The Four Color Media Monitor

Popverse brought up something from an interview veteran writer Mark Evanier did with Frank Miller at the SDCC a few months ago, where he had a recommendation for junior artists:

There comes a time when there is no place else to go but up. At least, that's how Frank Miller saw it when he began his run on Daredevil for Marvel Comics early on in his career. When Miller jumped on the title as an artist, Daredevil was a bi-monthly book that wasn't selling well for Marvel. As a result, because not that many people cared about Daredevil at the time, Miller had the freedom to take the character in a bold new direction. Luckily for Miller, his risk paid off.

Well gee whiz, what was pretty successful when it first began had unfortunately begun to wane by 1977, and that's why what may have been more monthly at one point was cut back to bi-monthly by that time (by 1982, it became more monthly again). But if memory serves, wasn't Roger McKenzie the writer at the time? Miller actually became more of a writer himself at least a year after he began in 1979, and while he may have drawn DD initially, the last regular story he wrote, "Born Again" in 1986, was drawn more by David Mazzuchelli. Ironically, not many people care about DD now as a result of all the wokery they forced upon Hornhead, and Miller's never commented whether he thinks that's dismaying.

Speaking at San Diego Comic-Con 2025, Miller looked back at how being on a D-list title for Marvel helped his career in the long run. “My advice to young comic book artists who want to get [a] break into the superhero market is: pick a loser. Because if you fail, if you go there, advance the book anyway. But if you succeed, you’re a goddamn hero,” Miller said.

Even if he's joking, it's in poor taste to say "loser". Mainly because, while there is a certain validity in what he says, he misses one little thing: the writing and art merit are what make any comic count, no matter how well known it is or not. This also applies to comics far more known like Spider-Man and Superman. Talented writing and artwork are what make them click as well. And as I've noted before, if we look at Miller from a modern lens, his art style has deteriorated over the years, to a very mediocre level as it is now. The article then turns to a certain left-wing writer who I recall attacked Miller in the late 2000s, and a very sad thing is how they continue to use distorted pronoun wokery, making it difficult to read:

There are some notable examples that support Miller's hypothesis, extending beyond just the scope of comic book artists. Did anyone care about Animal Man before a young Grant Morrison came on to write a wacky but haunting run for DC in 1988? This strategy would benefit Morrison again when they jumped on as the writer for Doom Patrol the next year. More recently, in 2013, writer Tom Taylor was brought on to write DC's Injustice comics to tie in with the video game, and he (and future Nightwing collaborator Bruno Redondo) knocked it out of the park.

The moral of the story here is, even if you're handed crumbs, don't be boring with them.

The problem is that Miller didn't clearly make the point, and bringing up Taylor as though he's literally talented is not a good analogy. As for Morrison, look how, because he decided to take up identity politics and claim he's "non-binary", so the writer refers to him as "they". Not helpful one bit. And wasn't Animal Man just a very minor, almost obscure character prior to Morrison's series that became part of the Vertigo imprint in its latter half? There's bound to be hundreds of minor characters even in the Marvel universe who could have a solo book developed about them...but that time is long past, considering the dire state Marvel's in now along with DC. As a result, while merit obviously applies, you couldn't expect to find it under such awful editorial boards.

The interview transcript they linked to from Comic Book Historians also has something else by Miller that's troubling, and turns his prior point soggy. It appears to be about Jim Shooter, at the time he'd passed on, but Miller uses it as an opportunity to tear down on a Republican politician he doesn't like:

Frank Miller: [00:19:52] Yeah, yeah. And so he did. There’s a side of him that was very isolated, you know, isolated fellow. And so so, you know, people like that when they come into power can be pretty frightening. But for all of that, he he was my friend and he did inject. Uh, some energy and some, some, some, uh, cohesion to what Marvel was doing that that put it really at the top for a long time. But he was like Mayor Giuliani came in to to New York City. I was around for it. The city was a laughing stock for his crime, and he was killing the city and Giuliani. Running the city like a cross between a mafia boss and a tyrant. Um. Brought order. He kicked you? He came. He changed the city, and it became safer and more productive. That was his first term. His second term was not so good because Giuliani became became over control and started making ridiculous rules and and was practically ridden out of town on a rail. Um, and in a way that you could use that as a mirror for sure. That, that he really did much to revive Marvel Comics, but reached the point where top people and good people, writers and artists were. Confronting the publisher, storming out and and, uh, the whole ship was sinking. So to tell the story of Jim Shooter is not to tell any simple story. I’m just when I talk about it, I talk about it’s just a major figure in comics history. Uh, and, uh, and sort of as one of the. It’s one of those 5 million people I’ve ever known. And in his own way, Tragic.

It probably isn't surprising, but it's still sad to see Miller's hostile to Rudy Giuliani, for rather bewildering reasons, and is apparently looking for some cheap excuse to take a swipe at him. I guess it's because of Giuliani's close work with Donald Trump, and Miller did say before he hates Trump for unclear reasons. Miller gives no clear explanation what Giuliani did wrong, and was he actually railroaded out of his job? Miller's statement is as stupid as it's ambiguous. Giuliani now wants his law license restored after the corrupt leftists now running New York persecuted him just for being a conservative, and I guess Miller's unhappy about that too, huh? In any case, that's how he thanks somebody for making an effort to make NYC a safer place to live 3 decades ago? One can only wonder what Miller thinks now that Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of the Big Apple. I get the sad feeling Miller, for as long as he's working in comicdom, will never write any metaphors for how bad the influence of Communism/Islamism/socialism are today, in stark contrast to past writers who were willing to address the issue of communism, if anything. So of course, if anybody ever found much of his work "empty", such a description could certainly apply now.

Another problem with Miller's statement is that it sounds like he sought another opportunity to tear down on a comics figure he may have had disagreements with. Now, I realize Shooter may have had positions even I'd disagree with, but even so, Miller's reference sounds very annoyingly forced, and this was somebody who came off sounding in the American Genius documentary like he was throwing at least a few of the people he'd once been buddies with under the bus for the sake of a modern PC narrative. It's too bad, because as a result, all Miller's doing is implying he's become a bitter man, perhaps because he knows his comics aren't selling in stratospheric amounts any more than any others coming out of the industry today, and fewer people care about his stories, such as they are. In past years, I'd seen at least a few people argue they thought he was overrated, and I'm sure I might've concluded as much too. Now, all he's doing is compounding those feelings by dragging needless politics into the mess, and while it may be predictable, it's still hugely disappointing.

Labels: conventions, Daredevil, dc comics, marvel comics, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics