Miller vs. Millar vs. Ennis

Besides his tendency towards exhausting puerility and his love of hardman protagonists, his writing seems to constantly veer towards his comfort zone topics (the Irish and the military) whether or not it makes narrative sense.

I used to feel this way, but lately I've been positively surprised by both Crossed and The Boys... They still have some of his trademark schticks (most notably gross-out moments and ultraviolence, though at least with Crossed they're kinda justified), but like I said he seems to have mellowed out, so there's actually some criticism of the hardman worship, plus some genuine girly sentimentality and pathos too. And he can still write properly exciting plots; even if I'm not fond of his pet peeve subjects, I still find it almost impossible not to follow the story all the way through to the end.

Hmm, I suppose it would have to be Ennis by default.

I've never been particularly keen on Millar, in fact I'd say his output is the most egregious example of style over substance in comics today. I also find him a depressingly cynical writer, not in the sense of being disgusted at the world around him, but the way he churns out properties purely with film adaptations in mind. Whenever I read his recent stuff, I never get the impression that he's thinking "This is a great story that needs to be told," he's more likely to be thinking, "This is a fantastically marketable idea that is gonna bring in M£GABUCK$$$!"

(And even worse is that other writers have cottoned onto this now - the once great Pat Mills has apparently set up a publishing imprint purely for the purposes of creating properties to be pitched to film studios. The first of these, the woeful American Reaper, has already been optioned. But I digress.)

He's only gone down further in my estimation over the whole CLiNT fiasco. If you'll recall, CLiNT was launched on a platform of being a vehicle for new talent to break into the industry, but so far it seems the only guaranteed way of getting into the pages of CLiNT is to be a mate of Millar or Millar himself. Newcomers who were told their stuff would get published have basically been left out in the cold.

As for Miller, well, unfortunately he speaks for himself. And far too often these days.

Ennis' Punisher makes this a no-brainer.

I was thinking about mentioning The Boys in the "what are you reading?" thread -- it's a bit too grim to call it enjoyable, but I do think it's good work. There was a long multi-issue stretch of boring exposition, but the thrizzlepower has picked back up leading into the final story arc. But speaking of properties created with film adaptation in mind, it's always been a little irritating that Hughie was just Simon Pegg done in ink.

Maybe I should take that back now that I've seen Ennis' picture on his wiki page.

No matter what Frank Miller does these days, so much of his '80s and '90s work is classic. That said, Preacher is pretty damn great too.

If Miller had stopped with say, ELEKTRA: ASSASSIN or BATMAN: YEAR ONE, he'd be a searing, singular talent. As it is, he went on to do interminable MARTHA WASHINGTONs and kept doing SIN CITY after the first one (which is stellar from beginning to end, heights the follow-ons simply couldn't reach.) I think I have to go with Ennis on this one. CROSSED might be one of the best things he's ever done, and has ruined me on zombie comics completely. Millar is an also-ran in this three-way.

Just voted Miller, despite probably liking Ennis more. It occurs to me the sole reason for this is probably ELEKTRA: ASSASSIN.

First MARTHA WASHINGTON is good. The rest are horrid.

also, c'mon, THAT YELLOW BASTARD is almost as good as the original series, in some ways better i would say

In terms of actively unpleasant "You better believe yer gonna work for it, hapless consumer!" comics, Miller all the way.

miller, cuz at one time i did like his work (daredevil, elektra assassin, dark knight). can't say that about any of the others.

Millar seems to have turned into the UK Jeph Loeb lately

That might be the worst thing I've ever seen anyone write about another human being. Millar is a human being! With feelings!

And Jeph Loeb is making the gulf between them pretty clear by following Millar's still-entertaining Ultimates with his own terrible terrible version.

I might go for Millar actually, for his Swamp Things, and because he hasn't shit the bed nearly as much as Miller.

DJP OTM though about Warren Ellis >> all of these bozos.

Ennis is the only one I can imagine picking up future work by.

can't stand warren ellis' juvenile 'edgy' bullshit (swears and cigs, how RAD), just the worst.

also, much prefer garth ennis' hellblazers over jamie delano's overwritten 'poetic', cliche-ridden tedium.

basically, Ellis won me over for good after Stormwatch; the only things of his I've read that I've actively DISLIKED were his Wolverine and Hellblazer (and I LOVED his Excalibur, Stormwatch and Nextwave)

full disclosure - i sorta knew ellis back back in the day, before he became a 'pro', and he was easily one of the biggest wankers i've ever met through comics. maybe he's a great guy, nowadays. but also, the artwork on transmetropolitan is sooo horrible, i can't really face the stories (did read a few issues of the authority, w/ quite nice art from john cassady, that were ok-ish, tho' even then the conspiracy theory-superhero facism stuff seemed kinda overplayed and second-hand. Also didn't like Ellis' reliance on modish storytelling devices - ie no captions/thought balloons, 'cinematic' panel-to-panel continuity etc)

I liked Lazarus Churchyard when I was a teenage boy, don't think I've rly wholeheartedly enjoyed anything else he's done. And would probably not like Churchyard now.

