Frank Millers: The Dark Knight Returns, who didn't like it?

[Bird Boy]

I believe I'm the only one who didn't like this comic. It was just way to violent for my tastes. I think this might have been discussed on the old board, but, this is the new board, so I brought it up again! I was just wondering if I was the only one who didn't like it. I didn't think it was what Batman was like at all. I actually wish I never read it. Anybody else?

-Bird_Boy

[NewMaxFranklin]

I find Miller's stuff a little to severe for my taste as well. More upsetting than enjoyable really. Some people really like that hyper-realistic, ulrta-violent stuff. I'm not a big comic reader and am only really farmilliar with and fond of the Timm/Dini versions. All that Knightfall and death of Superman business made me sick back in elementary school. I don't want to see Superman die, or Batman get his back broken. Why don't they just make Snoopy get run over by a car while they're at it? :(

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Bird_Boy
I was just wondering if I was the only one who didn't like it.

I loved TDKR. But I also think that in one giant leap Miller took Batman about as far in that direction as he could go. So I am NOT a fan of much that came afterward.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I found the storytelling to be a bit dense for my tastes. All those extra-small panels filled with wordy dystopian politics seemed, well, excessive. I didn't mind the violence, and I thought the idea of a female Robin was brilliant, but overall, I thought his Batman: Year One "clicked" for me better. I thought Mazzuchelli conveyed his ideas better.

I liked Miller's Daredevil stuff, though.

[icecold]

What do I think of the story?....eh, I've seen better, :rolleyes: I like the "hyper-realistic, ultra-violent" setting and tone though, I feel it makes the story more, you guessed it, real. Everything else about the book is, well... atrocious(sp?), especially the art, I've seen 10 year-olds that draw better than Frank Miller!

I also enjoyed "Year One" more.

[EarthX]

Originally posted by Bird_Boy
I didn't think it was what Batman was like at all.

Remember though, the premise was that Bruce had gone nuts by giving up Batman, his "real self" for a decade or two.

Miller himself will tell you it was NOT meant to be an interpretation of what Batman should be, but what can happen to a man that is not true to himself. He'll, no doubt, be a milder Batman in the upcoming sequel since Miller wants to break down this "new" Batman with all of his darkness and rage that we see nowadays.

Of course, through it all, he refrained from killing anyone, so even on the edge of insanity, he was, in the end, still the real Batman.

[Salvor]

I loved TDKR for so many reasons I wouldn't be able to list them all here. Still, I got one thing to say: thank god, comics are not all about Scooby Doo finding out the identity of the bad guy,or Superman saving a plane from an enormous disaster. This is NOT real! Life does not comply with this "they-lived-happily-everafter" story. People get hurt, die, starve to death, suffer from a terrible disease... and comics must deal with these issues too.

Consequently, I believe TDKR is the most "honnest" comic I've ever read. It doesn't cram us with the usual "the superhero saves the day" crap... and I respect Frank Miller for that.

Sorry for the bad language, it helps my arguments come across :)

[Trent Lane]

i've never read TDKR, but i have flipped through it at the book store a couple of times and thought it looked pretty cool, especially the fight with superman. from what i've heard, it's a realy good story. the sequel looks pretty awesome too, so maybe i'll pick both of them up.

as for knightfall, i never read the comic but i read the novelization of it and i thought it was excelent...

[Vigo Sprax]

I never picked up the TPB at B&N because the art looked so crappy.

[Frozen]

I prefered the Killing Joke, mainly because I felt it was better written, and I love Brian Bolland's art. His vision of the Joker is surely one of THE definative renditions...

[EarthX]

Originally posted by Frozen I prefered the Killing Joke, mainly because I felt it was better written, and I love Brian Bolland's art. His vision of the Joker is surely one of THE definative renditions...

Of course that was Alan Moore and no one has ever beaten him when it comes to storytelling, although Gaiman comes close.

[James Harvey]

I thought the art in TDKR was stellar, and transfers suprisingly well when it was animated in the LOTDK ep. The story was great, and the art was just as sweet, I thought. The art gave us a real grim and gritty look at Gotham. I do like the "real" twist to the story, how is pulls down everything to give us a sense that it's real and can really happen. While TDRK returns isn't the best Batman story, it's up there. TDRK is beat only by 'The Killing Joke' and 'Year One'.

