Daredevil Message Board

[The Overlord]

Most people would agree Frank Miller's run fundamentally changed the Daredevil title and added a lot of iconic elements.

But how much should Frank Miller's legacy inform Daredevil? A lot of people accuse writers after Miller of aping Miller's run (how times has DD suffered a Born Again style event) and not coming up with enough original ideas.

However some people have also disliked runs that they feel move too far the Miller tone, like the recent Waid run, with some fans thinking Waid actively disrespected Miller.

[Mike Murdock]

I don't think Waid disrespected Miller's run, but I also don't think Miller's run was as dark as people think it was. To me, it should be the baseline tone with the ability to go lighter or darker but not completely overhauling it.

Frank Miller's run was groundbreaking for a reason. But I think it was more a consolidation of what worked well before as opposed to throwing it all out and starting over. Given that, I do think it deserves its disproportionate impact. That being said, I dislike those who are afraid to expand the villains Miller used. I sometimes get the impression the only valid Daredevil villains are gangsters and ninjas and I disagree with that.
_________________
Matt Murdock's cooler twin brother

Not sure what to read next? Check out the Book Club for some ideas!

I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Thomas More - A Man for All Seasons

[Crimson]

[The Overlord]

[Pete]

I'm old enough to remember Ann Nocenti start on the book virtually straight after Millers 'Born Again' and (especially when she picked up speed and a regular art team) going on to produce an amazing run of issues.

She must have been on the book, what, about four to five years? Completely different from Miller. Disrespectful? Whatever. I call it 'doing your own thing', telling good stories with strong characterisation, and being original.

Too many people have come along since and played around in the sandbox that Miller built and just produced second rate Miller. I include the likes of Bendis in that, although I enjoyed most (not all) of that era. Some of this 'repetition' would have come from directives from on high at Marvel while some of it comes from the fact that the writers themselves either haven't got an original idea in their head or are too 'in awe' of the seminal work produced by Miller. Neither applied to Nocenti.

It's amazing how comic books as a whole are still in thrall to the work of Alan Moore and Frank Miller from the 1980's. It was so good it was said (at the time) it would usher in a new dawn for the graphic medium. Instead, probably to the dismay of both Miller and Moore, it just saw pale imitations of their own work. Daredevil (Nocenti and one or two other notable exceptions aside) is a prime example of this.

So, in answer to the original question. How much should Miller inform DD? Not one bit. Nocenti and Waid have that at least in common, even if one, in my opinion, was very successful while the other, more recently, ultimately left a lot to be desired.

[Dimetre]

[Darkdevil]

Miller's legacy defines the character yet the character shouldn't be limited to just that legacy.

For a static comic character like DD, in order to remain vibrant and fresh, the character's boundaries need to be pushed and expanded periodically. New avenues and genres to explore, villains and supporting cast to introduce. Some of these may stick, some may not.

Miller's legacy, perhaps even better, his redefinition of DD can now be seen as the character's normal status quo. When the experimental changes, whatever form they may take, have run their course, the title and character can be reset nominally back to Miller's version of him.

New ideas and characters are necessary for aping what has come before in hopes of achieving the same level of success is a self-defeating goal and doesn't serve the readers at all let alone the character himself.