So Frank Miller's adaptations > Alan Moore's adaptations?

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

How is it that adaptations of Frank Miller's work? (300, Sin City, Dark Knight Returns) ends up not only increadibly faithful to the point that its the novel itself, but are actually for the most part well received movies or in some cases better than the novel (In my case 300 the movie is better than the book)

Yet adaptations of Alan Moore's work ends up being the most divisive and arguably inferior to the source? (And I love Watchmen the movie still)

I mean so far the only adaptation to his work that has not come under fire is Justice League Unlimited's adaptation of the Superman story, For The Man Who Has Everything. And that is one of the better Superman comics.

I mean its amazing the man that created the arguably better comics ended up getting the most un-impactful adapations, while the guy that has become the Mel Gibson of comic books end up getting the best possible adaptions.

 

[Evonisia]

Could it just be a case of the better stories are harder to adapt and therefore are more polarising?

 

[Zhukov]

Simple stories are easier to adapt and shit stories are easier to improve.

Ta-dah!

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Simple stories are easier to adapt and shit stories are easier to improve.

Ta-dah!

 

[Silvanus]

Well, in part, he's on the money. Alan Moore's most notable works are exceptionally complex, both in content and style, and make extensive use of devices only truly possible on the page (the clearest example would be the pulp fiction-style pirate story which intersperses Watchmen, but there are subtler examples throughout). As for Frank Miller's work, 300 is ultimately a very simple story done in a memorable visual style, which is much easier to transpose to film. His Batman work and Sin City are somewhat more complex, but not to the extent of Watchmen or V for Vendetta.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Well, in part, he's on the money. Alan Moore's most notable works are exceptionally complex, both in content and style, and make extensive use of devices only truly possible on the page (the clearest example would be the pulp fiction-style pirate story which intersperses Watchmen, but there are subtler examples throughout). As for Frank Miller's work, 300 is ultimately a very simple story done in a memorable visual style, which is much easier to transpose to film. His Batman work and Sin City are somewhat more complex, but not to the extent of Watchmen or V for Vendetta.

In terms of Faithfulness Watchmen is certainly the clear winner despite some inaccuracies.

V for Vendetta butchers the whole point of the charcater of V. He's Anarchy incarnate, personifyed, and made flesh.

In the books he treats the people as sheep. And he is not suppose to have any leanings of being "a good guy" especially since it would not make sense when:

Spoiler

He tortures Evey and yet the movie still paints him in the right

 

[Fox12]

Simple stories are easier to adapt and shit stories are easier to improve.

Ta-dah!

Damn, I think Zhukov just summed up the answers nicely. It's a lot harder to adapt something as complex as Alan Moore's work then it is Frank Millers. There are complex motifs, symbols, and philosophical undertones in Moore's work. He tends to experiment more, making it hard to bring his work to film. Frank Miller just shit a golden turd one day, and everyone started fawning over it. His work is pretty straightforward and unsophisticated, and easy to bring to film.

Just look at the new killing joke. They tried adding content, and it failed miserably because the new writer wasn't as talented. It went from batgirl blurting out "it's just sex, isn't it?" To Alan Moore's poetry. The sudden change in quality and style made the work feel disjointed and weird. You wouldn't have this problem with Frank Miller because his writing is already bad.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

They did:

Anyway yeah Alan Moore is even more crazy I mean that man is so fucking pretentious I just wanna slap him and throw a cup water at his face. Miller seems to be more down to earth, and say what you will about him no one deserves the level of Cancer he has:

Almost 60 yet he looks like he is in his 90s.

 

[King Billi]

On the Frank Miller adaptations he was an artist as well as the writer and as those adaptations seem to focus primarily on replicating the visuals of the stories (In 300 and SinCity especially) they are easier to mark as "faithful" or "accurate". Millers visual style is so identifiable and iconic for Batman they even used it in Batman v Superman.

Alan Moore on the other hand is just a writer and he writes ALOT, a lot more than can be effectively summarised in a typical film adaption, even when they can appropriately present the visuals of the story (with Watchmen for instance) they have to sacrifice or alter something from his writing that leaves fans feeling that something is lost in the telling. Other times there are films like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which from any angle only exist as an adaptation in name only.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

Amen to that brother, though another reason to Miller bashing is (like always) political, people disagree with his political views, that's fine in itself but it's taken further to make him sexist, racist and all that bullshit.