[Fish]

I think Batman:TDKR is the best comic around and I simply love Miller for what he did to the Batman universe.
I even wrote about TDKR in my big 3rd year essay and it was about 20 pages long. My only problem was that I couldn't find anything that I didn't like about the comic!! I had to include Bird Boys' statement about not liking TDKR to have something to put it up agains in my discussion about it ( I hope you don't mind Bird Boy...anyhow..it's too late now *GG* :) )
I found the art brilliant and the use of frames excelent.
It was like a movie and the plot and tempo was well done.
I especially liked the use of the news to explain what was going on in the world, but the thing that made me love it even more, was that Superman got his sorry butt kicked!!!
I never really cared for that red and blue scout, so it was a treat for me to see him bite the dust! muahahahah!!! :D

http://www.ihs4ever.com/~cwm/otn/animals/goldfish.gif <>< F I S H ><>http://www.ihs4ever.com/~cwm/otn/animals/goldfish.gif

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by EarthX


Of course that was Alan Moore and no one has ever beaten him when it comes to storytelling, although Gaiman comes close.

There are plenty of great writers out there; not everyone has to do 'mature' stories to be considered a great writer.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Leap Larry Jojo


There are plenty of great writers out there; not everyone has to do 'mature' stories to be considered a great writer.

Depends on what you consider a "great writer". Personally, I find that all the writers I consider "great" also write mature stories.

[EarthX]

Originally posted by Leap Larry Jojo
There are plenty of great writers out there; not everyone has to do 'mature' stories to be considered a great writer.

You've never heard of Supreme or Tom Strong?

What about "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow"
and Superman Annual #11? Those are all-ages stories and probably the two best Superman tales ever written.

Gaiman can write all-ages stuff too, such as in "I Traded my Daddy for Two Goldfish" and that GL/Superman special that just came out.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Clayface


Depends on what you consider a "great writer". Personally, I find that all the writers I consider "great" also write mature stories.

The concept of "matureness" is a pretension, a lie. A story about some girl in a goody-goody boarding school can blow away a story about murder, swearing, sex and drugs. ANYBODY can throw together sex, drugs and ultraviolence. Hey, if I want to incite some cheap thrills, even I can do it.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not insulting Alan Moore or Frank Miller--their stories are crafted with precision and style. But I'm just saying that a writer doesn't have to be consciously "mature" to be great.

For example: I'd rather read a thousand "immature" books by C.S. Lewis or Tolkien rather than so-called "mature" books by, say, your latest New Tork Times Bestseller writer.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by EarthX


You've never heard of Supreme or Tom Strong?

What about "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow"
and Superman Annual #11? Those are all-ages stories and probably the two best Superman tales ever written.

Gaiman can write all-ages stuff too, such as in "I Traded my Daddy for Two Goldfish" and that GL/Superman special that just came out.

Ahem. You seem to take my comment as a slight against Gaiman or Moore. It is not. But I'm just saying that I'm not one of those "bandwagoners" who jump on the latest "mature" writer when there are other, lesser known writers out there who are just as good, even if they haven't made a name for themselves with one or two overhyped titles.

For example, Kevin Smith may be a great writer for movies, and his dialogue is good, but that doesn't mean his "mature" stuff is any better than, say, a Mark Waid book or a Walt Simonson title. In fact, I enjoy Simonson's superhero "fantasies" much more than reading about Black Canary and Green Arrow having oral sex.

However, about "Tom Strong"...it's not the best superhero book in years, in my opinion. Neither is "Powers." These books get acclaim because their writers are extremely popular. But that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes.

Meanwhile, there are books like Black Panther, which are just as good as the above titles, if not better, but because it gets little hype and the writer isn't as well-known, nobody buys it. I'm sure all the lemmings would be picking up Black Panther if Alan Moore were writing it now.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leap Larry Jojo


The concept of "matureness" is a pretension, a lie. A story about some girl in a goody-goody boarding school can blow away a story about murder, swearing, sex and drugs. ANYBODY can throw together sex, drugs and ultraviolence. Hey, if I want to incite some cheap thrills, even I can do it.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not insulting Alan Moore or Frank Miller--their stories are crafted with precision and style. But I'm just saying that a writer doesn't have to be consciously "mature" to be great.

For example: I'd rather read a thousand "immature" books by C.S. Lewis or Tolkien rather than so-called "mature" books by, say, your latest New Tork Times Bestseller writer.

Well put.

The question is one of QUALITY, not MATURITY. Miller is good because he writes well and deals honestly with the subjects of sex and violence and drugs, not BECAUSE he writes about sex and violence and drugs. Lewis and Tolkien are good because they write well and deal honestly with the subjects of courage and moral choice in a "juvenile" setting, not BECAUSE they write stories in that setting.

