"Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again" Talkback (Spoilers)

[James Harvey]

The comic of 2001 starts today, The Frank Miller sequel to the 1986 classic mini-series has been the center of a media hype campaign, but is it worth it?

BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN

http://www.dccomics.com/media/product/1/2/1281_180x270.jpg (http://www.dccomics.com/media/covers/1281_400x600.jpg)

Written by Frank Miller; Art by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley

The Dark Knight returns once again to wage a new war on a diseased world that's become completely lost.

Comments? Thoughts?

[SMiLEY]

I got your hype, right here!

http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3744/avfeature_3744.html

[The Guard]

SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS


Very entertaining. Captures the tone of DK very well. As for the story. The Atom, Green Arrow, Barry Allen have returned. Sweet. Although The Flash's new costume sucks. Have a feeling we'll be seeing Hal Jordan.

What's up with Wonder Woman and Superman? Do they have a telepathic link?

We finally see what keeps Superman in line. Sad.

Lex Luthor looked like a damn monkey.

The scene in the cave was great.

[MattL.]

*sigh* great more Superman as a government puppet, and grim n' gritty comics.

Just what we needed. :rolleyes:

[DerekPowers]

SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS


I thought it was great. especially the superman fight in the cave, that was awesome!!

only thing is, from what miller was saying about it, he made it seem very different from the first, in terms of story and artistic style, but it was very similar imo. very similar, i was alittle dissapointed since i was expecting something radically different from the first. but it still kicks.

yeah, whats up w/ sups and ww's telethapy??

also, whats the whole deal with luthor and the miniture kryptonian city? is that from dc back in the day??

also, lex as the puppet master behind the whole operation of the world, hmmm, it got potential to be something explosive but boarder lines on being too obvious. i mean, w/ all these dcu characters, it seemed alittle overwhelming and trite.

hey, but dont get me wrong, im just playing devils advocate, i actually loved it, and think its evil of them to make us wait, what, a month and a half, for the next issue?? noooooo!!!

one more thing, all that batboy who killed those people got was latriene duty (and a beating)??? seems like he got off alittle easy.

peace.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by MattL.
*sigh* great more Superman as a government puppet, and grim n' gritty comics.

Just what we needed. :rolleyes:

Yep! Just the way I like 'em! :D

SPOILERS


Overall I liked it, though it sort of felt like a lot of set up for the rest of the story to come. The whole Illuminati-type thing is ok, but maybe has been done a few too many times already. Hopefully Miller will throw some spin on it. I liked that Supes got a good beating again - I can never get enough of that. I've got a feeling that Supes won't remain the government stooge through the whole thing though.

[The Guard]

I don't feel so angry as Superman now. Turns out he's being blackmailed...

[Heehaw]

So far, so good.

This is 3 issues, which lends itself well to three acts. This was obviously Act 1 since it introduces everybody and gets us into the universe. Act 2 should be the meat. Can't wait.

[ikari_ryou]

SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER

hmmm... i dunno'... it's funny because it's all in "thought boxes," but i think maybe Clark and Diana could have been talking. i mean, they've got a really good sense of hearing, right? :p

[The Guard]

Not that good.

Something no one's complained enough about.

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO BARRY'S COSTUME???

That is hands down, the STUPIDEST design I've ever seen.

I like the black/yellow color scheme, but SHORTS? The man runs faster than...he'll FREEZE HIS LEGS OFF!!!

And what's with Miller giving everyone giant shoes?

[ikari_ryou]

i dunno... creative license?

guess he'll have to step on some of our toes to get the thing done. oh well, it's still a valiant effort. :D

[Kathy Kane]

WOW!!!
I was quite surprised at this comic!
I loved it! It gave new insight to what happened to all the superheros of the DCverse. I was shocked when the Question appeared, one I didn't except to see him, two I 've only heard about this guy. Good to see him and the others in action.
the one punch fight of Supes & Bats is worth the price.

the only bad thing about the book is ...well I want MORE!!!
Say does anyone know if this is a monthy book or a bimonthy???

call me kane.

[mgibson72]

I was very surprised on how fast the action got going. With DK1, it seemed that Miller took his time to set up the story and I really didn't get that sense with DK2. I think that maybe he could have taken his time to get us informed with what's going on in the world these days.

But some questions: Does anyone else think it's a bit goofy that Luthor would have the capacity to have Superman, Wonder Woman AND Captain Marvel by the throats? And where are the scenes of Gotham, Metropolis and its people? And what's up with all of the T&A on network television?!? Sheesh!

*sigh* I know that the underlying message is that the heroes with little or no powers are the real saviors of mankind, but I really hope that Superman is redeemed by the end of this one...!

[Karkull]

Great book.

One thing caught my attention, particularly:

The "pre-Crisis" Brainiac, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, and the bottle city of Kandor.

After reading this (and the first one) do you ever get the feeling that this series picks up where the pre-Crisis DC Universe left off--if there was no Crisis on Infinite Earths? It's like it never happened and this is the end result.

Oh yeah:

Catgirl was awesome. I'm also glad to see Batman pick up where he left off with Superman.

[mgibson72]

Isn't this a DK2 talkback? Why would anyone who hasn't read the book be involved with a talkback forum? Come on, guys!

[Clayface]

Originally posted by The Guard
Not that good.

Something no one's complained enough about.

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO BARRY'S COSTUME???

That is hands down, the STUPIDEST design I've ever seen.

I like the black/yellow color scheme, but SHORTS? The man runs faster than...he'll FREEZE HIS LEGS OFF!!!



To be honest, it didn't bother me at all. Yeah, he runs fast, so he'd get cool from the air running across his skin, but at the same time, wouldn't he generate a ton of heat from the muscle contractions? I mean, I'm not a regular reader of Flash comics, but it seemed to make sense to me.




And what's with Miller giving everyone giant shoes?


In recent years Miller's art has taken a bit or an odd turn - he has this habit of giving everyone really big feet and hands. Not sure if its intentional by him, or if his sense of proportion is getting skewed.

[Tracer]

OK, I just read it and it is AWESOME!!

SPOILERS!!!!!

I loved that they incuded more people from DCU but I get the feeling he brought back Barry Allen to distance himself from the "Possible Future" cries of the public. Unfortunately for me that takes a lot of the magic out of it for me.

I also find it hard to believe that 3 of the most powerful people in DCU can be held at bay like this. I REALLY NEED a DK0 to explain what happened to the heroes (and the world before DK1). I was willing to accept it in DK1 but knowing that some of the heros are being manipulated like this is too much without knowing HOW!!!!!

My top questions are:

Why can't Mary M. change and save her self. Billy still has his power.

Why has the Captain Marvel version of billy Aged?? I know it is Frank's universe but everything seems to say he would age even slower than Superman.

How do you catch, much less trap the flash for years?? Yes the costume sucks, I do like the darker color thought :p

Did anyone notice that one of the female reporters had the last name of LANE??? She looks kind of familiar too!!

[Tracer]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karkull
[B]Great book.

After reading this (and the first one) do you ever get the feeling that this series picks up where the pre-Crisis DC Universe left off--if there was no Crisis on Infinite Earths? It's like it never happened and this is the end result.



I noticed that too. That is an interesting theory.

[doctorcrime]

ok, obviously there are going to be spoilers...

first of all, i can't remember the last time i was this excited for a movie or any other debut. i am glad that miller needed the money- er, i mean i am glad that he "had another story to tell." i really love his new style which is not really new but has evolved since DKR. i found his character designs to be great. however, his dialogue and plot to be predictable and lame. in the first overpriced issue, he has not done anything groundbreaking or impressive. it would be ok if it was simple and trying to be that, but it is just trying to be grand and coming up short. i love it anyway. i am sure i am going through what many star wars fans went through when they released episode 1. i know there will be people who say "you just have to wait until they are all out until it all comes together." i hope that this is the case for DKSA as well as the star wars franchise, but i won;t hold my breath for the latter.

[doctorcrime]

the dark knight returns is a tough act to follow. so far the sequel (yes, frank, it is a sequel.) isn't nearly as revlutionary and creative but it does promise too be one hell of a story which is fine by me. however, i will do some more complaining. this of course brings me to his wife's coloring. lynn varley has graced the comic page time and time again with her understanding of color and her domination over her pallette of unique washes. so what the hell happened? i like the bright and flashy colors and understand their purpose to establish a phony "perfect" world that is the stage for this tale, but she attacks the page like a kid just introduced to photoshop. is this why frank went black and white for sin city? the computer generated pixel effect completely distracts the flow of the story and looks very amateur. i am sure she is trying to do something different, but it simply looks like crap. her coloring style just doesn't complement miller's art at all in this issue.

[doctorcrime]

furthermore, i would like to congratulate miller on not really giving a damn about continuity getting in the way of telling his story. this is a fictional batman tale, but aren;t they all? there is no reality to hold to when writing a piece of fiction. continuity is just something a writer chooses to use to give readers a sense of being thrown into the world and revisiting it to see what will happen. i don't think continuity adds to a story as much as it drags it down. why is it that whenever we comic nerds sit down and talk about comics, it always turns into a discussion on continuity? i prefer independent stories instead of illustrated soap operasdragged out forever.

[Nass]

You do realize its an ELSEWORLDS tale right? Continuity doesn't mean diddly here. Like Kingdom Come (which SHOULD be the future) and Batman Beyond.

[Karkull]

I looked at the art again and I noticed something: do you think that Frank incorporated a bit of Erik Larsen for this series? I see a bit of Erik's style (semi-cartoony bodies, etc) in there.

[Heehaw]

WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO BARRY'S COSTUME???

Catgirl redesigned it. It makes sense in this universe and looks like something a 16-year old would come up with.



And what's with Miller giving everyone giant shoes?

It's his style.



the computer generated pixel effect completely distracts the flow of the story and looks very amateur

The 2 panels that are really pixelated make sense since the Prez is a computer generated image. That is exactly how it would look on a TV monitor if the picture broke up like that. I have digital cable and it bugs me when that happens.


Did anyone notice that one of the female reporters had the last name of LANE??? She looks kind of familiar too!!

It's Lana from Smallville.


And what's up with all of the T&A on network television?!? Sheesh!

T&A on the boob tube(heh) is the new trend these days. New in the nude is a realworld thing. I think Miller is injecting some social commentary. In fact, I'm sure of it. There are tons of "gripes" and comments in regards to modern day stuff in the book. This nude news thing is one of them and I think you can put a :rolleyes: next to those panels when reading it.

[X-human]

I think Miller handled Superman very well, in that Superman wasn't really crazy or anything, but that Superman was being very minimalist with his actions for turning the world towards peace, and Batman was taking it head on. Which was ironic since it flips when they actually go into a fight. In a fight, Batman takes a step back and calculates while Superman just rushes in.

I don't like Miller's giant feet on people, but I really enjoy the gaint hands. Big feet look goofy or silly, but big hands give the sense of power. It's hard to even believe that Lex Luthor's look, since he looks like any thug from Sin City, but maybe it's just trying to show how Lex has degrated has the years have gone by. Or we're looking for too deep. :D

I think Frank Miller should stick with B&W, it just suits his art far better.

[Tracer]

Originally posted by Heehaw


It's Lana from Smallville


It can't be.

1) she's too young
2) Lois' last name is Lane, Lana's is Lang

[Bird Boy]

Originally posted by Tracer


It can't be.

1) she's too young
2) Lois' last name is Lane, Lana's is Lang

Maybe it's a typo....


And I hate interrupting your convo's guys, but, do you know when more of ish #1 will ship? my comic book stores are sold out I'm afraid.. :(

-BB

[Tracer]

Originally posted by Bird_Boy


Maybe it's a typo....