Bought two issues of a three-issue series from a 50c bin a few years ago, drawn by Amanda Conner, that I totally loved reading while I was reading them, because Conner is a v good cartoonist. But didn't bother to track down the third to satisfy any narrative longing.

any comic drawn by Matt B will look good, at least

oh and the only almost-half-good thing by Bendis I've ever read was an eight-pager that Ellis wrote in Negative Burn, though again I couldn't promise to like it 17 years later if I read it again

xpost to Ward - and as it was Ellis' first thing ever iirc, he hadn't had any chance to develop tics or lazy habits

also, much prefer garth ennis' hellblazers over jamie delano's overwritten 'poetic', cliche-ridden tedium.

This opinion is the polar opposite of my opinion.

I think it's quite clear through Ellis's narrative voice that he's a total dick. That doesn't really impact my enjoyment of his stories because he writes with an easy sarcasm that I enjoy.

I liked Grant Morrison's two-parter, but I've always struggled stay interested in Hellblazer. I always sort of wish he was more like Willoughby Kipling.

delano hellblazers = zombie skinheads roam the mean streets of thatcher's broeken britain while a crimson sun scars the morbid skyline blahdiblah
ennis hellblazers = let's have a pint mate oh feck i've got the old cancer

lol otm

Delano's one-off return story about the monkey sticking a finger up Chas' bum was good though, and the Bad Blood mini about geriatric Constantine and regicide, drawn by Phil Bond, is enormous fun

I'm not the biggest fan of Ennis's Hellblazer, but I gotta agree with Ward that Delano's Moore-influenced purple prose in those early Hellblazer is hella grating. Because of that I've never managed to get past the first trade - does it get any better later on?

this is a hard poll, in that I have to decide if I'm weighing the highs of each, the lows of each, or trying some near-impossible averaging

Miller at least has Ronin and Elektra:Assassin to his credit.

Jesus, "Elektra: Assassin" is evidence for the prosecution. Or maybe I need to reread it.

does it get any better later on?

Obviously not a popular opinion, but Delano's Hellblazer is one of my favorite comic runs ever. And his dialogue is a good deal less purple than Moore on Swamp Thing.

ennis hellblazers = let's have a pint mate oh feck i've got the old cancer

OTM, but if he wanted to write that story, I wish he'd done his own thing and left Constantine out of it. Ennis and Ellis have both been guilty of hijacking existing characters as their mouthpieces by proxy. It's a really irritating tic.

Jesus, "Elektra: Assassin" is evidence for the prosecution. Or maybe I need to reread it.

Gotta agree with this too. Cool art, but it's an unreadable mess, or at least that's how I recall it (it's been 10+ years since I last read it).

I like E:A quite a bit! I need to dig out the floppies and reread.

Basically, I don't think any comic that's over 10 pages long should have narrative that's painful to follow because of the art style. Sienkiewicz's postmodern style might've been cool for comic book and album covers, but it was bad for storytelling.

I don't recall finding Kevitch's art difficult to follow at all.

Year One is still probably the best Batman comic ever

Jamie Delano severely underrated in some quarters. Still can't believe DC didn't collect/reprint 2020 Visions and he took it elsewhere to have that b&w version

Was World Without End ever collected? I quite liked that at the time but haven't read it in 20 years.

Doesn't look like it.

Disagree on ELEKTRA's art making it rough going. The first issue is rough going because it's fragmented flashback. After that, it's perfectly readable and damn fine.

Ennis and Ellis have both been guilty of hijacking existing characters as their mouthpieces by proxy. It's a really irritating tic.

still seems barmy, to me, to get irritated by diff ppl doing different things w/ corporately owned characters, and it's not as if there's some platonic ideal of constantine that all writers must adhere to forever after. if anything, yr ire shld be directed at the editors and publishers who 'allowed' these writers to make the characters their 'own' - but why not enjoy variety/different flavours? i mean, i love the englehart run on captain america - but i also love the kirby run straight after, which is 100% different in tone/execution etc, but just as great. corporate characters should always be the playthings of the talented.

ppl only get irritated when they dislike they way the writer does it

tbf sometimes they make characters have a better voice

Don't let Tuomas read that post Ward. He was all in a tizzy over some Wonder Woman stories he hasn't read because of that very thing.

