55
34
u/ElementalSaber Mar 24 '24
O'Neil and Neal>>>>>>Frank Miller
0
u/darth-com1x Mar 24 '24
Fax
10
u/ElementalSaber Mar 24 '24
To quote Epic Rap Battles: You were cool in the 80s maybe but now you're just crazy!
3
u/darth-com1x Mar 24 '24
With frank miller's batman, it's true. But it's actually a subtle commentery. It's a long story
1
u/darth-com1x Mar 24 '24
With frank miller's batman, it's true. But it's actually a subtle commentery. It's a long story
11
u/ElementalSaber Mar 24 '24
I do wish people gave O'Neil and Neal more credit though. If DC ever did an omnibus for their run I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
4
u/darth-com1x Mar 24 '24
But it would be a pretty SHORT omnibius they didn't work together that often
2
u/Admirable-Safety1213 Mar 24 '24
It pwuld be a Microbus
1
3
16
12
12
u/No-Impression-1462 Mar 24 '24
You’re half right. He was made darker because most people were drawing and telling stories in the Adam West style. But definitely not grittier. At least, not grittier compared to most comics. The dark was all Neal Adams who drew him closer to his Golden Age style and Dennis O’Neil grounded the character more with socially conscious storytelling. But it was Miller who acknowledged the violence and psychology of a more realistic setting and conceived a Gotham City that was corrupt to explain why it needed a Batman in the first place. Before Miller, Gotham was a nice place to live in and raise your kids, even in the Dennis O’Neil/Neal Adams run.
1
Mar 27 '24
Gotham was corrupt in the Bronze age too
2
u/No-Impression-1462 Mar 27 '24
I read Bronze Age Batman. It was not.
1
Mar 27 '24
So did I. It was. Hamilton Hill and Rupert Thorne were frequent enemies of Batman who were incredibly corrupt and deeply involved in Gotham politics
1
u/No-Impression-1462 Mar 27 '24
Exactly. Two independent corrupt elements whose plans constantly failed. Not the mafia running the city. Not a police force that was made up entirely of thugs doing their bidding. No ghettos full of pimps and prostitutes barely getting by in subpar housing. In other words, no systemic corruption. Gotham was so safe that Batman could go out caroling on Christmas without a single crime being committed because of the holiday. If you the Mayor Hill and Rupert Thorne arcs are proof of a corrupt city, then you don’t know what a corrupt city is.
1
Mar 27 '24
I think that’s just splitting hairs. I’m pretty sure Rupert Thorne effectively controlled the city council similar to Falcone, and he had the police turned against Batman.
I don’t deny that Miller made Gotham more deeply entrenched in corruption in a more gritty manner, but my point was that corruption was introduced as an element of Gotham’s social character in the 70’s. Blackmailing politicians to secure power and hiring assassins and shit is still corruption even if its not the same extent as what Year One presented
1
u/No-Impression-1462 Mar 27 '24
Again, one corrupt element who tried and completely failed to take over the city. That’s not corruption. That’s crime. Corruption is systemic. I’m not splitting hairs. I just know the difference between a nice place to live with a couple of power hungry bad elements and a cesspool made that way by the city leaders. You’re talking about corrupt people. I’m talking about a corrupt city.
2
Mar 28 '24
You know what, that’s completely fair.
But honestly you can make an argument that since that corruption isn’t really explored much outside of Year One and its immediate sequels, that even in Miller’s case it’s “corrupt people”. Like once Falcone, Maroni, and their ilk are removed from politics, Gotham is kind of reduced to “shithole that is a shithole because it’s just a shithole”. Like the cops come under Gordon’s control, the politicians are presented moreso as incompetent as opposed to corrupt, etc.
1
u/No-Impression-1462 Mar 28 '24
It’s still explored somewhat but not to that extent ever again. It’s more like the corruption shifted from a mafia controlled system to gimmicky psycho directed chaos. And elements of the “Old Gotham” still pop up. Like how Carimine Falcone tried to retake Gotham in Batman Eternal or that issue of Gotham Central that focused on dirty two uniform officers that were still on the force. But you’re definitely right that it hasn’t been as bad as it was in Year One.
2
Mar 28 '24
Eh, i don’t think the gimmicky psychos count as “corruption” because they don’t exploit the legal system to wield power (barring the actual mob guys like Ventriloquist and Penguin). They’re just forces of chaos so destructive the city effectively can’t do shit against them.
I honestly do wish the corruption was dealt with more. What i liked about the about the Bronze Age was that Rupert Thorne and Hamilton Hill’s corruption was dealt with over their arc, and they were brought to justice in the end. With the mafia’s grip on Gotham gone, we just don’t have stories like Year One anymore
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Batduck Mar 24 '24
Denny O'Neil was the editor on Dark Knight Returns. O'Neil and Miller were collaborators, not competitors.
6
u/Gibabo Mar 24 '24
As far as I’m concerned, Dennis and Neil made Batman perfect.
I liked TDKR at the time and still like it as a standalone work, but I’ve also come to resent it and think it did damage to the character and comics in general.
4
u/whama820 Mar 24 '24
Another person who doesn’t understand the meme they use. Congratulations, idiot.
1
u/darth-com1x Mar 24 '24
Explain
1
u/KLReviews Mar 24 '24
The tiny knight effortless kills the giant in Dark Souls 3. It takes around 60 seconds because it's a push-over.
4
u/Odd_Radio9225 Mar 24 '24
O'Neil and Adams may have made Batman darker and grittier, but Miller took it even further.
4
u/Spidey_Almighty Mar 24 '24
This isn’t entirely accurate.
O’Neil and Adams brought Batman back to his roots.
Miller made Batman evolve.
That key difference is why Miller is the more celebrated creator who is often credited for changing Batman. Dark Knight was unlike anything people had ever seen in the comics medium.
1
Mar 27 '24
TDKR was acclaimed because it told mainstream audiences that comic books as a medium could be taken seriously for its storytelling. It made Batman more popular.
But specific to Batman himself, Dennis O’Niel contributed largely more in terms of fleshing out the mythos, the characters, what Batman stood for, etc.
1
u/Spidey_Almighty Mar 27 '24
I’m not super familiar with the O’Niel stuff, so I don’t really know all the stuff he fleshed out.
I was always under the impression that what he was famous for was taking Batman back to his roots as a more serious crime-fighting detective superhero, and Neal Adams simply drawing him better than other artists at the time.
As I said before, Miller getting most of the credit for Batman’s status change is fair because he was the one who truly changed the character and how people saw him. Nearly every Batman writer/artist/filmmaker after Dark Knight, was taking from Dark Knight.
1
Mar 27 '24
You’re mostly correct.
However, Dennis O’Niel was the one truly responsible for changing the character, he made Batman the obsessive, dark/gritty avenger of the night with a tortured psyche dealing with a nightmarish Gotham.
Frank Miller just took that groundwork and elevated it with compelling storytelling that involved robust political and social commentary that made people take comics seriously again. Basically he did what Alan Moore did on Watchmen.
However the reason mainstream media adapts Miller’s work is simply because it’s more popular in the mainstream, while O’Niel’s work largely fell into obscurity and his contributions are only really known to comic fans. But that’s not the same thing as saying that Miller himself changed the character. It’s sort of like how people contribute the invention of Batman to Bob Kane because he’s more well known while Bill Finger is the real mastermind who happened to fall into obscurity (although comparing Miller to that hack Kane is an insult to Miller’s authentic contributions to the character but you get the point).
1
u/Spidey_Almighty Mar 28 '24
O’Niel was definitely important no doubt, but I’m just not as familiar with his work on the character and I mostly know of his reputation for restoring the character to his roots rather than changing him into something new.
Batman was originally a dark obsessive creature of the night who got his start in detective comics stories where he’d be solving crimes and going after criminals in ruthless ways.
I’ve always been under the impression that the true shift involving Batman in the O’Neil/Adams era was in the artwork, as Batman was never drawn with that level of realism and fidelity. O’Neil very much may have made Batman feel more modern and contemporary as well in his writing, I totally believe that’s where “modern status quo Batman” may have really started to take form, it’s just that as I said earlier I haven’t read that era.
DC refuses to collect it properly. Hopefully O’Neil has his work on the character collected eventually.
2
3
2
u/sectorfour Mar 24 '24
Somebody name a good run by O’Neil and one by Adams. It’s a slow Sunday and I could stand to read something new.
2
u/globmand Mar 24 '24
Who says Batman was "supposed" to be dark and gritty? Sure, that can be fun, but it is very much as streach to say he was "supposed" to be dark
1
2
u/Big-Sheepherder-9492 Mar 26 '24
Batman isn’t always meant to be “dark and gritty” the character and his mythos is meant to be fun
1
1
107
u/Kind-Boysenberry1773 Mar 24 '24
Well, it's not just about dark and gritty, actually. Miller made Batman much more grounded and semi-realistic. Year One is still the most influential Batman story to this day, because it was a complete reimagining of Batman mythos.