And I hate interrupting your convo's guys, but, do you know when more of ish #1 will ship? my comic book stores are sold out I'm afraid.. :(

-BB

I know my comic store was getting more the following week. I asked about it the Monday before, just in case they sold out before I could get mine.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Tracer
It can't be.

1) she's too young
2) Lois' last name is Lane, Lana's is Lang
Well I thought it was obvious she was Lois Lane's daughter but now I'm not so sure anymore...

[Salvor]

I really loved this first ish by the way. I was only irked by a few minor things. Those giant shoes/hands sorta bothered me at first but I got used to it. Yet I was extremely put out by the completely disproportionned Dark Knight in the very last pannel.

As for the story, the cave scene was great but looked like FM just copied and pasted the final showdown of 'DK Returns'. Still I was thrilled to watch one of Batman's greatest entrances!

[Tracer]

Originally posted by Salvor

Well I thought it was obvious she was Lois Lane's daughter but now I'm not so sure anymore...

That was my first thought too (Clark and Lois' daughter) but after Wonder Woman's comment, I am not so sure either.

[DerekPowers]

Originally posted by Tracer


That was my first thought too (Clark and Lois' daughter) but after Wonder Woman's comment, I am not so sure either.

the thing i was confussed about was, if it was clark and lois's daughter, wouldnt lois be against naming her lana?? also, in the first dkr, wasnt lana lang a reporter? so i was like, lana LANE??? hmm, maybe it will be explained later on. or maybe it was a typo and they just got their L's mixed up. lex luthor, lois lane, lana lang, yeesh, superman sure has alot of Ls.

[James Harvey]

What does everyone think about Catgirl? It's weird to see Carrie promoted from Robin...to Catgirl. Yet in a way - it is appropriate. I don't think we'd see another another Batgirl.

[The Guard]

I don't know. Why didn't she just stay Robin? Unless she'd ben operating while Bruce was in retirement after the events of Dark Knight Returns. Makes sense that having a Robin out there would make people suspicious.

[Samhaine]

Did you notice that it was Lana Harper-Lane, was in she married into the Lane family?

I don't know about anyone else, but I was laughing throughout the cave sequence. Everything Bats said just had me cracking up. I guess the past three years with Carrie lightened him up a bit.

[Tracer]

Originally posted by Dick Grayson
What does everyone think about Catgirl? It's weird to see Carrie promoted from Robin...to Catgirl. Yet in a way - it is appropriate. I don't think we'd see another another Batgirl.

I agree, everytime I think of batgirl it is in a light hearted batman on tv kind of way. Catowman (girl) fits the dark, grimy atmosphere of DK2. The one think that is wierd about that is the costume change from job to job. first is was a grayish catgirl kinda thing, then she was cheetah... i wonder if that pissed WW off :D

[James Harvey]

Yeah - I can't see WW being too fond of Catgirl's new costume. I agree, the whole Batgirl thing comes off as sorta campy and PC. The current BATGIRL has avoided that, somehow, but I'm still not very fond of that character. Having Carrie as Catgirl just works nicely.

[The Shadow]

Question: Did the backmailing of Superman begin before or after the events in The Dark Knight Returns?

[James Harvey]

I think in TDKR, it was mentioned that Superman has been a government patsy for quite sometime. I'll re-read TDKR and find out.

Anyone else stoked to see Ron & Don back in there?

[mgibson72]

Getting back to Lana Harper-Lane...

I know that one of the Titans, Arsenal (aka Speedy), had a street name of Roy Harper.

And Clark Kent had a Smallville friend named Pete something that got into politics and had a relationship with Lana Lang. Was his last name Harper?

Isn't it interesting that Lois' name is last? ;)

[James Harvey]

Did it ever mention of Lana was mentione din the first DK? I don't remmebe rit being mentioned in there. It's possible that it's Lana's daughter.

[mgibson72]

Lana Lang was in DKR as a loudmouthed TV reporter much like Jimmy Olsen is in DK2. And since Lana Harper-Lane doesn't have Lang as one of her last names, I don't think it could be Lana Lang's daughter...

My brain hurts now.

[Bird Boy]

Ahh..my comic shop got more in..I went..I bought..I came home..I read...I enjoyed.. :)

It was great..I know I hated TDKR....but this one....WOAH..I loved it! Dunno why..I just loved it. What's the date for issue #2? and is the cover out yet?

I could go on and on about this..but I think I'll stop..ah..I think I need to read it again..

-BB

[MatchesMalone]

My copy of DK2 must be misprinted or something. All my backgrounds are missing except for maybe three or four panels...I can never tell where the characters are. Most of the backgrounds are just garish, brightly colored swirls of of computerized color.

A background! A background...my kingdom for a background!

AAAAAGH!!!


Did like the story tho'

[James Harvey]

I read in an article that the bright colors are supposed to represent the optomistic feel of the time in DK2. I think it does a good job. It does sorta provides an iffy concept of background, but I was enjoying the series too much to really notice. I think the coloring is very good and very unique, just like DK1.

[Gotham Knights '68]

If you thought Frank Miller had something against Superman????...
How do you think he feels about Dick Grayson - eh???? :eek: :eek: :confused: :eek:

Man - what a story! I've waited all this time to read any part of DK2. Then I read pt one Monday, Two Tuesday and just read pt three today. Frank Miller and Lynn Varley are going to be signing at my comic shop next Thursday 8/8 - I CAN'T WAIT !!!

Basically - I'm pretty much blown away with whole thing - really loved the art esp. the coloring. I mean the cover for Part 3 was just awesome with the color schemes and style. Loved seeing the classic DCU FM stlye, I thoroughly enjoyed the entire storyline from beginning to end - oh, speaking of the end ....

Dick Grayson smashing around Carrie, nearly pulping and slicing her to death - Disguised as the Joker - dressed as Robin - Then the whole secret code thing...Biff Pow...Very amusing, Then the whole Bruce ripping Dick apart.

This whole ending just completely blew my mind - very intense drawings and dialouge - IMO a perfect ending!!!

[Ms. Kitty]

MAJOR SPOILER....
Dick Grayson smashing around Carrie, nearly pulping and slicing her to death - Disguised as the Joker - dressed as Robin - Then the whole secret code thing...Biff Pow...Very amusing, Then the whole Bruce ripping Dick apart.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Holy moley! :cool:

Question: "Then the whole Bruce ripping Dick apart." Does that mean Bruce kills Dick? :eek: :confused:

[DerekPowers]

i really enjoyed this book, mainly for the art. lynn varelly's coloring really grew on me, especially all that pixelating stuff. as for the story, all i can say is non-stop action with alot of awesome superheros!! and batman actually played a much bigger role in this book than in the past 2.

so i was enjoying it all the way till the end when (major spoiler) it is reveled that that joker imposter was actually a genetically mutated dick grayson. i thought that was so un necessary. it did absolutely NOTHING to advance the story in any real way, it seemed like such a drastic thing to do to one of BATMAN'S greatest characters for such an frivioulus, retarded reason. that ending really just killed it for me. it was good, but the ending sucks!! and that just brings it really down imo. and the actual last page was very lame, i couldnt believe frank miller ended it with those last panels.

to be fair i did really enjoy the story, the whole brainac fight with lara was awesome, and bruce facing off w/ lex was great. i was alittle confused, though, as to how those kendor kryptonians made that escape. didnt lex say they were powerless due to red sun rays?? i didnt get it, but the art and explosions were freaking great!

now that its over, i think we can fairly compare how it holds up to the original. and in my opinion i think the original dk is way better, no comparison. this one had its strong points, but over all it tried to focus on so much and seemed to use such legendary characters in such silly and meaningless ways. i mean, honestly, when i got to the part w/ dick grayson, i was thinking who the hell does frank miller think he is!!! why the hell would he do something like that? i could except it if it was and intregal part of the story, but it was so out of no where, right down to catgirl's flash back. what the heck was that?? oh, did this happen inbetween books or something?? it seemed so tacked on.

i give it a B. but on second thought what he did to dick grayson makes me give it a B-.

:wakko:

[Patrick Bateman]

What he did to Dick Grayson is flat-out WRONG. :mad:

[Russkafin]

Was anyone else disgusted when Batman not only stood by and let Hawkman kill Luthor, but then cheered him on for doing so?

There was a lot of symbolism in that ending... Carrie protests that Batman is destroying his history (in blowing up the Batcave), and Batman doesn't really care.

There's also plot holes galore... didn't the Batcave already get blown up at the end of the original DKR? And how did Batman get captured by Luthor? One minute he has all those electrodes on him when he's communicating with Superman (through a device that was planted in Superman's ear, yet Supes' daugther can see and hear Batman as well), and the next, he is Luthor's prisoner. I could go on and on about this, but I won't. The Dick Grayson stuff was just ridiculous.

Let's see... 8 bucks an issue for 3 issues... we all paid 24 bucks for this? Frank Miller's gotta be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Reed Richards]

Originally posted by Batman Year One
What he did to Dick Grayson is flat-out WRONG. :mad:

Indeed. Furthermore, what Frank has done to Superman is flat-out wrong.

He has an all-too obvious loathing for Superman and decides to take it out in his own comics-- i hated DK1 and I am forced to hate DK2-- the worst part about this is that I am a huge Batman fan and love almost everything else done by frank and by the whole bat-team. No-Mans-Land was great as was Long Holloween. Dk and DK2 are, simply put, trash, both in terms of the art (which i find repugnant and repulsive) and the story. In my humble opinon (and i know that many on this board are big time DK fans and I really dont want to offend them-- keep in mind this is solely my opinion on the DK series) the DK series cannot even hope to compare with Long Holloween or No Mans Land.

Please DC-- no more. Batman is great, i love him to death, but please dont do another DK(3). I love Batman but i Love the other characters in the DCU as well, and DK sullies them all. :(

[DerekPowers]

yes, plot holes is right. lets see, as already mentioned Lara was able to see the batman illusion that suposidly superman was able to see cause he had some device planted in his head. huh??

how the heck did those kryptonians help Lara? how'd they escape? howd they get super powers all of a sudden?

and yes, the fact that batman cheered on hawkman to kill luthor is kind of strange, as well as catgirl violently killing the joker thing BEFORE she knew he was imortal. um, and am i wrong or did superman also blow up those military helicopters w/ his heatvision w/ no regard for those inside? the fact that he was saying how he was not human throughout that whole scene leads you to think he too has no problem w/ killing these days.

but the dick grayson thing was ubsurd. there was no reason what so ever for that! plus, to hear dick say to bruce how he loved him and all bruce says was he never really needed dick, he said dick was a coward and was weak and really harsh stuff. um, miller needs to realize that you cant just do stuff like that, especially if you dont even tell us what happened. um, okay, so dick grayson was weak AND coward, hmmm, maybe he should have built that into the story line somehow and explored bruce and dick's relationship instead of just tacking it on at the end for the hell of it.

[Karkull]

The Dark Knight Returns was a brilliant piece of comic book storytelling. The Dark Knight Strikes Back was pointless, gratuitous, and lacking any deeper meaning. Frank Miller is laughing all the way to the bank -- he was able to make tons of cash on a crappy follow-up to his original classic.

[Dark Knight]

I totally agree with you guys. I was thoroughly enjoying the story (plot holes like the device in Supermans ear and Lara being able to hear and see Batman aside, those things never bug me too much) but then this pointless and ridiculous portrayal of Dick Grayson comes in and the whole thing just fell apart. Why couldn't this thing just end about ten pages sooner??? Unbelievable!

[The Guard]

What he did to the DC UNIVERSE is flat out wrong.

One word describes this...abominaton: It rhymes with "hit".