The first issue is rough going because it's fragmented flashback. After that, it's perfectly readable and damn fine.

^^^

not sure what's so incomprehensible about it, it's not like every page is dense collage of random imagery or something. there are panels, they read from left to right iirc

still seems barmy, to me, to get irritated by diff ppl doing different things w/ corporately owned characters

That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm complaining about the Ennis/Ellis schtick (at least back in the day...Ellis, at least, has gotten much better about this, afaict) of writing a central character who's a barely-disguised (and probably highly-idealized) version of themselves. Like, if you want to write an essay, write your own book. Don't shoehorn yourself into an established world and riff on off-topic bullshit. It's nagl. On the other hand, I don't have any problems when writers want to put a new spin on an established book or character, as long as it isn't just Aquaman being all, "HI I'M A HARDMAN ENNIS AVATAR AND HERE ARE MY AMAZING OPINIONS AND THE MUSIC I LIKE AND THE PUBS I DRINK AT IN IRELAND ME ME ME".

If Ellis wrote Aquaman he'd have a hook again and someone would call him Mr. Sliceyhands and there would be dolphinsex jokes and the villain would be some sort of thinly-veiled Jim Cameron who's doing something evil in the ocean's depths. Also, whiskey.

lol, I will grant you Mr Sliceyhands

http://www.clickhole.com/theysaidwhat/find-out-what-paul-mccartney-frank-miller-and-mich-1054

kinda shocked by how frank miller looks these days. (i guess i haven't seen a picture since robocop3)

It's sort've addressed in this Sean Howe interview piece:

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/frank-miller-sin-city-a-dame-to-kill-for/

he's looked really really bad for at least a decade

Never saw this thread before. I'd go with Miller obv for an extended, albeit long-past, period of greatness. I hate the other two guys completely.

Wow, that Wired portrait of Miller is brutal:

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ff_frankmiller2_f.jpg

He looks like Richard Harris' corpse.

a cake after a night of rain

jesus christ, and i thought he looked broken down 10 years ago

that person is 57 years old, unbelievably

He's reached 'Peak Opinion'.

wired:
> Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, the sequel to the 2005 blockbuster that represents his last artistic and commercial success

300 was 2006, was that not successful?

i would say less so critically/artistically

> Zack Snyder's meticulous adaptation of 300 earned $456 million

sounds ok to me. i guess fm was less involved in the film but i'd still count that as his work and a success.

i didn't know about the spirit or the batman book that was immediately after it.

did just re-read DKR though and it felt like meeting an old friend.

he genuinely looks weeks from death

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd65/Buzzetta_photos/frank-miller-comic-con-sin-city-2.jpg

http://techchucker.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/2013-06-05-11-03-20.jpg

I'm planning to reread his (and nocenti's!) run on DD pretty soon. Psyched tbh. But idk if I'll ever revisit DKR.

Yeah, I was never particularly enthused with TDKR. Don't really get the hype (or at least the proportion of the hype). Year One is pretty great, though. And I do dig what I've read of his DD run (which I guess I'll also be reading in its entirety soon enough).

Meanwhile, the Syfy network has announced a series based on Ronin,

omg please no

sadly, probably won't be as good as Samurai Jack

But it'll be at least as good as Lavalantula, I'd think.

Not much is as good as samurai jack tbh.

true

Is it too nosy to ask whether something's wrong with Miller? Like, does he have a chronic disease or something? I know he's always been thin, but those recent Comic Con pics look do indeed look worrisome.

see Ward's post.

Yeah, I read that article, but it only has a short allusion to some vague rumours to explain his health. I guess it could be drugs, but it's kinda hard to imagine someone with a worldview like Miller's doing drugs... Though who knows?

I'm assuming there's the usual loophole where alcohol's not a drug?

I guess you shouldn't generalize, but in my experience alcoholics tend to look bloated, not gaunt.

yeah, that's not really true overall

There was this from a couple years back
http://nypost.com/2012/10/10/ex-staffer-sues-dark-knight-comic-creator-girlfriend-for-hostile-work-environment/

Jesus, just one of things would be enough to cause me to quit, amongst other things

They probably had a poster of a cat hanging in there to counterbalance.

Jesus, Miller looks 87, not 57. I don't much care for the man and his work now, but that is a shocking decline in the six years since this picture was taken.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/FrankMillerSanDiego_crop.jpg

the implication of drug use explains a lot

I'm repulsed by a lot of his politics but I feel really bad for the guy