions are irrelevant to a biography of Miller

A very simple edit I made last night was undone by user "David A." Frank Miller had made a statement about the Occupy movement which is quoted on this wiki page. We can form our own opinions about this quote and any number of comic book creators can be quoted as agreeing or disagreeing with the quote, I am sure. But those artists' opinions simply aren't important to Frank Miller's wiki page. Only Frank Miller's is. Right? So I can't see why the fact that Alan Moore happened to disagree with Miller matters. David A's reasoning for undoing my simple deletion is "No, Alan Moore's comments are definitely not irrelevant to a biography of Frank Miller." Well, okay. But that's just a statement. I'd really like to hear the actual reasoning as to why anybody's opinion of what Miller says belongs in the article, David A. Or any other article for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.121.167 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Because as far as I am aware, it is Wikipedia praxis to publish relevant references to criticism and controversies. There are recurrently specific sections for this. Also, Frank Miller's viewpoint was inaccurate extremist hate-spewing. Letting it go uncontested would be akin to doing propaganda for him. Alan Moore is widely considered to be the greatest living comics creator. His viewpoint is certainly relevant as a counterpoint. David A (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is not our job to consider the wiki page politically, just factually. That's the whole point of having no POV and being neutral. But your assertion that what was being said was "propaganda that needed counterpoint" is essentially an admission that you are viewing this wikipedia page as a political battleground for issues that you are passionate about. Politically-important information control is surely is not the mission of wikipedia. And whether Alan Moore is "the greatest living comic creator" is a completely subjective opinion, one that many share and many would also dispute. But either way, it is a classic logical fallacy to "appeal to authority" in the matter of political argument, particularly when you are selecting the authority according to your own artistic and political preference. The neutral view would be to simply say that "Miller's statement engendered controversy." with a link to whatever articles are counterstatements are available, including Moore's. See, in my understanding, the POV issue is not that others disagree with Miller's statement, it is the selection of Alan Moore as Spokesperson for your personal view that is the problem. That's all. Thanks for the discussion. Be well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.121.167 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with changing the statement to "Miller's comment generated controversy". David A (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanilla Ice vandalism explanation

For anyone as confused as I was regarding the recent vandalism which says Frank Miller wrote lyrics to a TMNT song, see 29:00 in this video. Needless to say, such additions can be reverted. Sam Walton (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny/homophobia/racism?

I notice the anti-Islam, anti-Iran and fascism criticisms are given in passive sentences because these are fairly widespread criticism of Miller and his work, but "misogyny" and "homophobia" are given as though they were just the personal opinions of a fellow comic book writer, and his being criticized for anti-Arab racism (as opposed to "anti-Islam") is not mentioned. Is there a reason for this? Plenty of sources can be found for all of these, most of which have no personal connection whatsoever to Moore. Here is one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Health?

Is Miller sick or something? In pictures from 5-10 years ago, he looks healthy enough, for instance the top image of the article. Pictures of the last couple years, he is bald, thin, and generally looks as if he is 89 rather than 59.62.220.164.103 (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Frank Miller/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A strong article, but lacking the sources needed to bring it up to GA or A class. Also, most of the images still need fair use rationales. Iron Ghost 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Profession over field

Shouldn't we move "Frank Miller (comics)" to Frank Miller (comics artist)/Frank Miller (comics creator)? The disambiguating parenthesis should refer to his profession instead of his field of work (cf. Morris (cartoonist)). --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Frank Miller (comics creator) seems fine to me. David A (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Cf. also Comics creator, Category:American comics creators and List of comics creators. Source: Booker, M. Keith (ed.), Comics through Time: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2014, p. 707: "...Miller had as much control over his character and his depiction as any comics creator working for a major publisher during this period." --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Frank Miller (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Miller (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frank Miller (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed split for the bibliography section

This article is, as of this writing, 84,266 bytes in size. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, I suggest that the bibliography be split into a separate article as has been done with Alan Moore bibliography, Neil Gaiman bibliography, Jack Kirby bibliography, and Neal Adams bibliography.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - seems non-controversial to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Support - Pretty obvious that this would be a good choice.★Trekker (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Miller (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Occupy movement

Millar's comments on the Occupy movement are duplicated in both the Public Image and Personal Life sections. Not sure which section is most appropriate, but duplication shouldn't happen. --LukeSurl t c 09:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Miller/Archive_1&oldid=1136738128"