"Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" Classic Talkback (Spoilers)

[James Harvey]

Discuss this classic Batman story!

BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS

http://wf.toonzone.net/jimharvey/comic/t-knight.jpg (http://wf.toonzone.net/jimharvey/comic/knight.jpg)

Written by: Frank Miller
Art and Cover by: Miller and Klaus Janson

It is ten years after an aging Batman has retired and Gotham City has sunk deeper into decadence and lawlessness. Now as his city needs him most, the Dark Knight returns in a blaze of glory. Joined by Carrie Kelly, a teenage female Robin, Batman takes to the streets to end the threat of the mutant gangs that have overrun the city. And after facing off against his two greatest enemies, the Joker and Two-Face for the final time, Batman finds himself in mortal combat with his former ally, Superman, in a battle that only one of them will survive. This collection is hailed as a comics masterpiece and was responsible for the launch of the Batman movie series.

Comments? What are your thoughts?

With the release of Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, let's look back at the original Dark Knight tale!

[Thomas]

Now this is a cool comic!

[TheScarecrow]

Well, I FINALLY bought The Dark Knight Returns (minor spoilers)...

I went to a bookstore at the mall and found the Trade Paper Backs section, and bought the original DKR, as well as Batman: Death In The Family (where Jason Todd gets bumped off).

DKR is as good as its made out to be by Batfans on the net. The dialoge and characterizations are awesome. That scene where Batman is remembering Dick Grayson while he is taking out the Mutants with his Bat-tank was great. I am not too crazy about Batman using guns because it just doesn't fit the character to me, but I guess I can live with it. The art is very good as well and it really fits the story.

All and all, its one hell of a story. Those who haven't read it yet, check it out!

[Ms. Kitty]

:( Well, since I'm a poor punk I went to my last resort and borrowed it from the library...

Right after reading it... :eek:

(still sparawled on the floor on Pleasure overload) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D : .... :o...Oh, I am SO gonna buy this! :cool:

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by TheScarecrow
I am not too crazy about Batman using guns because it just doesn't fit the character to me, but I guess I can live with it."Rubber bullets ... honest."

-Terminatah

[The Guard]

That's not a Bat Tank. It's the Batmobile. :)

[SilverKnight]

(Note, there's some light swearing in this. And this is ME, so take that for what it's worth. :D You've been warned.)

I remembered when I first read this graphic novel, about a year and a half ago on a bus from Baltimore to little Hicksville, MD. Or at least, ATTEMPTING to read it, considering the bus was an old jalopy circa 1950, and it was already dark out. When I'd gotten to a steady light source, though, I delved into the dark tale of Frank Miller's creation, and nothing short of three 16 oz. cups worth of soda could pry me away. I LOVED every minute of it.

So, that being said, what the hell's my problem with it now?

Well, a year and a half later, I again reread the story to find some areas of the story...lacking, I suppose. While these squabbles snaked their way to the back of my mind the FIRST time I'd read it, I ignored them for the sheer coolness of the story itself. Batman kicks everyone's ass. Whoo-baby, what a great tale. (That's not sarcasm. Really.) Still, when I go over the storyline again, those doubts seem to reinforce themselves to taint the whole telling of the tale in general.

My problem with it? Bruce isn't Bruce. Or at least the one we know of. I don't care if it takes place twenty years in the future. It isn't HIM, dammit.

Don't believe me? Let me recount the various things I found uncharacteristic for our beloved tall, dark, and gloomy.

STRIKE ONE: Batman uses guns. Yes, GUNS. In that love cavern thing, he uses Yindel's gun to light of plastic explosives. I understand why he uses it. The idea behind was clear. He was being hunted, yada, yada, yada, but he could have just as easily used something else. Furthermore, what of the rifle and the pistol he used in various parts of the story? True, they didn't use bullets, but the fact alone that they LOOK like guns would have normally sent Bats into a frenzy. He's lost his apparent abhorrence to guns. In Bat-land, that's a no-no. And ESPECIALLY without explanation.

STRIKE TWO: Batman is WAAAAY too violent. Even for HIM. He thinks nothing of setting off plastic explosives in the love cavern ride, caving in the roof, possibly killing dozens. He doesn't seem to mind mowing down rows of Mutants with a glorified tank using "Rubber bullets. Honest." Again, it's been twenty years, but his weapons were normally to INCAPACITATE, not to cause serious injury. What the hell happened?