If this is his best, then Frank Miller is finished. If this is how he pokes fun at us for wanting a sequel to DKR...

...then Frank Miller is finished.

The art was S***! Pure and simple. Some of the drawings looked like action figures. Bodies all out of porportion, that ridiculous cartoon look...triangular heads, everyone looking like Hector Hammond...sad.

Now then...

Things that made me LOATHE issue #3:

Pretty much everyone's dialogue. Especially Batman's.

Hal Jordan going from some cosmic void where he has pet dinosaurs, back to Earth, where he is the size of The Spectre, with NO EXPLANATION.

Bruce's speech with the "cool computerized background"

The art again. Look at Superman on page 21. He looks like a damned toy. And let's not get into the squished talking heads througout...

Batman's devolvement into an ill-fitting costume and scraggly beard...

Hal Jordan's lack of a streak in his hair.

Batman abandoning the flying car for a kickass Batwing and then going back to the flying car.

Lex Luthor wearing dish gloves, and looking like a worse version of the monkey he was in issue #2.

Batman getting caught and imprisoned in Jell-O.

Suddenly being able to see Batman's eyes instead of just white.

Batman using slang.

Batman drinking tea.

Green Lantern.

"WAY TO GO KID, THAT WAS GREAT!"

60's TV show references.

Dick Grayson's...transformation.

Batman using a small axe to slice off Dick's head. And then Dick catching the head.

Why does Batman look like a battle-damaged Wildcat at the end?

All of you who have raved about this...thing:

Frank Miller has lost it. Whine all you want about statements and artistic license, but when a creator shows NO respect for something he helped create...even if he's poking fun at something, or making "a statement"...

Looking forward to the YEAR ONE movie now?

[Jack Napier]

I thought it was the worst sequel ever...

Down to the art, the plot holes, and the not making sence.

All I can say is that I really enjoyed the first issue, hated the second and loathed the third. It trully was terrible.

Jack Napier

[DerekPowers]

WHAT PISSES ME OFF THE MOST....is before this sequal came out frank miller said in more than one interview that dc approached him about possibly doing a "frank miller's dc universe" some time after dk2 was finished. like he'd have his own continuum, and would be able to write stories using dc's heros in his own continuty.

that pretty much explains, in my book anyway, why he so selfishly and pointlessly stuck every freaking dc hero into this mediocre sequel. the whole thing STINKS of self-promotion and the flat out EGOTISM on his part that any of us would accept such ridiculous incarnations just because FRANK MILLER wrote them, really gets me steamed. i repeat, who the HELL does he think he is doing that do dick grayson?? and who the hell does he think he is treating comic readers like IDIOTS--offering no explaination for such events and just tacking them on at the end even though it had practically nothing to do with the story at all.

because i knew what a talented comic writer/artist he was with dkr, i let little plot holes slide in dk2, and gave it the benefit of the doubt. BUT i dont care how good the dkr WAS, that was almost 20 years ago and it wont save him from what he did to dick grayson. that ending just made it clear to me that he took advantage of how much people liked him and over estimated how much suspension of disbelief we were willing to under take just because we wanted to like this book so much. his ego let him think he could feed us such nonsense and drivel as "dick grayson was genetically altered so he cant die and batman states that all along he never needed robin because he was weak and a coward." please.

um, im not willing to make THAT slide, so i hope frank miller and dc are listening because if frank miller releases any other "frank miller's dc universe" in the future, i for one will pass.

[Reed Richards]

wow im glad you all agree with me

here i was afraid that I was the only one alive who absolutly hated DK2

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Originally posted by Reed Richards
here i was afraid that I was the only one alive who absolutly hated DK2

No, I hated the whole thing once I realized I couldn't finish reading the first issue in the comic store. After browsing this thread, I'm glad I didn't waste my money on the issue.

-- Ed/Ace

[Karkull]

Originally posted by The Guard
Frank Miller has lost it.

Has he? I think he chose not to use it. He took the job for cash and it shows.

[Patrick Bateman]

batman states that all along he never needed robin because he was weak and a coward.


Does he honestly expect us to believe that Batman would waste his time on a partner who was "weak and a coward"? I don't think so.

[Reed Richards]

Originally posted by Karkull


Has he? I think he chose not to use it. He took the job for cash and it shows.


Karkull I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Frank's a sellout. Nothing more, nothing less. He COULD have produced a great series........had he wanted to. But he was offered so much money that he decided he DIDNT want to waste his time doing so.

[Clayface]

Wow. I totally disagree with all of you. I reserved my judgement on this series until I had read the whole piece, and I gotta say, I loved it.

This is Frank Miller's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, and its just as entertaining as that movie, IMO. In J&SBSB Smith made a movie that was a commentary on the absurdity of making movies for Hollywood, and, at the same time, got to give a big "screw you" to the internet fanboys that over-critizied his work. Now Miller does essentially the same, and I loved it.

Yes, this isn't a "Batman book" like the first DKR - its not a statement about him as a character, nor does it focus on him. Rather, its more of a political and personal statement housed in a story that, really, is a DCU story. it makes a political statement about the state of our government today - its corruption and the fact that, in some ways its become something more than we can control as a people. An interesting statement in and of itself.

But then, on top of this, we get Miller's big "screw you" statement to all the little fanboys that hung out on the internet all these years and cried and moaned about how DKR ruined comics. And I couldn't agree more with what Miller has to say. Much like Smith got to beat the crap out of fanboys in his movie, Miller gets to taunt the Miller-hating fanboys by throwing everything they hold so sacred out the window. He turns the characters up on end, pushing the boundaries of what we hold "sacred" about them, showing that we judge stories often not on how entertaining they are, but by our preconcieved notions of how our heros must act, think, and be. He points out that some fanboys hold far too dearly to thier interpretation of what a character must be, rather than letting the character change or evolve, or being at least open-minded to wildly different interpretations.

DK2 is an elseworlds story. And the point of Elseworlds stories is that you can do whatever you want to the characters. Most blandly and predictably hold to the same old standards and cliches with the characters - placing them in different times, but not changing who they are. Miller is one of the only writers I've ever seen that can really use the Elseworlds to thier full potential - turning all the characters up on end, and making us question who they are and how they act, and making personal and political staments in the process. How anyone could be offended or upset by that I can't understand.

[Clayface]

Ok, so now on to some specific responses to comments made here.



Originally posted by DerekPowers

so i was enjoying it all the way till the end when (major spoiler) it is reveled that that joker imposter was actually a genetically mutated dick grayson. i thought that was so un necessary. it did absolutely NOTHING to advance the story in any real way, it seemed like such a drastic thing to do to one of BATMAN'S greatest characters for such an frivioulus, retarded reason.



Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, but I didn't feel the same way. I believe part of the point to this whole sequel was that Miller is dissatisfied with how bogged down comics have gotten today. How everything has to be a major event, emotionally, financially, etc. He wants comics to go back to the way they were - eras like the Golden and Silver ages, where you could do wacky fun stuff with a character, and not be bogged down by the baggage that comics today have. And, in that regard, he's done much the same with this story - throwing in twists and turns just for the sake of having twist and turns. To have somtehing fun to play with.



Originally posted by DerekPowers

i was a little confused, though, as to how those kendor kryptonians made that escape. didnt lex say they were powerless due to red sun rays?? i didnt get it, but the art and explosions were freaking great!



Lara freed them. If you take a look at it again, you'll see there's a panel that shows her fist smashing through the bottle, freeing them all, and allowing them to soak up the yellow suns rays to gain their super-powers.



Originally posted by Russkafin
Was anyone else disgusted when Batman not only stood by and let Hawkman kill Luthor, but then cheered him on for doing so?



Hmm, not really. All I could think of was the original Batman comics in which Batman did the killing himself, and I thought it was almost a little tame that he set it up for someone else to kill Luthor rather than doing it himself.

Batman kills - horror of horrors! How could Miller ever do that to our beloved gun-hating-never-kill-anyone Bat? Easy, he just took the character back to what Bob Kane originally intended. The current interpretation of Bats says he can't kill or use guns. Older version didn't. The original Batman had The Bat killing small time criminals. Now Miller has Bats arrange for the death of a man who's mercilessly committed, as far as the villian knows, genocide. A man who is about to slaughter a good chunk of the human race. A man that, so far, wasn't able to be stopped because of his immense power and control over the world. A man that had to be killed to be stopped. Didn't seem like a big thing to me at all.



Originally posted by Russkafin
There was a lot of symbolism in that ending... Carrie protests that Batman is destroying his history (in blowing up the Batcave), and Batman doesn't really care.



Indeed there was. And there are quite a few interpretations, I'd imagine. You could say it's Frank's comment to the fanboys that hated him for the impact his comic (DKR) had on the comic industry - that they're far too hung-up on history, and that they need to relax and let some of it go and just enjoy a super-hero book for what it is. Or, you could say that he's making a commentary on his own feeling about DKR - that he's suggesting to future comic writers that DKR shouldn't be used as the template for all comics - that they should forget that part of history and make comics fun again. Or, as most of the cynics here would say, you can interpret it as Miller saying "screw all of Batman's history, and that of the DCU, and screw all my fans". Personally, I'm more inclined to believe its one of the first two.



Originally posted by Russkafin
There's also plot holes galore... didn't the Batcave already get blown up at the end of the original DKR? And how did Batman get captured by Luthor? One minute he has all those electrodes on him when he's communicating with Superman (through a device that was planted in Superman's ear, yet Supes' daugther can see and hear Batman as well), and the next, he is Luthor's prisoner. I could go on and on about this, but I won't. The Dick Grayson stuff was just ridiculous.



The batcave has also been destroyed several times in the mainstream comics - its always rebuilt. Maybe the same thing happened here. Or maybe Frank was making a comment on the absurdity of how the Batcave is always mysteriously re-built in the mainstream comics - a wink and a nod to the fans. There are a number of possible explanations.

Batman let Luthor catch him so he could be there as a distraction, and so he could be there to watch Luthor go down. This was spelled out clearly in the book.

I don't recall if Lara is seeing Batman or not, but I don't see why she wouldn't be able to hear him - I imagine the device in Supes' ear is just a transmitter or some device that excites sound waves, like a mini-speaker or a hearing aid. And if that's the case, her super-hearing should pick it up as well.

I've got a lot more comments about the other posts, but I've gotta get some work done here first. I'll try and get back on later tonight to finish up.

[Kathy Kane]

the thing that angers me the most about this book other than the plot is the terrible ARTwork, my 5 year old cousin draws better than this! Everyone in it looks like a caricture of themselves. Plus what was the porpose of the superchiks and all that stupid man on the street reaction stuff was terrible.

Who ever said that Frank miller was laughing all the way to bank was right.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Was wondering when the Most Malleable Mod would chime in with an opinion on this...


Originally posted by Clayface
But then, on top of this, we get Miller's big "screw you" statement to all the little fanboys that hung out on the internet all these years and cried and moaned about how DKR ruined comics.

I have yet to see a single fanboy on the Internet or anywhere else that claimed DKR "ruined comics." All the derivatve garbage that tried to be DKR with all the violence and profanity and none of the intelligence are what ruined comics in the 80's and 90's.

I do think that DKR and Watchmen killed the superhero comic as we knew it, but never for a second do I consider that a Bad Thing.

So, if we're fanboys who think DKR resurrected comics (it was the one major reason why I started reading the things again in the 80's), then what should we make of Miller's "screw you" statement you feel he's making?


Batman kills - horror of horrors! How could Miller ever do that to our beloved gun-hating-never-kill-anyone Bat? Easy, he just took the character back to what Bob Kane originally intended. The current interpretation of Bats says he can't kill or use guns. Older version didn't. The original Batman had The Bat killing small time criminals.

Can you cite references to these deaths? Deaths aplenty occurred in the early Batman stories, but none of them were directly caused by Batman -- the original Batman story (the one in the chemical plant) had people falling into vats of nasty things while trying to escape Batman, and people fall in rivers or get killed because Batman can't save them in time. The only actual deaths Batman caused in the original comics I can remember was the first Hugo Strange story in Batman#1, where he guns down 50-foot tall monsters using mounted machine guns in the Batplane. Bob Kane figured it'd be OK, since the creatures were not human any more and weren't going to revert back to their original form, but public outcry was so negative that he never had Batman use a gun or kill anyone like that again.

-- Ed/Ace

[Apache Chief]

DK2 was absolute junk. The art, especially in #3, looked so sloppy and rushed. DKR remains one of my favorite comics ever, but this thing.... :mad:
Some things just don't need a sequel. Some things should just be left alone.

[Marc]

All right, I’ve read all these posts and respect all your opinions. Really, I do. So now it’s my turn.

Here goes:
This is exactly why Frank destroyed the DCU! It’s because of negative fan remarks like these. Man, and you wonder why so many creators hate the fans. Fans love you when you do good, and hate you when you don’t. Have any of you actually tried to write and draw monthly comic book? It’s not easy. It’s hard, frustrating work that offers little reward. The money is lousy, the hours stink, and there’s no guarantee that you’ll be working next month. Only a fraction of the artists and writers out there with comic book aspirations can actually make a living at it.

These intense negative comments are pathetic really, and you all should show some respect.

If it wasn’t for Frank Miller and Alan Moore, the comic book industry itself would never have survived through the 90’s. No DKR means no Batman feature film; No Batman film means no Batman Animated series; No Batman: TAS means no Justice League. You get the idea. And I'm pretty sure Marvel never would have survived the bankruptcy. I applaud Frank Miller for the decades worth of great stories he’s told. Ronin, Daredevil, DKR, Sin City. He’s always accomplished exactly what he set out to do. His goal was to destroy the DC Comics universe, and he did just that! For years and years the fans were riding on his back. And so he said: “You brats want a sequel? I’ll give you one!” You people don’t even want to know what I’d do if I ever got a hold of these characters. You’d think Frank’s a saint! Let’s not forget, as Clayface pointed out, this was an Elseworlds story.

Unafraid to take chances, undeterred by whiny so-called fans, Frank Miller creates for himself and himself alone. I hate to break this to you folks, but the day you stop creating for yourself and start creating for the masses, that is the day you become a sellout. And Frank’s not a sellout, he’s a genius. As a writer, I can think of no better role model.

I say well done Frank, well done. I thank you for everything you’ve done for the comic book industry, and support your every future endeavor.

They were right you know: Revenge IS a dish best served cold, and man is it sweet.

[holyholy]

DK2 was awful.

the first issue i enjoyed i'll admit... but the next 2, especially the conclusion, was just... CR@P!!

how do you figure bruce does not even care about dick grayson. puh-leez, and he cares about his new sidekick, even loves her, and doesnt love DG??!!

how in the hell??!! sure we all know this is an alternate future, or hell, an alternate universe... but c'mon... really i think this is just millers likes and dislikes of the dc universe.

for some reason he hates dick grayson, and hates superman, so this is his way of expressing that, through a book that wasted the time of many readers. not to mention the art just distracted me most of the time while trying to read this story.

these big stories have been a disappointment, like marvel's ORIGIN.

hehehe, but if he was to release DK3, hehe, i'd buy it. HAHAHAHA!! my weakness is my curiousity. HEHEHE!!

[Karkull]

I'll be the first (I presume) to admit it: you make some pretty good points, Clayface. You might be reaching with a few of them, but you make a good argument.

I've stewed over it a little, and -- I'll admit -- it had its virtues. The hyper-media exposure was well played out, and I loved the argument between Green Arrow and the Question. I also liked the build up to Batman's return in the first issue and the relationship between Superman and Wonder Woman.

Okay, back to griping, :p. Is it just me, or did this try and emulate Kingdom Come a little bit? It has a similar power struggle, humans versus superhumans, etc. The problem here, however, is -- other than Superman and Batman -- it really didn't stick with anyone for too long. One of the reasons that Kingdom Come worked is that it stuck with a core set of characters and followed them from beginning to end, while here it jumped around a little too much in terms of point-of-view.

[Gluttonous God]

I really loved this book. It was the obvious progression from the first series that I've made a thousand guesses at, but always eluded me.

Look people, Miller has been in comics for almost twenty years. His art style is a progression of every thing he's done in the past and his writing never seems to stray very far off the trail. How can you be so appauled? If you don't like his work, don't buy his books. It's like some people don't understand how comics are made, using artists and writers. At $7.95 a pop you would better off buying lame back issues of John Byrnes work or some other "I play it safe as not to offend the company" writer.

I don't really see this story as a slap in the face to any readers, especially if they read the first series. Batman is fed up with the powers that be and finally organizes his revolution using the superheroes that they had enslaved. I really enjoyed the progression of the government from 80's imperialistic to the non-existant corperate tool that it is today. His view of the media hasn't changed at all though :) . In my opinion the debate over how he used the characters came directly from the fist series as well, boy-scout vs. zorro or elephant vs. mule. You get used or find a way to use yourself.

Mod note: edited content for possible flame-bait material.

[The Guard]

Frank Miller used this to make a personal statement. A statement that we've heard a DOZEN times over. And that's what bothers me. He had a chance to expand on a wonderful world that he helped create, and he chose to "stick it to the fans".

Hmm, not really. All I could think of was the original Batman comics in which Batman did the killing himself, and I thought it was almost a little tame that he set it up for someone else to kill Luthor rather than doing it himself.

That's beside the point. One of the many things that sucked about DKSA was the 180 in terms of characterization. In DKR, Batman couldn't kill The Joker, even when he wanted to. In DKSA, he's murdering thugs with his razorcape.

Batman kills - horror of horrors! How could Miller ever do that to our beloved gun-hating-never-kill-anyone Bat? Easy, he just took the character back to what Bob Kane originally intended.

So? DKR was based on what could have been with the late 70's, early 80's version of Batman. And all of a sudden we're in the Golden Age?

I do think that DKR and Watchmen killed the superhero comic as we knew it, but never for a second do I consider that a Bad Thing.

DKR and WATCHEMEN brought it to life for me. With serious, gripping stories that comics sorely lacked before, for the most part.

Can you cite references to these deaths?

He kills Doctor Death, he kills The Monk, he kills Hugo Strange's giants...

Deaths aplenty occurred in the early Batman stories, but none of them were directly caused by Batman

Well, he DID machine gun the giants...and shoot The Monk...

These intense negative comments are pathetic really, and you all should show some respect.

Why? He didn't show a damn bit of respect for the characters that put him on the map...

If it wasn’t for Frank Miller and Alan Moore, the comic book industry itself would never have survived through the 90’s.

(Falls over laughing)

No DKR means no Batman feature film.

There had been plans for a BATMAN film since about 1982. DKR just inspired Tim Burton to make BATMAN darker than even the comics at the time.

[Reed Richards]

Originally posted by Gluttonous God
I really loved this book. It was the obvious progression from the first series that I've made a thousand guesses at, but always eluded me.

Look people, Miller has been in comics for almost twenty years. His art style is a progression of every thing he's done in the past and his writing never seems to stray very far off the trail. How can you be so appauled? If you don't like his work, don't buy his books. It's like some people don't understand how comics are made, using artists and writers. At $7.95 a pop you would better off buying lame back issues of John Byrnes work or some other "I play it safe as not to offend the company" writer.

I don't really see this story as a slap in the face to any readers, especially if they read the first series. Batman is fed up with the powers that be and finally organizes his revolution using the superheroes that they had enslaved. I really enjoyed the progression of the government from 80's imperialistic to the non-existant corperate tool that it is today. His view of the media hasn't changed at all though :) . In my opinion the debate over how he used the characters came directly from the fist series as well, boy-scout vs. zorro or elephant vs. mule. You get used or find a way to use yourself.

p.s. Superman is a tool!

Frank? Frank Miller? Is that you? :wakko:

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Ace the Bathound

Was wondering when the Most Malleable Mod would chime in with an opinion on this...



Of course! How could I ever stay out of this conversation? I can't keep my big trap shut in talkback threads like these! :D



Originally posted by Ace the Bathound

I have yet to see a single fanboy on the Internet or anywhere else that claimed DKR "ruined comics." All the derivatve garbage that tried to be DKR with all the violence and profanity and none of the intelligence are what ruined comics in the 80's and 90's.

I do think that DKR and Watchmen killed the superhero comic as we knew it, but never for a second do I consider that a Bad Thing.



And I agree. DKR and Watchmen changed the face of the comic industry. And, unfortunately, a lot of the fanboys out there that don't like what the industry has become use DKR as the scapegoat.



Originally posted by Ace the Bathound

So, if we're fanboys who think DKR resurrected comics (it was the one major reason why I started reading the things again in the 80's), then what should we make of Miller's "screw you" statement you feel he's making?



Hehe. Well, that's completely up to you now, isn't it? I personally didn't see it as a "screw you" to me - I've been a fan of him, his work, and especially DKR. I felt I was in on the "joke" - just like I didn't find Kevin Smith's movie insulting - I knew his anger wasn't aimed at me.




Originally posted by Ace the Bathound

Can you cite references to these deaths?



Sure thing. These are just a few references, there are many more.

Detective #27: Batman punches the villian sending him over the edge of a walkway and into a vat of acid. He makes no attempt to save the man, and shows no remorse for the death, saying only: "A fitting end for his kind."

Detective #28: Batman flips a villian off a building, sending him to his death on the street below. Again, no remorse is shown, and Batman makes no attempt to save the guy.

Detective #30: Batman, swinging on his rope, kicks the villian so hard in the head that he snaps his neck and kills him instantly. Nothing is said of the consequences or any remorse.

Detective #32: Batman shoots and kills vampires while they sleep, saying "Never again will you harm any mortal being!" This of course, is also done in the various Batman-as-a-vampire Elseworlds (Red Rain, etc). This, I suppose could be excused in that they're evil undead beings, but still, they were once human.

Detective #33: Batman throws a gas pellet into the cockpit of a plane the villian is flying, causing the villian to pass out, crash his plane in the river, and drown. Batman makes no attempt to rescue the man.

Detective #35: Batman throws a heavy statue at the head of the villian as he's standing in front of a window. The villian is thrown back through the window and falls to his death.

Detective #37: Batman hides in the shadows and watches as a man is stabbed to death brutally, never making an attempt to intervene. Granted, in this case Batman is not directly responsible for the death, but it does show a rather cavalier attitude toward villians and the value of their lives.

With the exception of that last one, Batman was directly responsible for all of the above deaths, and there are other examples as well.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by The Guard
Frank Miller used this to make a personal statement. A statement that we've heard a DOZEN times over. And that's what bothers me. He had a chance to expand on a wonderful world that he helped create, and he chose to "stick it to the fans".



Well, that's where our opinions differ. You see this as some sort of personal vendetta against the fans, I don't.



Originally posted by The Guard
That's beside the point. One of the many things that sucked about DKSA was the 180 in terms of characterization. In DKR, Batman couldn't kill The Joker, even when he wanted to. In DKSA, he's murdering thugs with his razorcape.



What's so different about that? He's just pushed the boudary of how far Bats would go - that's not a huge turn around. We got plenty of scenes in DKR that show Batman has an incredibly sadistic side - just look at all the pleasure he gets out of taking down the mutants with the rubber bullets, or taking down the mutant leader as brutally as possible, or defeating Supes so brutally. He was shown getting pleasure from that sort of thing before in DKR - in DK2, he's just take it even further, relaxing the "no killing" rule. Seems like a somewhat natural evolution to me - the guy's fed up with the crap, and with the villians always getting away with their schemes - he finally seess that sometimes you just have to outright wipe the guy off the face of the Earth to stop him.



Originally posted by The Guard
So? DKR was based on what could have been with the late 70's, early 80's version of Batman. And all of a sudden we're in the Golden Age?



The DKR Batman had a ton of Bob Kane influence! There's nothing new there.

[Reed Richards]

heres a blurb from Cinescape.com 's editorial review:

"It took a little longer than we thought it would, but finally it's over: the long-awaited sequel to Frank Miller's 1986 monster hit, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, finishes this month, thus fulfilling all the hopes, dreams, and desires of those fans who want sequels to series that really don't need them in the first place. We'll know the Apocalypse has come when Alan Moore does WATCHMEN II, but at least we'll know it'll be better than this."

[The Guard]

Well, that's where our opinions differ. You see this as some sort of personal vendetta against the fans, I don't.

No, I see it as beating to death what COULD have been another chapter in a great story. Instead of taking it SERIOUSLY, like say...Jeph Loeb did with DARK VICTORY, he does the worst he can to prove a tired point.

What's so different about that? He's just pushed the boudary of how far Bats would go - that's not a huge turn around.

We go from Batman unable to kill his arch-nemesis to being able to laugh at another's demise, and take PLEASURE in killing. Seems like a huge difference to me.

The DKR Batman had a ton of Bob Kane influence! There's nothing new there.

This I have to hear explained...



__________________

[Mattashell]

Before I say anything about my opinion, I must say that I am disappointed at what seems like people not reading very carefully. The Atom hitched a ride in Lara's (Supergirl) body and escaped through a tear drop when she was at Brainiac's mercy. At the size of a particle, he penetrated the bottle and freed the Kandorians by returning to his size, and thus letting in the rays that made them "super." They remained at their small size, but were able to use their heat vision powers to enhance Lara's.


In order to discuss DK2, one must first focus on how it relates to DKR. It doesn't. Certain aspects of the ending of DKR lend to the departure point of DK2 but this is no sequel. In DKR Bruce pines for Dick. Internally he states how much he misses him by his side and how great he was, the reader gets the impression
Dick is dead. It is hard to pinpoint exactly what of the DC continuity applies to DKR, and I've wondered if the empty Robin suit belonged to Jason Todd or Dick Grayson before, but clearly one gets the impression that if Dick is not dead, at least it wasn't Bruce who chose to terminate the partnership. Also DKR is a focused character study as well as a daring political and social satire focusing on the Reagan administration's approach to everything from economics to warfare, and the left wing media of the time's equally repulsive agenda. This was effectively executed using television screens throughout the book featuring comments from politicians, media people, and people on the street. DK2 lacks any focus at all, makes no comment on anything and the public commentary in now laid on twice as thick and is provided by the likes of Alfred E. Newman, Elvis Presley and Bat-Mite among others.

To focus on DK2 as a stand alone work, I will give it credit for having a great story. One which it unfortunately, entirely fails to tell. Distractions run rampant on this book, which spends about 49% of its time bringing in classic heroes that have no use in the story (The Question, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow) or who are there just to do a single thing to advance the plot but show no real character pressence (Hal Jordan, The Atom, Barry Allan, Hawkman). 49% on the above mentioned "Newmans," who really have nothing to say, I get the impression they are supposed to be funny but, well, they're not. The remaining 2% is what's left for the actual plot of the book. The concept of this book had great potential, but it is wasted in an effort that can only be described as masturbatory. My only comment on the Dick Grayson element, aside from the above mentioned continuity breech, is that it is out of left field, and is unrelated to the rest of the book, but since this whole book lacks any structure connecting one event to the next, it is merely an excess. The book had already gone so far one more stupid idea couldn't really make things any worse.

The art is ugly and offensive to the eye at all times. Their is absolutely nothing redeemable to say about it. I never thought the DKR art was any good, but it was adequate. DK2's art resembles something that may have been created by a subject experimenting with a combination of metha-amphetamines, PCP and high proof liquor, and possibly acid as well. A similar combination would be necessary for the reader to find any enjoyment in such art.

Do I think Frank Millar has lost it? No. Do I think he's a sell out? No. Do I think this is a deliberate insult to his fans? No. One can only speculate as to the reasons for what went wrong here. (My guess is an inflated ego resulting in a lack of effort,) but there is no doubt that The Dark Knight Strikes Again is a complete artistic failure on every level, and I'm sorry I spent my money on it.

[Gluttonous God]

Meth-amphetamines, PCP, and high proof liquor are on hell of an idea. Thanks! LSD will be the icing on the cake. :cool:

I think that the corperate funded, computer animated president was a fine representation of politics in todays America. The lightweight, unfocused media portrayed in DK2 shows it's move to sensationalism as it swings away from the "left", also a realistic interpretation. I also saw the superheroes as an integral piece of Batman's revolution as his mutant thugs seemed very unorganized. Not only was this a successful sequel, I think it finishes what Year One started. How's that for "masterbatory".

On the other hand it was much less focused than the original and I do agree with you about having no serious "man on the street" comentary.

[Sugar Daddy]

I haven't read everyone else's opinions, but I thought I'd post nonetheless..

I bought the first part of DK2 when I had just gotten into comics, around the beginning of the year. Biiiiiggest mistake I made. My problem wasn't even that I didn't understand it(I hadn't read the original DK yet, didn't realize that this was the sequel. I did buy the original DK TPB and re-read the first part of DK2, so all is good there.) My problem lies in the fact that after buying the first 2, I read them, thought about it, and realized they were crap. I only bought the third one because I'm a completist and wanted to see how the story ended(my comic book guy was telling me how my buying this, even as a completist, is showing support for Miller. Which is true, and sucks.) The storyline is nowhere near the quality of the original(which was amazing), and the art has the same problem. I don't think I need to repeat the problems, as I'm sure they have been discussed throughout the thread(for example, Dick Grayson in the last part). That's just my thoughts..

[Clayface]

Originally posted by The Guard
What's so different about that? He's just pushed the boudary of how far Bats would go - that's not a huge turn around.

We go from Batman unable to kill his arch-nemesis to being able to laugh at another's demise, and take PLEASURE in killing. Seems like a huge difference to me.



#1) As already pointed out in my earlier posts, the point Miller is making is that some fans are far too caught up in the history of the characters and how we percieve them and the way they act, letting it get in the way of just enjoying the story. This is a prime example of what he's talking about, and he purposefully threw out everything we knew about the characters to stir things up.

But, if you insist on having some sort of explanation:

#2) People change - their beliefs change, how they act changes, etc. As I said earlier, I don't have any problem with the idea that Batman came to the realization over the years that sometimes the vilian has to die.

#3) He took pleasure in causing pain in the previous book - if he's gotten even more crazy over the years, its not a big leap to see him taking pleasure in watching the death of someone that's commited genocide and is about to kill the human race.





Originally posted by The Guard
The DKR Batman had a ton of Bob Kane influence! There's nothing new there.

This I have to hear explained...



What is there to explain? I see the DKR Batman influenced much more by the Bob kane version than the 70s or 80s version, as you claim.

[Gotham Knights '68]

WOW...this thread has been so enjoyaable to read...

The key thing here is what captaininfinity stated earlier...that this is an elseworld story!

The original Dark Knight was really what started off the whole elseworld stories genre anyway.

Frank Miller has the right to tell his story any way he wants...Did I like his portrayal of Dick Grayson personally? NO - I love Dick Grayson and always will I'm a huge Nightwing fan and feel the character of Dick Grayson is one of the GREATEST in the entire DCU - BUT, the ending of DK2 blew my mind - I had to read it twice to truly understand what I had read - It was definitely something I never expected but hey - It certainly surprised me. I Love elseworld stories and that is exacly what it was - it has nothing to do with current continuity or anything.

I will always love the original, cause of what it did for comics back in '86 to get us to where they are today - especially for Batman, but I really enjoyed DK 2 for entirely different reasons...an elseworld's look of Frank Millers DC Universe, what a ride!!! and I'll always enjoy it!

[Mattashell]

Originally posted by Gluttonous God
Meth-amphetamines, PCP, and high proof liquor are on hell of an idea. Thanks! LSD will be the icing on the cake. :cool:
I think that the corperate funded, computer animated president was a fine representation of politics in todays America. The lightweight, unfocused media portrayed in DK2 shows it's move to sensationalism as it swings away from the "left", also a realistic interpretation. I also saw the superheroes as an integral piece of Batman's revolution as his mutant thugs seemed very unorganized. Not only was this a successful sequel, I think it finishes what Year One started. How's that for "masterbatory".

On the other hand it was much less focused than the original and I do agree with you about having no serious "man on the street" comentary.

You are absolutely right about all of these points. But these good ideas get lost in the mess of too much going on in too short a mini-series. If this had been five books, it could have been imeasurably better, giving Miller time too A) focus on what's happening long enough to get the reader involved. B) Really get inside the characters like he did in DKR and C) Have everything he threw into the first two books have some kind of pay-off. With all that was going on it basicly ended between Batman and Luthor, and Lana and Brainiac, with little else mattering. As it is I have no feelings either way on changes made to characters personalities, but the whole thing over all seems juvenile and disorganized. This book has many great concepts, but unfortunately suffers from bad story telling.



I think that the corperate funded, computer animated president was a fine representation of politics in todays America.

This intrigued me in book one. My only problem is that nothing was really done with it. After the idea was introduced it was kind of forgotten.


The lightweight, unfocused media portrayed in DK2 shows it's move to sensationalism as it swings away from the "left", also a realistic interpretation.

Hmm, I got the idea that Miller was trying to make this point. With the Super Chix representing the current fad of "Pop Stars" and a public that has little to say and is possibly half insane. But I felt it got too out of hand and didn't really work on paper. DKR's running "No I would never live in the city" gag was genuinely funny. DK2's version seems to be an open attack on the citizens on San Fransisco, which, frankly, I don't understand.


I also saw the superheroes as an integral piece of Batman's revolution as his mutant thugs seemed very unorganized.

Again I found good and bad sides of this. Martain Manhunter, and The Question took up more then their share of pages in book two, and really didn't bring anything to the story (Though MM's death had the potential to be effective if the book had been longer.) I really would have liked to get to know the Thangarians a lot more. Flash was cool when he's in the same room as Batman, and in the next panel he's talking to him on the radio from South America, but even Ollie is explored somwhat deeply in DKR. What do we get to know about Barry? The Atom also seems to be conveniently placed to make a plotpoint without ever showing a presence.


Not only was this a successful sequel, I think it finishes what Year One started. How's that for "masterbatory".

Well, when I used that word, what I meant was that characters and situations were in the book and not part of the story. I feel that Miller was using them to amuse himself, and for no other reason.

[The Guard]

#1) As already pointed out in my earlier posts, the point Miller is making is that some fans are far too caught up in the history of the characters and how we percieve them and the way they act, letting it get in the way of just enjoying the story.

Jesus could be portrayed as a murderer. But it cheapens the idea. The same goes for Batman. He's not some ignorant, illiterate hick with no teeth, who gets his jollies from killing people. Never has been.

#2) People change - their beliefs change, how they act changes, etc. As I said earlier, I don't have any problem with the idea that Batman came to the realization over the years that sometimes the vilian has to die.

Wasn't aware that...locked in the cave for three years, his ideals changed THAT much.

#3) He took pleasure in causing pain in the previous book - if he's gotten even more crazy over the years, its not a big leap to see him taking pleasure in watching the death of someone that's commited genocide and is about to kill the human race.

He might have taken pleasure in causing the Mutant leader pain, and even The Joker, but in the end he couldn't kill him. I'm not talking about him liking Luthor's death, I'm talking about him taking out Luthor's men with a damned razorcape.


What is there to explain? I see the DKR Batman influenced much more by the Bob kane version than the 70s or 80s version, as you claim.

Yet you can't explain it.

The DKR Batman drove a tank. He wore armor. He didn't kill. How is that like Kane's Batman?

[Clayface]

Originally posted by The Guard

Jesus could be portrayed as a murderer. But it cheapens the idea. The same goes for Batman. He's not some ignorant, illiterate hick with no teeth, who gets his jollies from killing people. Never has been.




I'll repeat for the 100th time: Elseworlds. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by The Guard

The DKR Batman drove a tank. He wore armor. He didn't kill. How is that like Kane's Batman?




And how are any of those things like the 70s and 80s Batman? I just don't see it.

I'm talking about his attitude. Ideas like the fact that he wasn't reluctant to use weapons like guns (even if it was using "rubber bullets" at the time), and that he was a lot tougher on criminals and the people that he dealt with as Batman. When I read the Batman from DKR, I think immediately of Kane's Batman in both attitude and personality. I don't think at all about the 70s and 80s Batman. From what I've read, the Kane Batman was much darker than the one portrayed in the 70s and 80s, and the DKR Batman was certainly darker than that of the 70/80s Batman as well.

[The Guard]

I'll repeat for the 100th time: Elseworlds.

I'll repeat for the third time: Consistent characterization.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by The Guard
I'll repeat for the 100th time: Elseworlds.

I'll repeat for the third time: Consistent characterization.


But the whole point of Elseworlds is that you can do anything you want - you don't have to have consistent characterization.

And, again, people change - how Batman acts can change from one series to another. Why people have such a hard time acepting that someone's personality and beliefs could change is something I'll never understand. What makes a character interesting is those changes - is seeing how their beliefs can change depending on the situation at hand and thier experiences over time. That's why Farscape is one of my favorite shows on TV right now - the way the characters react to situations today is totally different to how they acted two seasons ago. Its that progress/change/evolution of thier personalities that's so interesting.

Look, at this point, it seems we have to agree to disagree, because we're just going around in circles.

[Ms. Kitty]

Anyone know when the Paperback of this is coming out? :confused: :)

[Sugar Daddy]

Originally posted by Ms. Kitty
Anyone know when the Paperback of this is coming out? :confused: :)


Well, the hardcover collection is coming out in October, so I would guess around the end of this year beginning of next year.

[Ms. Kitty]

Thanks! :) I'm cheap :o :D

[Domino]

I was late in reading this..."comic book," but I'm not sorry I waited. Next time I'm curious about something like reading the conclusion to this story, I hope someone rewards my curiosity with a nice Vanilla Coke instead.

This was, hands down, the worst Batman story I've ever read. It was the worst work by Frank Miller that I've ever read. It was the worst DC comic I've ever read. Okay, I'll go even further...this was the worst story I've ever read.

The art was completely juvenile. The proportions were non-existent. The coloring looked like it was done as examples of "what not to do" given in Photoshop 101 class.

I can't add anything else in detail to what everyone else has said here. My opinions have been covered by previous comments. It's just too bad that this had to be such a disappointment.

[DerekPowers]

is it confirmed that frank miller was planning on taking this comic and purposely destroying the dcu just to get back at fans, who he hates according to everyone whove been saying this on this thread. is that true, i find it alittle extreme to say since every interview ive read frank seemed excited about doing it like he was having a blast and thought is was going great and really thought people would like it. anyone know if he stated that or if thes are just rumors??


and plus to everyone who said the fans are too critical and thats why hes mad, i have to say, we have a right to be mad and disappointed. i know comic writers have ups and downs and its not easy to put together a comic, BUT they hyped this book like crazy, mad like it was this big event, and charged 7.95 a book.

i could forgive ed brubaker or greg rucka if they have an off issue now and then, but given the fact that dc charged so much for it and hyped it, you expect it to be good, and it wasnt (only because of the ending, imo, i liked it before that).

i still think the best part about is was the art and coloring. am i the only one who liked the art??

[Gluttonous God]

I loved the art.

[Marc]

Man, this thread just won't die!
Seriously though, there's been some great discussions here.

Back to topic, I love Frank and Lynn's artwork.

[Reed Richards]

Originally posted by Gluttonous God
I loved the art.

I have to ask again: Frank? Frank Miller? Is that you?

This art was a travesty against comic books-- I showed an issue to my friend who doesnt usually buy comic books when we were in the store and he said that if comics looked like that why should he spend any of his money to support art that his 90 year old grandmother could improve upon? did you actually look @ the page as you were reading it? when I saw Wonder Woman i wanted to puke on the spot in the store. Even the Batman looked really really weird.

Terrible pencils, inks and colours.

my FINAL judgement on DK2

Plot: 1/10
Art: -1/10
Covers: 2/10

the sad part about DK2 is that I sat down and read Frank's essential Daredevil and Batman: Year One stuff the other day and absolutly LOVED it. I really really wish he hadn't chosen to completely disrespect me and every other DCU fan out there with this thing.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by DerekPowers
is it confirmed that frank miller was planning on taking this comic and purposely destroying the dcu just to get back at fans, who he hates according to everyone whove been saying this on this thread. is that true, i find it alittle extreme to say since every interview ive read frank seemed excited about doing it like he was having a blast and thought is was going great and really thought people would like it. anyone know if he stated that or if thes are just rumors??

I don't believe that Frank Miller "set out to destroy" the DCU. What Miller set out to do was his own version of the DCU. To strip it of all the baggage its accumulated over the years, and reinterpret it. Basically, his own relaunch of the DCU. (Which is exactly what Elseworlds stories should be doing, IMO.) But the Miller-haters play this up like he's trying to kill the DCU instead of reinvent it in his own way. :rolleyes:

And I loved the art in this series. The caricature style is just awesome, and I was very happy with it. Reed, you've got to remember that appreciation of art is an incredibly subjective thing. Just because you don't like doesn't mean its "bad". To criticize people for enjoying the art is rather rude and insulting in my opinion.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Reed Richards
I have to ask again: Frank? Frank Miller? Is that you?

This art was a travesty against comic books-- I showed an issue to my friend who doesnt usually buy comic books when we were in the store and he said that if comics looked like that why should he spend any of his money to support art that his 90 year old grandmother could improve upon? did you actually look @ the page as you were reading it? when I saw Wonder Woman i wanted to puke on the spot in the store. Even the Batman looked really really weird.

Terrible pencils, inks and colours.

I respect you opinion Reed, and I want this thread closed. But art is personal opinion. Believe it or not, for every person who loves Alex Ross and Bryan Hitch, there is another person who hates them.

Body proportions are meaningless. Look at Bruce Timm’s style. I’ve never encountered another human being with a jaw as square as Timm’s Bruce Wayne. Nor have I ever seen a man with the physique of Ed McGuinness’s Superman. And there are not many artists who can grasp the fact that spandex does not reveal every abdominal muscle and bulging vein.

It doesn’t always take world-class art to sell a book. Look at Powers or New X-Men, that art was garbage. But, that’s my PERSONAL OPINION. You like Powers? That’s great! You hated DK2? That’s also fine. If you know anything about art you would know that there are many different styles, and no two artists are alike. Just like fingerprints. Nowhere is it written that says all art must be photorealistic. I would never think of belittling your personal opinions, Reed, or anyone’s opinions on these boards for that matter. I hate to sound cheesy, but we have to learn to respect each other and understand that different things appeal to different people.

But if this argument won’t die, then I have a proposal: If anyone thinks they can draw a comic book better than Frank, then I say go ahead. I hereby issue a challenge to everyone reading this to write, pencil, ink, color, and letter their own full issue of a comic and post it here at Toonzone. We can all judge which is better. I give you all my word that I will judge with honesty and an unbiased eye. I know I could never produce anything in the same league as Frank so I’m not even going to try. I’m humble about my skills.

Otherwise, I consider this discussion closed.

[Gluttonous God]

Originally posted by CaptainInfinity

Believe it or not, for every person who loves Alex Ross and Bryan Hitch, there is another person who hates them.


I agree. I understand that many people hold Alex Ross in their highest regard but believe that ultrarealism is not at all creative in the face of hundreds of original styles (though Ross usually has the benefit of good writers, so I admit to having alot of his stuff and by no means consider him unacomplished).

I do not agree however, that this thread should be closed. After all, Reed needs time to think up new comebacks, or at least work on the one that he's got. :D


Sincerely,
Frank Mil... urr I mean...The God of Gluttony ;)

[Reed Richards]

Originally posted by Gluttonous God


I agree. I understand that people hold Alex Ross in their highest regard but believe that ultrarealism is not at all creative in the face of hundreds of original styles (though Ross usually has the benefit of good writers so I admit to having alot of his stuff).

I do not agree however, that this thread should be closed. After all, Reed needs time to think up new comebacks, or at least work on the one that he's got. :D


Sincerely,
Frank Mil... urr I mean...The God of Gluttony


naw let it die-- i can bash your work in my local comic book shop all i want without the fear of moderation ;)

truth be told, i totally respect CaptainInfinity as well-- and he is right, all art is subjective-- but with that same principle comes a rule that not all art need be published-- at some point we have to draw a line in the sand against letting just any monkey with a pen and pencil and some crayons draw his own comic book and publish it simply because in the past he did a great job-- to me the name is meaningless, only the product- and it honestly surprises me that DC let this be published. I'm not an artist, but to quote justice holmes, I know it when i see it (and im not talking about porn here). I'm not saying Alex Ross is the definitive god of comic art (although I own everything he's done) and I wouldn't presume to lay that title upon anyone (although for a while Todd McFarlane on Spiderman might have come close :) ) there are tons of artists out there, like Captain Infinity, who are denied chances. Let's face it-- DC published this book without looking at it at all. They went to Frank and said "heres some money and an unlimited license to do what you want." There was no quality control on this project (Dk1's art looked beautiful compared to this)

i guess the real moral of the story here is that I wouldn't be nearly so hard on this book (or on Frank/Gluttonous ;) ) if he had actually TRIED to do anything but screw over the fans and DC by thinking he was teaching them some lesson. (IMHO its what he was trying to do)

Now, having said all of that, im going to do my darndest not to comment on this thread again :)

[Reed Richards]

Originally posted by Clayface
And I loved the art in this series. The caricature style is just awesome, and I was very happy with it. Reed, you've got to remember that appreciation of art is an incredibly subjective thing. Just because you don't like doesn't mean its "bad". To criticize people for enjoying the art is rather rude and insulting in my opinion.
[/COLOR] [/B]

Sorry Clayface-- I don't mean to criticize any PERSON for liking the art, I'm simply trying to criticize the art itself and relay my opinion of it. My apologies if anyone was offended-- keep in mind that most of what I say on this board is in jest-- and if I really hate ya I'll PM ya about it ;)

anyway, sorry again.

-Reed

[Gluttonous God]

I was never offended (then again I'm not even sure if this gluttonous newbie counts). And have a lot of respect for Reed, among others, for writing lots of detail and explination into their criticisms. I've enjoyed this thread thoroughly.


Thanks everyone.

[Clayface]

First of all, let me say, this thread is in no danger of being closed. Everyone's been relatively calm for such a heated debate, and I see no reason that the thread would have to be closed. I just chimed in because I wanted to be sure that the thread didn't turn into a train wreck if someone took offense at the comments being made.

On that note, let me move on to Reed's comments.



Originally posted by Reed Richards

naw let it die-- i can bash your work in my local comic book shop all i want without the fear of moderation ;)



Hehe, I hope that's a joke! We really don't want people to be in "fear" of moderators around here. You're welcome to post your opinion all you want, and, personally, I welcome the opposing opinions such as your own - it makes for the best threads and best debates, IMO. We just ask that you continue to give insightful and well thought out responses (which most of the responses on this thread have been), rather than "bashing" that can be taken the wrong way by other posters.




truth be told, i totally respect CaptainInfinity as well-- and he is right, all art is subjective-- but with that same principle comes a rule that not all art need be published-- at some point we have to draw a line in the sand against letting just any monkey with a pen and pencil and some crayons draw his own comic book and publish it simply because in the past he did a great job



I don't agree. I think that any and all art should be published, by the big companies and the independants. Its up to the fans to draw the line by choosing to purchase it or not. Making it unavailable to everyone just because your personal belief is that its garbage, is, IMO, a form of censorship. I don't know of a single comic shop that doesn't let you stand and thumb through an issue before you buy it - there's no reason you can't just put the book back down and said "No, this art is so terrible I'm not going to buy it." And that would be that - you wouldn't have to spend your money on it, and those of us that enjoyed it wouldn't be deprived of it either.




-- to me the name is meaningless, only the product- and it honestly surprises me that DC let this be published. I'm not an artist, but to quote justice holmes, I know it when i see it (and im not talking about porn here). I'm not saying Alex Ross is the definitive god of comic art (although I own everything he's done) and I wouldn't presume to lay that title upon anyone (although for a while Todd McFarlane on Spiderman might have come close :) ) there are tons of artists out there, like Captain Infinity, who are denied chances. Let's face it-- DC published this book without looking at it at all. They went to Frank and said "heres some money and an unlimited license to do what you want." There was no quality control on this project (Dk1's art looked beautiful compared to this)



I do agree with your statement that DC probably gave Miller unlimited liscence, and played little to no role in "quality control" on this project. I just don't agree that that was a bad thing. ;)




Now, having said all of that, im going to do my darndest not to comment on this thread again :)


Well, if you choose not to comment in here again, that's your decision. But I really hope you're not making that decision because you feel too intimidated - you're welcome here, and I don't want you to feel like you're being chased off by me or anyone else.




Sorry Clayface-- I don't mean to criticize any PERSON for liking the art, I'm simply trying to criticize the art itself and relay my opinion of it.



And that's exactly what these talkback threads are for - everyone's opinion, be they postive or negative.




My apologies if anyone was offended-- keep in mind that most of what I say on this board is in jest-- and if I really hate ya I'll PM ya about it



Fair enough. Problem solved.

Hmmmm, I better go check my PMs........
;)

Anyway, I hope that if people have more to add, they continue to post to the thread. People are passionate about the topic, but we've all done a great job so far keeping things calm and rational, and I'd like to see that continue.

[Gotham Knights '68]

I really did not think the art in this series was that far off from Frank Millers original. Some of the panels were smaller and maybe a bit rougher but that just seems to me FM's style at least within his DK series. When Bats was all battered and bruised after fighting the mutant leader the artwork was very similar in DKR. And again I thought the coloring was amazing throughout DK2!!!

You wanna see terrible art (remember this is my opinion) but the worst art I think I ever seen was in Batman/Nightwing - Bloodone (I think this was the title? :confused: ) That had to be my biggest waste of money EVER!!! I wanted to mail that P-O-C back to DC and demand a refund!!! I'd spend $24 for DK2 a million times over the $6 I threw away with that garbage!!!!

[The Guard]

I really did not think the art in this series was that far off from Frank Millers original.

Wow. Just...wow. DARK KNIGHT RETURNS was full of things that looked like they are supposed to. DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN was full of cartoon caricatures, people with triangles for heads, mis-shapen bodies, sizes changing from one panel to the next, and no consistency.

[Tracer]

First off everybody, I have to say that I am impressed at the amount of feelings and pain I am reading. It is almost as if this was Frank's plan all along...

I bought 1 & 2 and could not digest the spoon feed crap that was being given to me and I no less paid top "comic" dollar for. It was clear at the end of #2 that there was no hope of resolving all of the absurdities and loose ends that had been created by the first 2 parts nor could I find the storyline after being 2/3 done with his work. So I VOWED to scan the book in my comic store before buying.

What I saw was splashes of colors and lines that only my 4 month old could enjoy. Characters quickly coming in and out of the story, more gratuitous violence (and believe me I am not against violence, the more the merrier when it makes sense on any level, this is also why I won't pick up any of the MAX storylines even though they recreate some of my favorite characters.

And at the end, I saw no resolution, no finish, just what he left on the pages, an empty meaningless whole that didn't add up to the good intentions of the parts.

So my question is to all of my fellow readers is, You could smell the stink off of this thing back in December, and again in what March, why the hell would anyone who truly appreciates the artist, characters, writers, anything that today’s comics are.. pick up this book and pay money for it. The single greatest tribute we could have given Frank was to leave it on the shelves, Boycott it. It won’t be worth 2 dollars next week, I didn't make you feel good or make you think, and only 3 out of 30 people here actually enjoyed it. Tell Frank that if you don’t do your JOB we won’t support you. And YES JOB, his JOB anytime he picks up a pencil is to entertain readers. Yes I know we are picky and fickle and it is a hard thankless job at times but if you don’t like it don’t do it anymore.

It is like the saying "why do you beat you head against the brick wall?? Cause it feels so good when you stop!"

So I won't talk about DK2 #3 or the whole series for that matter, I know I bashed it enough in the last threads for issues 1 and 2. This THING is best left forgotten, like the last time you wet the bed or some other embarrassing moment that never existed in your mind as far as your concerned.

I will leave with this comment for DC and Frank Miller. WE LOVE OUR COMICS, We talk bad about them cause we care that deeply. Some of us have been reading for decades and still manage to have a Life outside of the world you create for us. We go back each month cause we choose to, not cause we’re idiots. When we invest time and Money we expect something back. When I go out to dinner, I expect a certain quality of food. When I pay $10 for a movie ticket, I expect it to make sense and entertain me. When I buy a comic, I expect it to have been checked by someone to ensure that the next time I see that writer, artists, pencilers, inker's name I don't run to the other side of the rack screaming cause the last time I trusted you, you came up WAYYY short.

Check your overall sales DC, are they lower than you would like?? we come back each month cause we choose to, So PLEASE give us a reason to come back, not a reason to resent you for not doing the most basic part of you job as an artist or entertainer... give the audience something the have a chance to enjoy. Give us a chance....

[MAXIMUS]

Well I Just finished reading it and IMO it sucked. Wasnt any good at all. especially the way they treated Grayson. Come on , it may be elseworlds, but he seems to have thrown out all continuity all together. And Superman was treated like dirt thru the whole thing. Supes was way better written in the DKR. Also , i hated the fact that most of this had to do with what people were thinkin. And the Superchix, what kinda borin crap was that?! It had no impact on me at all, and was a heap way for laffs. The endng was very dissapointing. Sure i didnt know what was gonna happen in the end, but i didnt even know the plot or what the hell happened in the end. I know what some of u are gonna say, "U didnt go in to deep into depth with it" PFFFF thats so untrue. I read DKR like 10 times and the first 2 books like 3 times, and even had a lil discussuion bout it. this was just terrible , and Franks lafffin all the way to the bank. What was DC thinking? God just because he's done good stuff in the past doesnt mean you should get awaty with murder. Geez. Batman was so outta character it was a disgrace. A DISGRACE! At least in the first he was more in character. Oh and back to the no place thing. Most of the story took place in large colored panals and not really dicernable rooms or places, just bright vivid images for backround. DKR had way more imagery to go on in this. This gave me a head ache. god I hope i never have to read that again. If you agree with me good for you, If not, its just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt. Im out

[Gotham Knights '68]

Frank Miller and Lynn Varley were at my comic shop on Thursday and the place was absolutely mobbed - It was a 2 hour signing session that had to go overtime, I mean the line filled more than halt the width of the sidewalk and stretched all the way from 7th to 8th ave in Midtown NYC. And all of them had DK2 for him to sign (in addition to his other work - he was signing up to 3 items I think). Anyway it was a pretty wild turn out. I'd love to find out what the guys who work at the shop felt about the whole thing - and the general consensus of the people at MTC - obviously people have strong feelings about this - with some like, bordering on psycho - I mean come on...RELAX ALREADY, SHHEEESSH :rolleyes: ! But I'm pretty sure there are more than 3 people who enjoyed this. Everybody has their own likes and dislikes - its what makes the world go around :p

[otter]

Overall, I enjoyed the first 2 issues of DK2 pretty much. These issues weren't a masterpiece or anything, but I did feel like they were better than your average comic book and worth checking out. DK2 #3, on the other hand, was horrible.

Several posters on this board have said that Frank intended this series to be a commentary on the comics industry and how fans become too attached to a character's history. I think this is a valid point. But I don't think that automatically makes DK2 a good story. Sure, the theme at the core of this story was good....but the execution was poor.

To me, the final issue felt rushed, sloppy, and thrown together. Scenes did not flow well. As for the Robin/Joker thing....I thought that could have been a great ending but it just did not make sense. Yes, I do realize that this is an Elseworlds story. But even within the confines of the DK universe, the ending did not make sense. In DK1, readers found out that Bruce and Dick hadn't spoken for several years....but we were never left with the feeling that he had become a homicidal maniac. (Personally, I was left with the impression that Bruce missed him.) The Robin/Joker revelation just came totally out of left field and seemed like it was put in more for shock value.

So basically, I felt like Frank had good ideas and the series could have been great....but the poor storytelling (particularly in issue #3) made the series difficult to enjoy.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Gotham Knights '68
Frank Miller and Lynn Varley were at my comic shop on Thursday and the place was absolutely mobbed - It was a 2 hour signing session that had to go overtime, I mean the line filled more than halt the width of the sidewalk and stretched all the way from 7th to 8th ave in Midtown NYC. And all of them had DK2 for him to sign (in addition to his other work - he was signing up to 3 items I think).


Indeed. Another testimony to the fact that the internet fan base is not necessarily representative of the comic fanbase in general.

I would have been in that line myself. Problem is, I live too far away. :rolleyes:

[TheForgottenOne]

It was a piece of crap, of course if they were at a comic shop i would go to get it signed cause it would at value too it. Alot of those signed books are probably on e-bay right now, its not that Millers other stuff isn't good but DK2 as a whole was pretty bad. The first one was great the last 2 were probably rushed hence the very long delay for issue 3. DK2 and Origins was a big waste of money for me this year :mad:

[Stu]

Frabk Miller has just tried to ruin Chuck Dixons hard work. CD wrote both Nightwing and Robin for years and reinvented the characters extremely well. Was there any point to Dick turning evil? Why should this man, who wrote a good Batman story 20 years ago be allowed to run free with these characters and change them as he sees fit? Just like in TDKR he was given full authorisation to swear, type and put down anything he wanted in the book. I feel that any others could have done a far better job with it than he did. What is his obsession with drawing 1/2 naked women? Was there any need for them at all? I have never been his biggest fan but I thought this was s**t all the way thru. I may never ead a new Frank Miller book again.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by TheForgottenOne
It was a piece of crap,



Please refrain from "its crap" and "it sucks" posts. They don't add anything to the conversation, and are frowned upon.



Originally posted by TheForgottenOne
of course if they were at a comic shop i would go to get it signed cause it would at value too it. Alot of those signed books are probably on e-bay right now,



Well, first, I have a hard time believing that that many people showed up and waited in that long of a line for that many hours strictly because they wanted to make money on signed issues. While I'm certain that some percentage of them were there strictly to get something signed to make some money, I would guess it was a very small percentage.

And secondly, a search on e-bay for signed DK2 issues turns up a whpping total of.....3. So much for that theory. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by The Red Bird
Frabk Miller has just tried to ruin Chuck Dixons hard work.



Where does this theory come from? I've not heard of any bad feelings between the two.



Originally posted by The Red Bird

CD wrote both Nightwing and Robin for years and reinvented the characters extremely well.



Well, that's a matter of opinion. I've heard quite a few Nightwing and Robin fans that were very glad CD was finally taken off the title. Whatever the case, I'm still not seeing the Miller/Dixon connection.



Originally posted by The Red Bird

Was there any point to Dick turning evil? Why should this man, who wrote a good Batman story 20 years ago be allowed to run free with these characters and change them as he sees fit?



For the same reason any other creator is - because as creators writing an Elseworld's book, they have the right to do whatever they want with the characters (well, within reason of course - I'm sure no one would approve a super-hero being turned into a child-molestor or some such). Once again: this is an Elseworlds book - its no crime to change the characters in an Elseworlds book. You talk like he went and changed the mainstream titles or something.

[halinar]

I'm so glad I didn't even bother picking up #3. After flushing 16$ down the toilet on the first two there was no way I was giong to drop any more money on this over hyped book. In a normal book I want at least good story or good art (I've been known to keep a series if it has just one). This had neither and a high cover price. No thanks, I'll pass and look back through a comic box years from now and wonder what made me pay money for the first two issues.

[HowardtheDuck]

Bad art, Plot holes the size of buicks, and little to no scenery? What have they done with Frank Miller and who is this lame knock-off that drew DK2? I am majorly disappointed. Skip this, get the two Jeph Loeb/Tim Sale Batman books instead. You'll be so much happier.

[LadyM]

I've only read the first DK book. Didn't like it. Okay plot, really crappy stylized art. Bah.

I am curious to see what DK2's Green Lantern looked like, though . . . anyone got a scan? :)

~LM~

[Salvor]

Glad to see this post resurrected, I now realize I forgot to share my opinion on the third book... and quite surprisingly Clayface, I liked it! The art seemed more detailed to me, Batman's appearances were longer (Miller actually drew Batman's whole body in several panels, which stood out compared with the first 2 issues), the proportions weren't too off, and the layouts were pure gold at times (the last sequence with Grayson was very well done, reminiscent of the Ronin era)

As for the story, I enjoyed GL's role, who was quite relevantly looked upon and depicted as a true god by Miller... Batman got more lines, the "Joker" got as much screen time as need be to become scary... I wasn't a big fan of the Grayson twist, but as much as I hate to admit it, it fit in, and was quite a shock too, despite the blatant ROTJ ripoff.

Overall, to my mind, this particular ish was the highlight of this sequel.

[MatchesMalone]

I was disappointed in this series. DKR was THE reason I got back into comics as a teenager. Totally blew me away. I can't even count how many times I've read it over the years.

DK2 seemed uncared for by it's creator. Of course, I don't know for sure but it's the vibe I got. I got the impression right away that the Frank Miller that wrote and drew DKR was not the same Frank Miller that was producing DK2. Clear evidence that people and their sensibilities change. I know first hand how difficult it is to produce work for comics. It's a nightmare sometimes. However, I was really expecting more from this series. Too bad.

[LadyM]

Originally posted by MatchesMalone
I got the impression right away that the Frank Miller that wrote and drew DKR was not the same Frank Miller that was producing DK2.

I blame clones. :p

I wonder if my roommate got this book. If so, I'm going to borrow it from him just for curiosity's sake.

~LM~

[Reptile_Orion]

Dude...I was actually thinking about reading the Dark Knight Strikes Again because I loved the original Dark Knight. But I think I may stay away from this one. I definitely don't like some of the things that Miller did with some of the characters. The whole Grayson thing is really messed up.

[Joker21]

THE 3 :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: est Batman Stories of all time

1. DK2 #3
2. Batman & Robin
3. Critters.

YES I HATED DK#3 MORE THAN B&R. IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PIECE OF JOEL

[Shawn Hopkins]

Instead of bumping a seven-year-old thread filled with bitter fights from members that no longer post here, I decided to make a new one to have a fresh take on things, get away from ancient negativity, and look at DKSA (I won't call it DK2) in the context of today.

I'll be honest, for me this is more like finishing DKSA than rereading it. I bought the first two issues, but I guess there was a gap or something on the last one and when it came out I just didn't get it. I finally saw it at a Half-Price books about a month ago and picked it up. It's amazing that it has been so long because it doesn't feel that long. Where does the time go?

Anyway, rereading and finishing the story hasn't changed my opinion. Overall I really enjoyed this. The art is scratchy and experimental and rough, but it seems intentional, like Miller inked it directly to impart a greater sense of immediacy to things. I've noticed some people just can't get past this part. Is it because it doesn't look like superhero art, which is generally designed to make things as attractive as possible? I won't judge anyone, but if someone's main concern about the comic is the art perhaps they might want to broaden both their comics reading spectrum (try Jimbo) and their appreciation of the fine arts.

First off, some of the politics are a bit outdated. Prosperity making us slaves? We wish. Interesting but heavy-handed use of 911 imagery with the destruction of Metropolis, too. Great stuff with the President, Prez Rickard of all people, being a computer generated image, too, and Jimmy Olsen's Glen Beck rage and Green Arrow and the Question sliding to the most extreme possible political positions and locked in a fatalistic struggle.

So what was the main political message? I think it might be that the new generation of activist and revolutionary can't be or at least won't be bound by the rules and restrictions that past activists placed on themselves. Batman holds his batboys back and forces them to obey the old rules, apparently more to make them stronger than for any other reason, but when he causes riots in the streets he's gleeful. When Hawman's son splat's Lex Luthor's head, he almost dances a jig. Superman's daughter's rejection of "Kansas" ideals is also an example of this.

I also think that part of the idea is that if you have potency you're required to use it. At the end Superman no longer holds back his power. Seems like he's set himself up as the ruler of the world and will probably try to make it a better place. I don't think Batman's revolution was a simple and as politically palatable as simply throwing off the yoke of those in power, I think Miller actually thinks there needs to be someone in power, just the right people. If notice most of the citizens we see aren't really able to run things for themselves. The Dark Knight Returns had an undercurrent of facism to it, and I'm not sure it went away for the sequel.

I really liked the information overload technique, with all of the pundits and slutty newscasters and urban vjs and people commenting on the happenings. He used that a little bit in DKR, but in a kind of staid, controlled way that worked for the age of network TV. He really let it rip for the age of the Internet and Cable News. I think that was actually a little ahead of its time and would work even better today, where we're drowning in a sea of meaningless jabber. There's also the idea in this that we can be controlled by information and freed by it, depending on how clear the signal to noise ratio is.

So, politics and things aside, what about it on the level of a superhero story? I think it actually works really well as sort of a "last Justice League" tale, where the league comes back together for one more mission in a dystopian future. Most everyone, except for Barry and Ray Palmer who still keep their Silver Age attitudes, has changed and either become radicalized or a tool of the state. It was interesting to see the grim but fantastic traps that had been set for them. In the end they get the gang back together but instead of reforming the league they simply become the leaders of a violent revolution, which is a broader take than you would usually see in a DC comic.

The adventuring along the way is fun, though, Ray Palmer fighting giant microscopic monsters, Batman crashes his car into Luthor and giving him the Mark of Zorro on his face, Catgirl's wild escapes. And it pushes the damage that has been done to them a little farther by showing how Plastic Man has become unhinged and Elastic Man decreipt.

But in the end the day is saved by numerous exciting heroics, using Ray to free the tiny but powerful and pissed citizens of Kandor was a nice twist. It also has an unusually Silver Age feel, Superman spends the second issue fighting a giant frog of all things, even though during that fight people are screaming and dying and getting their legs crushed in a not very silver age way. And there's no grim and gritty Batman in this book, he may do grim things and be sick and old but he's the happiest Batman you'll ever see, he has to keep himself from skipping.

Now for gripes. I think pinning the whole corruption of the political system on Luthor and Braniac also makes things too conveniently simple and Silver Age, even if they are stand-ins for power it felt a little more real in Dark Knight Returns when it really was a million bumbling midgets that pulled Superman down, not the two most brilliant beings on the earth with their super tech and hostage tactics.

I also didn't like the Dick Grayson part. It really did seem underdeveloped. I guess the point of it was to show that Batman is rejecting the old and rolling with the new, but that point had been more than made in the other sections so this just felt meanspirited.

Also, sometimes Miller goes too far overboard in his political jabs and they seem a bit lame. Using the "Why, yes I am from San Francisco" line twice is a good example.

And, yeah, I think Lynn Varley had just discovered Photoshop and her coloring, while mostly excellent, sometimes uses a few distractingly showy techniques.

I can see why some people didn't like it. It's really going to challenge longterm and cherished conceptions of the characters. If you really hold to the idea that Superman is a Kansas farmboy at heart so closely that you don't want to see that challenged and overthrown, it's not the book for you. But as an interesting experiment and different take I found it worth reading.

So, what do you think? I'd like to hear other people's interpretations of what Miller was trying to say here. Especially if they contradict my own. I have to ask that only people who have actually read the book respond, I like Linkara but watching his comedy reviews does not prepare you to discuss the books he dumps on.

[Wonderwall]

I didn't like the book when I first read it around 6 or 7 years ago. I didn't really understand what was going on and I thought it looked ugly. However back then I was 16 years old. I'm older and smarter and more open to things now then I was then. I still think the art is not my taste but reading your comments Shawn, seeing the Linkara video, and even my own curiosity. I think I want to try and give it another go around. Heck it wouldn't be the first time I revisited something I didn't like or liked in the past but after a few years I now have a different opinion of it ( Looking at you Hush ). I believe my library has a copy so I think I can hop in again after reading it.

[Jin Kazama]

I understand your reasoning for starting a new thread for this, but not wanting to post in the old thread is no reason for not actually posting in the old thread. We have the Talkback Archives so that if anyone reads an older story that has an existing talkback thread, and wants to contribute something worth note to it, they can.

I'm merging your thread with it, because you have a good argument there, but it just doesn't have a need to have it's own thread when it'll do just as much in the official talkback thread.

[rggkjg1]

10 years later i sat down and read the story again (read this back to back with dark knight returns). when this first came out, i really had no idea what the plot or story was. because of that, i never bashed dk2. thankfully there was a plot and story here after all. overall, i (still) feel indifferent to dk2 after my re-read. it certainly isn't as god awful as it's been blown out to be over the past 10 years, but it certainly didnt live up to the original hype before it's release or live up to the dark knight returns (if that was even possible to begin with). i think that's where most of the bashing comes from, it was hyped up for years and didnt meet everyone's expectations or compare to the original. thankfully for me, i wasn't waiting so many years for the sequel to come out. it more or less came out of the blue and i happened to be around.

i just really dont know. i see some dystopian elements and social/political influence here in the story, but i just dont care or i'm not interested. both dark knight stories were written in different eras with their own social and political issues. i dont see any consistency here in that regard for the stories/continuity. the future portrayed in the dark knight returns could have been possible at that time, but it didnt turn out that way. the future portrayed in dk2 could be possible i guess, but like i said, no consistency (if there is, i dont see it). can we stop being negative and hope for a good future regardless or the political and social issues of the time?