It serves the same purpose.

Don't like the movie, but I dig that scene.

He stole that guy's PI-zzas!

Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) is allowed to be a flawed character in her own right with insecurities that stem from her emotionally abusive father. And Barrett argues that Spider-Man is explicitly interested in challenging Peter’s desire to put Mary Jane on a pedestal. Plus as she puts it, “A woman in a movie…

I just don't put superhero comics in the band of quality you do. I like them fine, but the smartest superhero stories are fairly dumb, and the dumbest of them are often mistaken for the smartest.

And that's a crucial key point right there: as a comic book filmmaker, if you're not prioritizing the comic book you're adapting above all else, then there's no reason to make a comic book movie.

I find a lot of the reading into Miller's work in the article above to be pretty generous. I don't know how folks can consider this a deep character study of Batman or Superman; it just went slightly deeper than its contemporaries.

The good news is, they were reprinted in paperback in 2012. The bad news is, Gillis accused Marvel of doing it to build a case for their rights to the characters, which he disputes. They're no longer in print now but you can find them around.

Apocalypse was famously a script & art quick fix himself, as I understand it. It's a gap between page and screen that we will likely not see anything nearly as visually striking as those long panels Guice drew of the faces of the dread gods of the world as Apocalypse describes his past.

Gillis maintains to this day that because he never signed a work-for-hire contract like his artists, Marvel does not own full rights to the property. I agree with him that a few things Marvel did in the early 2010s look shady, like they were gearing up for a legal battle before a planned adaptation.

Marvel didn't even bother crediting him on Civil War, which makes sense because it will have nothing to do with his story of the same name. His response to it was priceless, pure Millar.

Hickman tried to fold it into his scripts recently. I thought, I hope they just leave it alone because it's much better than what I'm reading here.

It's a debacle.

With X-Factor debuting that year, we also got the stories likely to have been loosely adapted into this year's "X-Men" film.

Chaykin > Miller

In Red Son, Lois Lane remarks to Lex Luthor that Jimmy Olsen looks familiar - in this story, he works for the CIA and Lex tells Lois there's no reason she should remember him from anywhere, so I thought that might reference something that was hiding on an earlier page and would become important later. But no, Millar…

I think a lot of comics fans may underestimate how much Dark Knight Returns resonates with everything they say they dislike about Snyder's movies. And don't get me wrong: I'm not defending Snyder.

Superman's behavior in the Dark Knight Returns script is more baffling to me than anything else. His behavior doesn't seem consistent with any internal voice; he just seems like he does what Miller wants him to do to help define Batman as great.

Can I ask what you like about the art? I've enjoyed Miller at his craziest and to me, this book hits a perfect un-sweet spot between his kung-fu noir and his nutty psychedelia: too wacked-out to charm and too grounded to amaze.

And that was still sort of new at the time for a comic book, especially since the sort of readers that elevated the book to brief critical interest wouldn't have known any other version of Batman.