And, yes I know of the standing theory. Without a Robin, Batman has a statistical tendency to become more violent and unstable. After twenty years, he could have possibly lost it entirely. Still, that psycho-Bat isn't the Bruce I know.

STRIKE THREE: Batman's essence is lost in the plot. Batman was created by a random crime, which tramautized him to the point that he needed to take matters into his own hands. This we all know. Well, in the beginning, this is shown how much of that tramautized young child controls him. But, at some point during TDKR, that essence is lost. Perhaps it's a sign that he's learned to deal with what's happened, and to move on, but would the Bruce we know EVER move on? I don't think so, and it feels to me like he suddenly is empty, and jaded; without a cause. Yeah, in the end it shows him with a new cause, one "far worse than crime", but in my mind, I thought Bruce would picture any wrong doing as "crime". Therefore, whatever he planned to do would simply be branching out on his war on crime. It would never truly end for him.

(And, as a rather pointless jab, I thought the art was somewhat overrated, as well.)

>shrugs< It's a great story, it is. I enjoyed it a lot. But, these were the small gripes that came to my attention. In short, I think we see Bruce/Batman here, but not the Bruce/Batman we--or I--have come to know. Call me what you will, refute everything in here if you wish. This is merely my opinion on the matter. Deal with it. :D

[Zoddman]

Originally posted by SilverKnight
[i]My problem with it? Bruce isn't Bruce. Or at least the one we know of. I don't care if it takes place twenty years in the future. It isn't HIM, dammit.Of course he's not, he's Batman. I'm under the belief that Bruce is the disguise, and Batman is the real one.


Originally posted by SilverKnight
[i]STRIKE ONE: Batman uses guns. Yes, GUNS. In that love cavern thing, he uses Yindel's gun to light of plastic explosives. I understand why he uses it. The idea behind was clear. He was being hunted, yada, yada, yada, but he could have just as easily used something else. Furthermore, what of the rifle and the pistol he used in various parts of the story? True, they didn't use bullets, but the fact alone that they LOOK like guns would have normally sent Bats into a frenzy. He's lost his apparent abhorrence to guns. In Bat-land, that's a no-no. And ESPECIALLY without explanation.I'm pretty sure Miller explained this. As the story makes clear, Gotham is a much more dangerous place than it use to be. More innocents are killed each day, and it doesen't help that Gordon is retiring, only to be replaced by somebody who is less than enthusiastic about Batman. It's a darker, dangerous world, so it calls for more extreme measures.


Originally posted by SilverKnight
[i]STRIKE TWO: Batman is WAAAAY too violent. Even for HIM. He thinks nothing of setting off plastic explosives in the love cavern ride, caving in the roof, possibly killing dozens. He doesn't seem to mind mowing down rows of Mutants with a glorified tank using "Rubber bullets. Honest." Again, it's been twenty years, but his weapons were normally to INCAPACITATE, not to cause serious injury. What the hell happened?

And, yes I know of the standing theory. Without a Robin, Batman has a statistical tendency to become more violent and unstable. After twenty years, he could have possibly lost it entirely. Still, that psycho-Bat isn't the Bruce I know.Same thing I said earlier. The more dangerous Gotham is, the more dangerous Batman is. He's at the end of his rope, it's his final stand.


Originally posted by SilverKnight
[i]STRIKE THREE: Batman's essence is lost in the plot. Batman was created by a random crime, which tramautized him to the point that he needed to take matters into his own hands. This we all know. Well, in the beginning, this is shown how much of that tramautized young child controls him. But, at some point during TDKR, that essence is lost. Perhaps it's a sign that he's learned to deal with what's happened, and to move on, but would the Bruce we know EVER move on? I don't think so, and it feels to me like he suddenly is empty, and jaded; without a cause. Yeah, in the end it shows him with a new cause, one "far worse than crime", but in my mind, I thought Bruce would picture any wrong doing as "crime". Therefore, whatever he planned to do would simply be branching out on his war on crime. It would never truly end for him.Isn't corruption of the state a little grey? It is definitely different than crime.

[kid_flash]

Zoddman nailed it. DKR is the story of the psycho Batman, not neccessarily the one we're comfortable with. It's not that Frank Miller doesn't have a handle on the regular Batman (READ YEAR ONE), it's just that he wanted to do a story liked this. And for what it was, it was beautiful.

[Batman's Biggest Fan]

Here's the palce to discuss Miller's masterpiece


The Dark Knight Returns

(Note this covers all four stories.)

So what do you think of it?

[Daredevil_2003]

I hated it! The story is laughable and the art is atrocious!!! I've seen doodles by a chimp that are more pleasing to the eye than this "art". The only good thing about it is the grim, gritty, semi-realistic atmosphere and...well, that's pretty much it. A horrible book that's given way more credit than it's due.

*1/2

EDIT: Batman: Year One is 20 times better. YO's the masterpiece, TDKR is just its retarded little bastard cousin.

[Clayface]

This is Frank Miller's masterpiece. It redefined Batman and had a huge impact on how he's portrayed to this day. Its my favorite Batman story, and my favorite Miller story. 5 stars from me.

[rggkjg1]

ONE OF THE GREATEST COMICS EVER! MUST HAVE FOR ANY COMIC COLECTOR! GREAT STORY. BATMAN ROCKS IN THIS ONE. 5 STARS. THANK YOU LORD FOR THIS COMIC BEING WRITTEN! WITH OUT IT, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THE GREAT 1989 BATMAN FILM! dark knight returns inspired it, you know....

[Zoddman]

The ending of the Cold War and the Reagan era immediately date the book, but it's still very readable and invigorating even today.
***** Stars.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Clayface
This is Frank Miller's masterpiece. It redefined Batman and had a huge impact on how he's portrayed to this day. Its my favorite Batman story, and my favorite Miller story. 5 stars from me.
Agreed. :)

[VashTheStampede]

I just read it and I have to say it was pretty good. I don't have the experience in comics to be able to call it a masterpiece.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I gave it 4 stars.

Definitely one of the best mainstream comics out there. I think Miller was the first one to really introduce social commentary in a comic book (and, IMO, has been really the only one who's done it well since then). He was also willing to take a good hard look at the underpinnings of the superhero comic, and take them to their logical conclusions (which Alan Moore had been doing on Miracleman and Swamp Thing for a few years, but they weren't major characters in the "big 2" stables). He also replaced the campy Adam West in the minds of comic readers, at least.

A lot of people may read it now and ask, "What's the big deal." I think that's largely because we've had nearly 15 years of comics that have been influenced by it and Alan Moore's Watchmen. Both of these books ensured that we would never be able to read superhero comics in the same way again. For better or for worse, the two of them effectively killed the superhero comic book as we knew it (and, sadly, ushered in the "grim and gritty" age where lots of people said nasty things and died in unpleasant ways for no very good purpose).

That said, I actually have to agree with Daredevil_2003 and say I think that Batman: Year One is a better comic than TDKR. It's certainly the one I re-read more often.

-- Ed/Ace

[Marc]

****

DKR is a classic and some of Frank Miller's best work. It changed the face of comics forever and opened the eyes of a lot of people whose only memory of comic books and Batman in general was from the 60's TV show. The book supposedly inspired Tim Burton's films as well.

While Batman: Year One is my personal favorite Batman story, Daredevil: Born Again is the far better of the Miller/Mazzucchelli collaborations in my opinion.

[Ms. Kitty]

I LOVED IT!! :D

I think the way Miller drew Bruce Wayne was dead on. Come to think of it, it looks a whole lot like Miller's Bruce from Batman Beyond...

[Patrick Bateman]

This was a great read! I don't know which part I like better, Batman snapping Joker's neck, or Bats beating the crap out of Superman (yes folks, it CAN be done).

[The Guard]

Batman didn't snap The Joker's neck. In the end, he couldn't do it. He wasn't a killer. Joker snapped his own neck with the last of his strength.

[Spider-Man]

I found this link in the "Batman: Year One" Talkback (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=139000) so I thought I'd say some words about Frank Miller's other classic Batman storyline.

I can really see how people could consider this his best work on Batman. The story is epic on a grand scale and takes such a radical approach to both the title character and his supporting cast. Everything is dealt with in such a unique and interesting set of circumstances. We have a story that takes place in the future and everything has gotten worse, much worse since the days of Batman: Year One.

We get alot of iconic imagery here. Who can forget the dark Batman infront of the bolt of lightning? That has to be one of the most iconic and popular images of the superhero ever! And it just gets better from there with every moment topping the one before. Scene after unforgettable scene propels Batman into near-fatal conflicts with the police and the classic final showdown with the Joker. Fank Miller's writing and pencils are spectacular and the inks by Klaus Janson seal the deal. I really enjoyed the very risky coloring here too.

The only thing that stops this from being the Batman story is that it lacks the lowkey, very human approach that Batman: Year One took. While this book does have the spectacular battle against Superman which is perhaps the most memorable moment in DC's history it lacks the close personal approach that Batman: Year One took but I think that's for the best. This is an epic Batman story on a whole different scale and it's an amazing adventure.

[Clayface]

In case anyone's wondering, I've this talkback thread with a number of previous ones, and edited the solicit info into the first post of the new resulting thread. Unfortunately, in doing this, the poll was reset, so anyone that voted before will need to vote again.

[Supremus]

It's one of the finest comics ever. It still reads incredibly well, but it had far more impact at the time it was first released, as it captured a certain zeitgeist, to use a bit of cliche.

It was also pretty much the first of its kind, while it seems a little less original now, considering how many imitators it has spawned and inspired and in relation to the general evolution of comics.

Simply put: DKR was for comic books what Star Wars was for sci-fi.

[TimTwoFace]

When I first read DKR just under a decade ago, I liked it, but I didn't fully get it.

The book is the sort that requires a second reading to really understand it - and really, it is quite the masterpiece. The finales for all four parts - where Batman takes on his two most memorable and personal foes, and then his former comrade-in-arms - are amazing.

I never really got into the whole Mutants thing, but aside from that, I think this piece of work is superb. It deserves all the praise it gets.

And thankfully, it hasn't been sullied since the sequel came out a few years ago; now THAT was awful.

-Tim

[MultiMEDEA]

If I could have rated it for the time when I first read it back in the late 80's I would have easily given it four 1/2 or five stars. It really was that much of an eyeopener for its time on what was possible for American comics. Reading it as a young teen, it was a stunner for me. But time and experience can definitely change your perspective. Now I see it as maybe 3 1/2 stars. Its underlying story is still strong and the artwork still vibrant. But its subthemes of rampant Reaganism, nihilistic teens, MTV-ish newscasts, surface shallowness, cults of personality for the famous (and infamous) mire it firmly in the Yuppie Decade.

But there are scenes in it that will always stand this book as a classic of its genre for me:

*the blue and red blur heralding the changed relationship between the Bat and the Man of Steel. A real stunner for us in the SuperFriends crowd. Batman and Superman as adversaries? Say it ain't so, Joe.

*"Carrie Kelly. Robin."

*"Good soldier."

*"Batman. Daaar-ling!" (That one line said so much about the motivations for his entire Rogues' gallery.)

*Superman holding a flag-drapped general's body after he committed suicide.

*the knock-down, drag-out, Kryptonite-slinging, BatTank Fu, blow-the-city-power-grid-for-a-week, thrilla in Manilla fight between Supes and Bats. Even when Batman loses, he wins.

*the shadow of the bat on Bruce's brow.

*the death of Alfred and the destruction of the BatCave. I still can't look at that page for very long.

[Hades]

Honestly, I thought this was a great story at first, but when I reread it, it just wasn't the same and came off rather, well, dull.

[JLU Dude]

It was okay. I do agree with SilverKnight about how Batman was protrayed here, though his actions could be justified as a reaction toa darker Gotham. He struck me in this story as a sadist, something Batman traditionally isn't. Superman also struck me as out of character. Joker, I'm kinda torn between. Two-Ace was good, though I prefer the classic tragic, torn version. Wanted to punch Gallagher several times. Wolper was no different, either. I'm not gonna miss Wolper (He's like S: TAS' Hardcastle and B: TVS' Snyder). Kinda liked Yindel as a character, though. Not sure about Selina, either, though.

[MilkManX]

For me it gets better every time. I have read this book probably at least 30 times since I first bought the TPB in 1990. I always notice something else Miller was trying to do or some subtle referance to the Bat greats. Good Stuff. 5 stars.

[Hanshotfirst113]

"Rubber bullets ... honest."

-Terminatah

I don't think that it's designed to be the definitive Batman story. I think that Batman is being deconstructed just like the genre, and he's looking at what Bats would be like outside of the DC fantasy world and look at him realistically. I think Ace is right. The story has influenced so many others that its had to look upon a fresh.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

For some reason, I picked this up at the local library. This is the first American comic I've read in a decade and I enjoyed it, espicially Superman's arc and the way he was portrayed art-wise in the wider shot (like when he's stopping the nuke and on the cover of part four).

I'll be frank...I was jarred by reading this, I'm used to black and white Japanese comics. Wowza.

I hope this thing gets a full animated adatation DtV release.

[Red X]

I read DKR late last year, but I only got to read it once, because it was a library book I had borrowed off a friend, and it had to do the rounds of our group before it went back (We have a bit of a Batman fan club going) But I think, along with The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, No Man's Land and Hush, it has to be one of the best Batman comics I've ever read. Old Bruce was so cool! I loved all the issues dealt with in it, and most of all, I loved the confrontation between Batman and Superman. I mean, I've always been a Bats fan - I think Clark's a prissy boyscout, personally, and their . . .less friendship than alliance always bothered me, because I felt like Supes was always sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. Anyways, the way Batman just kicked his butt in every conceivable way was so awsome. The plot line was always strong, and the art was fantastic. It was . . . gritty enough that it didn't clash with the plot, but not so dark as to overwhelm the story. I almost cried when Bats was Bat-tanking the mutants and he was remembering Dick (who's been one of my favourite characters for a long time), and I think Miller did a fantastic job. Definately one of the greatest Batmna comics ever.
Five stars.

[danreyes1]

I'm probably the only person who didn't really like this story. I didn't dislike it, it's just not my type of story. The aspect of Batman that appeals most to me is the tragedy in his life. This book centres around the corruption that has plagued Gotham and just how badass Batman can be. I really don't care about those aspects.

[Xurk]

I finally read this story a month or so ago, after meaning to for several years. Opposed to the previous poster, I really enjoyed it and it lived up to everything I had heard about it.

The one thing that surprised me was how it seemed to have been written recently, not a good twenty years ago, as I was expecting it to feel dated. Thankfully, I was wrong :)

I don't have the book near me to reference certain scenes and I have to admit that I can't remember everything as vividly after a month or so, but all the scenes of Bruce with Clark were sheer brilliance. As was the plot with the Joker, and Alfred's last scene. Just... wow.

[Dark Night]

I just bought the Absolute edition of this story, which i highly recommend to any fan of it--its awesome!

Best Batman story next to Year One, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Killing Joke, and Hush.

[Soul]

The Absolute Edition looks amazing.
Sadly it includes DKSA.
Which yeah,my main reason for disliking it is Frank's art in it.

[Young Justice]

But its subthemes of rampant Reaganism, nihilistic teens, MTV-ish newscasts, surface shallowness, cults of personality for the famous (and infamous) mire it firmly in the Yuppie Decade.

I beg to differ. With recent events like Bush elected, the real state driven economic crisis, Big Brother and tons of other reality shows, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears etc. the tone given to DKR is not as dated as someone might think.

The only aspect that is dated is the Cold War one. DKR has to be read now just like the Watchmen comic series was conceived: As an alternate Earth where some historical events never happened.

In the case of Watchmen, Dr. Manhattan was created and US won the Vietnam war. In the case of DKR, the cold war never ended and Reagan didn't died. He was the president of US in a near future after the eighties. In addition, Reagan could be easily replaced by any right wing conservative president.




*Superman holding a flag-drapped general's body after he committed suicide.


I don't have the actual comic book with me right now, but as far as I can remember is actually Batman that is holing the general's body.

The panel looks like if Batman was after the general when he discovered he was the one behind the weapons misplacement and the top brass army man took his life before Batman could do anything about it.

[Aaron]

Discuss this classic Batman story!

BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS

....................... This collection is hailed as a comics masterpiece and was responsible for the launch of the Batman movie series.

Comments? What are your thoughts?


...........................THANK YOU LORD FOR THIS COMIC BEING WRITTEN! WITH OUT IT, WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THE GREAT 1989 BATMAN FILM! dark knight returns inspired it, you know....


****

.................................The book supposedly inspired Tim Burton's films as well.
......................

It did not. It did NOT. It absolutely positively DID NOT!
This is a misconception I've seen far too often, that people keep perpetuating.
And it needs to stop.
I repeat. It NEEDS TO STOP.

Miller's TDKR was initially well-received because of publicity. It was the first majorly mainstream (i.e. everyone began to take notice) Batman-related ANYTHING to be completely anti - the 50s/60s Camp/Adam West/Dick Sprang era.
It was such a shock and such a polar opposite, that people flocked to it.
But change doesn't equal good.

It didn't usher in the movies, nor did it inspire them.
All it did was show the executives, producers, and editors at DC and WB that Batman could be a more marketable commodity than it had been in recent years.
The comic that inspired the '89 Batman film, the comic that got the script produced, the comic that got the director attached...
was Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke".

The only credit I can see Miller getting is for "Batman: Year One" for the corrupt cop angle.
But then he can't even get that really, when you think about it. Since Detective Harvey Bullock existed before Miller's Flass.

Watch any documentary about the '89 movie, find any interview you want, and you'll know this.
I'm sick and tired of TDKR getting credit for something it doesn't deserve.

Furthermore...
I'm quite upset that this pile of rubbish has received the accolades it has.

I get the whole dystopian-powderkeg thing. I just think it was poorly executed.
I think the narrative is badly assembled, and poorly delivered.
Miller openly hates Superman, and it shows. He treats every other character that isn't Batman (http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showwiki.php?title=Batman) with such disdain it's disgusting. And he can NOT write strong women. All Miller's women in everything he writes are "sexpots" and "whores".
Even when he writes something close to a good strong woman (i.e. Elektra), they still use their sex as a tool.
And even his portrayal of Batman comes across as sick.
Miller CAN illustrate. His work on Wolverine shows that.
His writing is terrible here.
He CAN write. Sin City shows that, amongst a few other pieces of his work.
His art is terrible here.
This is an atrocious excuse for a comic.
It's like the fan-reaction after the Schumacher "Batman & Robin". Anything would have been praised after that poorly conceived, poorly received film.
This was just the opposite of what mainstream America perceived as Batman.
It was less about Batman and more about being anti-80s. It was a commentary piece. Thankfully, he didn't completely lose sight of the focus, like he did in TDKSA.
But I don't see how anyone can find it appealing. The whole showdown with the "mutants" in the mud, which was one of the story's focal points, I found to be an absolute utter waste, fully of terrible hammy dialogue.
Miller's ham-fisted writing only barely works in Sin City. And nothing else. Even when he tries to force it. Don't believe me? Watch HIS version of "The Spirit".
I didn't flock to it because I had already been introduced to the O'Neil/Neal Adams of the 70s. Which was dark without being "Milleresque".
Apparently, Miller missed those comics.
Besides, when I want dark, edgy, twisted Batman from the 80s, I'll stick with Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke".

[Spider-Man]

DC Comics seems to think this mini-series help inspired the movies:


This collection is hailed as a comics masterpiece and was responsible for the launch of the Batman movies.

http://dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1278


It remains an undisputed classic, one of the most influential stories ever
told in comics, and is a book cited by the filmmakers as an inspiration
for the most recent Batman movies.

http://dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1279

[suss2it]

DC Comics seems to think this mini-series help inspired the movies:



http://dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1278



http://dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1279That just sounds like typical PR stuff to say. Is there a quote out there from the actual filmmakers about being inspired by this book?

[Aaron]

DC Comics seems to think this mini-series help inspired the movies:



http://dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1278



http://dccomics.com/dcu/graphic_novels/?gn=1279

That's just PR BS.


That just sounds like typical PR stuff to say. Is there a quote out there from the actual filmmakers about being inspired by this book?

It is just typical unfounded PR stuff.
There aren't any actual quotes from actual filmmakers.
If you watch the various documentaries about the Burton Movies being made, they discuss at length inspiration drawn from "The Killing Joke". And mention specifically that the one contribution TDKR brought to the table was that it showed DC Execs that Batman was a marketable commodity.

[Manga4life]

After having read this classic piece of work by Frank Miller multiple times over the past 20+ years I've actually grown to dislike The Dark Knight Returns in many ways, though I did really enjoy it at one point. Whether you want to chalk it up to being "overrated" or me just being really burnt out on reading it and hearing others talk about it I think I've just hit a way with stuff such as this and Batman: Year One, it still doesn't mean that I totally hate these stories or anything but I've certainly had my fair share of them over the years. I do have a small place in my heart dedicated to The Dark Knight Returns, but I've experienced much better Batman stories since the Miller stuff, or at least stories I've likes much better I should say....

[Shawn Hopkins]

I think that in a lot of ways Dark Knight Strikes again is better. Yeah, I said it! Wanna fight about it?!:D

I don't get this hating DKR and loving The Killing Joke thing. Even Alan Moore has disowned and depreciated The Killing Joke, saying it was a mistake to try to bring psychological realism to a character as grounded in fantasy as Batman. It's where people get the "Batman is crazy" thing from, including Burton apparently. It's a very well-drawn and well-written comic book, but conceptually it's a disaster.

[W.C.Reaf]

I think that in a lot of ways Dark Knight Strikes again is better. Yeah, I said it! Wanna fight about it?!:D

No, but I will post this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-the-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-1-2962481), this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-the-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-2-3396234), and this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-3-resaved-3722600), and let Linkara tell you how bad it is. ;)

[Jeffrey]

That just sounds like typical PR stuff to say. Is there a quote out there from the actual filmmakers about being inspired by this book?No, but I can at least bring up some minor proofs of influence. In the first movie, Vicky Vale's previous photo job was capturing a revolution in Corto Maltese, an island that served a plot point in DKR. Also, I'm sure this is where scenes like young Bruce falling to the batcave originated, as Begins reenacted that part.

[Shawn Hopkins]

No, but I will post this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-the-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-1-2962481), this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-the-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-2-3396234), and this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-3-resaved-3722600), and let Linkara tell you how bad it is. ;)

I've seen those. Linkara is dead wrong. As he very often is. :D

[Aaron]

I think that in a lot of ways Dark Knight Strikes again is better. Yeah, I said it! Wanna fight about it?!:D

I don't get this hating DKR and loving The Killing Joke thing. Even Alan Moore has disowned and depreciated The Killing Joke, saying it was a mistake to try to bring psychological realism to a character as grounded in fantasy as Batman. It's where people get the "Batman is crazy" thing from, including Burton apparently. It's a very well-drawn and well-written comic book, but conceptually it's a disaster.


The Killing Joke is amazing.
I hold no stock in what Alan Moore says, even about his own works.
That crazy man needs to stop talking. About everything.


No, but I will post this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-the-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-1-2962481), this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-the-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-2-3396234), and this (http://blip.tv/at4w/at4w-dark-knight-strikes-again-part-3-resaved-3722600), and let Linkara tell you how bad it is. ;)

Heck yeah!!! I love love LOVE that review!


No, but I can at least bring up some minor proofs of influence. In the first movie, Vicky Vale's previous photo job was capturing a revolution in Corto Maltese, an island that served a plot point in DKR. Also, I'm sure this is where scenes like young Bruce falling to the batcave originated, as Begins reenacted that part.

The Corto Maltese thing wouldn't count as "inspired by", but more as a subtle nod to comics, for the fans.
And the falling in a cave thing occuring in Batman Begins, has NOTHING to do with Burtons Batman movies, since that didn't happen in them.
There was a scene like that in Schumacher's "Batman Forever". But Bruce discovering the Batcave isn't something Miller created.


I've seen those. Linkara is dead wrong. As he very often is. :D

Nope.
He's absolutely positively right on the money.

[Spider-Man]

As for TDKR itself, it has been a long time since I’ve read it but I plan to re-read it again thanks to the animated DTV of it coming out sometime next year. I remember enjoying it when I read it years ago but that could be different now as I’ve noticed my taste in comics have expanded a little. I am hoping to still get a good kick out of the story.

[Ed Liu]

Moving the debate from the Before Watchmen thread over here before it totally drags the discussion off-topic.


Yes, it is saying superheroes are worthless, but not because they wear masks and use force, only because they are puppets of the status quo, like the nearly neutered Superman. Batman doesn't go back to being dandy about town Bruce Wayne at the end of DKR, he completes his transformation into a freedom fighter/terrorist and rides off with his followers to go hide in caves somewhere to form an "army." Not a commune or a political party, an army, which considering Batman's speech about weapons earlier in the book will presumably use force even if it doesn't use guns. That's not subtext, that's in the narration.

http://bigotherbigother.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/batmantdkr4-199-the-dark-knight-falls.jpg?w=500

No, he's not wearing the mask in the final page, but Carrie is and so are some of the batboys so I don't think that symbolizes the total abandonment of them as a tool. Also, even if it might have made more thematic sense to have a maskless "Bruce Wayne Freedom Fighter" directing things, practically without Batman in the costume I don't think DKSA would have sold very well. :)
I can see where you're coming from with this, and I think that's a valid interpretation although it's not the one I subscribe to. The speech Batman gives to the Sons of the Batman in relation to the guns says, "Our weapons are quiet...precise," and by the end, Bruce is saying, "...in return, I'll stay quiet." You can see that as pulling a page from Oliver Queen's playbook (earlier, where Ollie says he's been "keeping busy" right before a news story about the sinking of a nuclear sub (no hands lost)), but I view Batman's approach as being fundamentally bigger than a single vigilante's actions, and fundamentally less visible than garishly costumed people punching each other. He does refer to the Mutants and Sons of the Batman as an army, but the Salvation Army and the Peace Corps appropriate military terms for non-military and non-militant purposes, and that's where I saw the original book coming from. I definitely agree that force is a part of that equation, but it's also important that Batman's first use of that army for the first time was to restore order initially, and then to provide humanitarian assistance to the survivors of the Coldbringer weapon. The military and violent aspects of Bruce's crusade were fundamentally different from those of "Batman."

Then you go from that to the Batman of DKSA, who is not using weapons that are quiet or precise, especially if he's appropriating terrorist means to achieve his ends. That's still just too big of a mental hurdle for me going from the first book to the second.

If I can also go out-of-context a bit, I think it's also worth pointing out that Miller went on to do Martha Washington and Sin City after DKR, both of which might have appropriated some elements from superhero comic books but neither of which is a "superhero comic" in any meaningful sense. I thought Miller (and Moore, who went on to try Big Numbers and From Hell) were both trying to get past superheroes and their usual tropes and stories, which is the other reason why I view DKR as a capstone to Batman in particular and the superhero as we knew it in general.

On consideration, I'll also mitigate some of my earlier comments by saying that Miller and Moore didn't aim to destroy superheroes in general (even if I think that was their intent) as much as they were deconstructing the adolescent male power fantasy that lay underneath superhero comics up to that point. They were just underscoring the fundamental flaws and weaknesses of that form of storytelling by extending them to their logical conclusions. Moore even touches on this in his first introduction to the DKR trade paperback (*). However, as it turns out, it didn't kill the superhero as much as it allowed people to break out of that mold and use superheroes as metaphors for different things. Most of the superhero comics on the stands are still the same shallow adolescent male power fantasies with more sex and violence (ahem (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/22/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/)), but superheroes have been stretched well beyond just that paradigm by stuff like Astro City, Planetary, The New Frontier, and, uh, a whole big pile of stuff from Grant Morrison. They also did make room for the non-superhero stuff like Sandman and Vertigo, and eventually to stuff like all the non-cape-and-cowl stuff by Ed Brubaker and Greg Rucka. Moore himself started messing around with alternative superhero narrative themes in his ABC books (and, reportedly, Supreme and WildCATS, though I haven't read either). DKSA really just seems to be going straight back to the adolescent male power fantasy, and not even in as much depth as Miller explored it in the original.

But like I said, I think there's plenty of room in here for your interpretation of Miller's work to stand just as well as mine, and I think that underscores the skill of his work more than anything else even if I don't happen to like some of it. It's NOT simple and it's NOT just what you see on the surface, and that's true of all the great literature of the world.

(*) = Ironic, since Moore even says at the end of his introduction that the work is deserving of a more permanent presentation, considering what that permanent presentation led to in his case ;).

[Shawn Hopkins]

Really good post, Ed.

I agree with you about Martha Washington. I think Miller was trying to grow past superhero tropes there and that's why I like the original "Give Me Liberty" so much.

Just two more things about Batman, not arguments just points based on what you brought up.

I think Batman only intends at the end to be "quiet" for the time it takes to train his army. Thats what he's done before the beginning of DKSA, when he goes into full-scale revolutionary mode.

I think the "quiet and precise" weapons might just be Batman saying "we don't use guns" or just saying "we pick our targets carefully and attack them with skill." But then again you're right that there's definitely a disparity between that and crashing a flying car into a building. It might just be an example of how Miller's viewpoints have changed over the years, with him possibly coming to the conclusion that more drastic action is necessary. Worth noting along those lines is that the DKSA Batman condones, encourages, and participates in the planning of killings, while the DKR Batman couldn't even finish the Joker.

Also, some times I can feel the heavy hand of DC editorial in Dark Knight Returns, like they're still trying to protect Batman as a children's character a little bit and holding Miller back. Or maybe he's self-censoring. Maybe the DKR Batman would have been more like DKSA Batman if Miller had freer reign. The "Leaving the world no poorer - four men die" line doesn't sound like it was written by a guy that believes every life is a beautiful snowflake that should be protected. It sounds like Frank Miller in just about every other story he's written that didn't have a comics code logo on it, the "some people just need killin'" Frank Miller.