I also blame the likes of Moviebob and Linkara for this aswell.

 

[PapaGreg096]

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

Amen to that brother, though another reason to Miller bashing is (like always) political, people disagree with his political views, that's fine in itself but it's taken further to make him sexist, racist and all that bullshit.

I also blame the likes of Moviebob and Linkara for this aswell.

When did Linkara call Millar a sexist or a racist

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

Amen to that brother, though another reason to Miller bashing is (like always) political, people disagree with his political views, that's fine in itself but it's taken further to make him sexist, racist and all that bullshit.

I also blame the likes of Moviebob and Linkara for this aswell.

When did Linkara call Millar a sexist or a racist

I think he started it somewhere along "Holy Terror", the moemnt I stopped watching Linkara was one of the recent "Batman & Robin" where he said something along the line "the comic is bad because Frank Miller wrote it", made me lose any respect I had for the person as a critic.

Here's a video of someone calling out on his bullshit, start the video at 02:00.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

Amen to that brother, though another reason to Miller bashing is (like always) political, people disagree with his political views, that's fine in itself but it's taken further to make him sexist, racist and all that bullshit.

I also blame the likes of Moviebob and Linkara for this aswell.

When did Linkara call Millar a sexist or a racist

His All-Star Batman & Robin review, if I remember. Not racist, but sexist. Said he can only write women as daughters or whores.

...And I don't disagree with that statement. I do disagree with the idea that it means Millar's works shouldn't or cant be read and enjoyed.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

They did:

WHAT THE SHIT

you're blowing my mind here samtemdo

His All-Star Batman & Robin review, if I remember. Not racist, but sexist. Said he can only write women as daughters or whores.

Linkara needs to read Give Me Liberty, then.

 

[Redryhno]

Because Miller's work, while still good, simply is easier to adapt because it's very much a visual style and idea than a set-in-stone narrative as Moore's works are. Both can be exeedingly complex, but the problem is that Moore is pretty wordy for a comic author, while Miller sorta uses the visual element as a way to get more thoughts out of the reader that words on a page.

And no, I'm not saying Miller is better than Moore, just that as much as people have a hard-on for Moore and anything he writes, especially around here, Miller just uses the medium in a way that allows more flexibility for movie adaptations. Of the two, Miller has had better comics, Moore better stories. But that's just my personal opinion.

His All-Star Batman & Robin review, if I remember. Not racist, but sexist. Said he can only write women as daughters or whores.

...And I don't disagree with that statement. I do disagree with the idea that it means Millar's works shouldn't or cant be read and enjoyed.

Eh, it's Linkara, the guy's fucking amazing if you're looking at the history of comics, but his personal opinions on works are just godawful half the time.

 

[PapaGreg096]

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

Amen to that brother, though another reason to Miller bashing is (like always) political, people disagree with his political views, that's fine in itself but it's taken further to make him sexist, racist and all that bullshit.

I also blame the likes of Moviebob and Linkara for this aswell.

When did Linkara call Millar a sexist or a racist

I think he started it somewhere along "Holy Terror", the moemnt I stopped watching Linkara was one of the recent "Batman & Robin" where he said something along the line "the comic is bad because Frank Miller wrote it", made me lose any respect I had for the person as a critic.

Here's a video of someone calling out on his bullshit, start the video at 02:00.

Way to take Linkara out of context, he said this after reading Batman and Robin

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

Amen to that brother, though another reason to Miller bashing is (like always) political, people disagree with his political views, that's fine in itself but it's taken further to make him sexist, racist and all that bullshit.

I also blame the likes of Moviebob and Linkara for this aswell.

When did Linkara call Millar a sexist or a racist

I think he started it somewhere along "Holy Terror", the moemnt I stopped watching Linkara was one of the recent "Batman & Robin" where he said something along the line "the comic is bad because Frank Miller wrote it", made me lose any respect I had for the person as a critic.

You do know thats a joke right, there are some comics Linkara says he enjoys from Frank Millar

 

[Fox12]

It's an oversimplification to say that Miller's work is simpler or shittier, and thus easier to film.

Alan Moore tends to do two things in his work. Firstly, he works a lot of the visual limitations and advantages of the comic book medium into the plot itself - in Watchmen, the exact same blood spatter shows up so many times hidden in the background that it becomes kinda mind-blowing when you realise it. Freeze-frame bonuses, as they're called in cinema, are much more effective in a comic book than they are in a film. V for Vendetta is a really good example - the way he worked the number 5 and the letter V into almost everthing borders on the pareidoliac.

The other thing Moore does is really long, expository monologues/duologues, which have become much more obvious and irritating in his later work than it was in his 80s stuff. Done well, this ends up like the Doctor Manhattan on Mars chapter of Watchmen. Done badly, it ends up like Promethea, which was less of a comic book and more of an illustrated essay on gnosticism.

Both those elements translate very poorly into film. It's hard to work in clever background references and puzzle-like literary tricks when the words are being heard and not read and the film is moving at a brisk pace.

Frank Miller, on the other hand, I've always considered the polar opposite of Alan Moore in terms of style and method, but not quality. Unlike Moore, Frank Miller's dialogue is grounded and riddled with (sometimes fictional) slang, as well as being paced and punctuated in the way that people actually talk in real life. His ever-present narrative monologues, on the other hand, are purple as a bruised eggplant and swing wildly between brutally poetic and just plain repetitive. Most adaptations of Miller's writing either exclude the monologues entirely (such as the animated adaptation of TDKR) or play it up for the pulp value (Sin City). But they benefit from the more informal style of his dialogue; it's easier to translate into film.

Alongside that, Miller's scripts tend to push the artist into distinctive, very striking poses that can translate well to film, especially if you punctuate it with slow motion like Snyder did in 300. And when he's doing the art himself, he produces the occasional masterwork like the memorable lightning-strike image from TDKR, which has become so heavily associated with Batman that I'm legitimately surprised it didn't show up in BvS.

Overall I'm kind of tired of the Miller-bashing that the internet has become so fond of in recent years. We get it: All-Star Batman and Robin was a turd sandwich. But people just try and retroactively piss all over his prime work like the last two decades didn't happen. The idea that Miller is a craven book-troll desperately trying to be edgy and Moore is a literary demigod whose every word is laden with deep philosophical meaning is, ultimately, just posturing. Both are excellent writers who peaked in the 80s, petered out over the 90s, and then went fucking crazy in their own separate ways.

(Have you read Lost Girls? It's a love letter to underage sex with astonishingly awful art.)

I politely disagree.

People say that Miller lost his mojo. I don't think he ever had it to begin with. My main, real issue with Miller is that his themes and ideas are very shallow. He touches on philosophical ideas, be he never scratches below the service. In TDKR, for instance, a news anchor brings up the issue of civil liberties, and whether it's ethical for Batman to be a vigilante. That was a really interesting question, and I was curious to see how Miller would flesh it out. Only he didn't. His response seemed to be "because he's Batman. Of course he's right." The whole book was like that. He didn't adequately explore any of his ideas. He seemed to suggest that Batman was rather mentally unbalanced at the beginning, but that thread is never followed. He seems to question whether Batman should kill or not, but he doesn't really go into any depth. I thought, for a moment, that Batman was a sort of parody of over violent superheroes, but then I realized he was being played seriously. Miller touched on a lot of important issues, but he never fleshed them out.

Compare that to Moore's Watchmen. We get a real in depth look at how deranged a person has to be to dress up and fight crime. Rorschach is mentally damaged, ozzy is obsessed with his legacy, Hooded Justice was a masochist... none of them were really doing it for anyone else. They made the world worse. Is it good to be a masked vigilante? Of course not. We even see this in V for Vendetta. Alternatively, look at Moore's exploration of the ubermansch. There are at least three in Watchmen. We have Rorschach, who forms his sense of morality, Ozzy, who represents a kind of ideal man, and Dr. Manhatten, who has evolved past our concept of right and wrong. They're all Nietzsche's "superman," and yet their all different. There's also the obvious pun of philosophical "supermen" who are also literal supermen. Moore's ideas are like a complex web, and they're thoroughly explored. I just don't get that from Miller.