The whole "maturity = good" thing is, I think, an overblown and by now woefully overextended reaction to the repressions of the 30s and 40s and 50s. Back then you couldn't tell stories about drug use, or sexuality, or which were critical of civil, religious or military authority, and violence was used only on the most superficial level for its excitement value.

In the 60s and 70s when the pressure was off, good writers and directors rushed into those territories and produced some extraordinary work; unfortunately, the quality of the work was confused with the subject matter, and it was (and still is) widely thought that "great work" requires graphic and clinical detail. But of course, to see that great crime thrillers or romances don't require coarse language or graphic bloodletting, or hot sweaty jungle sex, one only has to look back at "The Big Sleep" and "Casablanca."

I think the same holds in comics, except the field is about 20 years behind what happened in film. As the caps come off good work is being done that deals with "mature" subjects; that doesn't mean all "mature" works are good or that good work is impossible at other levels.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Leap Larry Jojo
The concept of "matureness" is a pretension, a lie. A story about some girl in a goody-goody boarding school can blow away a story about murder, swearing, sex and drugs. ANYBODY can throw together sex, drugs and ultraviolence. Hey, if I want to incite some cheap thrills, even I can do it.



But you're asuming by "mature" I mean a story with sex, drugs, murder, etc. That's not at all what I mean when I use the term mature. There are 12 year olds out there having sex - I don't consider the ac tof sex to be a "mature" theme.

For me, a "mature" story is one that has depth. One that requires a bit of age and wisdom to truely understand the underlying meaning. Sex, violence and the like do not make a story mature, in my definition.




For example: I'd rather read a thousand "immature" books by C.S. Lewis or Tolkien rather than so-called "mature" books by, say, your latest New Tork Times Bestseller writer.


That's funny, because I personally wouldn't want to read anything by Lewis, Tolkien, or the latest New York Times Bestseller writer. I don't care for any of them actually.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Well put.

The question is one of QUALITY, not MATURITY. Miller is good because he writes well and deals honestly with the subjects of sex and violence and drugs, not BECAUSE he writes about sex and violence and drugs. Lewis and Tolkien are good because they write well and deal honestly with the subjects of courage and moral choice in a "juvenile" setting, not BECAUSE they write stories in that setting.

The whole "maturity = good" thing is, I think, an overblown and by now woefully overextended reaction to the repressions of the 30s and 40s and 50s. Back then you couldn't tell stories about drug use, or sexuality, or which were critical of civil, religious or military authority, and violence was used only on the most superficial level for its excitement value.

In the 60s and 70s when the pressure was off, good writers and directors rushed into those territories and produced some extraordinary work; unfortunately, the quality of the work was confused with the subject matter, and it was (and still is) widely thought that "great work" requires graphic and clinical detail. But of course, to see that great crime thrillers or romances don't require coarse language or graphic bloodletting, or hot sweaty jungle sex, one only has to look back at "The Big Sleep" and "Casablanca."

I think the same holds in comics, except the field is about 20 years behind what happened in film. As the caps come off good work is being done that deals with "mature" subjects; that doesn't mean all "mature" works are good or that good work is impossible at other levels.

Yep. Like I said, I enjoy Alan Moore's work--Watchmen is a hell of a chinese puzzle, and Miller's hard boiled stories are intelligent and well done. But my main point was that there are lesser-known writers who are just as good, even if their styles are different. So I disagree with the fact that Alan Moore is the "best" storyteller, even if he is good. He makes mistakes, and so does Gaiman. Sometimes Kurt Busiek may write a much better crafted superhero story than Alan Moore, or vice versa. So it's difficult to categorize writers, at least for me.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Clayface

That's funny, because I personally wouldn't want to read anything by Lewis, Tolkien, or the latest New York Times Bestseller writer. I don't care for any of them actually.


How did I know you would pick up on this? ;)

Am I mistaken or have you not been around much? Either way, good to see you again.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Clayface



But you're asuming by "mature" I mean a story with sex, drugs, murder, etc. That's not at all what I mean when I use the term mature. There are 12 year olds out there having sex - I don't consider the ac tof sex to be a "mature" theme.

For me, a "mature" story is one that has depth. One that requires a bit of age and wisdom to truely understand the underlying meaning. Sex, violence and the like do not make a story mature, in my definition.


Then Frank Miller and Alan Moore shouldn't be the only ones immortalized, since MANY comic writers out there can do the same thing. Christopher Priest, Marv Wolfman and even George Perez can do the same. Steve Ditko. Roger Stern. Daniel Clowes. Gilbert Hernandez. Heck, even Stan Lee cranked out a few really thought-provoking scripts during the Silver Age.


That's funny, because I personally wouldn't want to read anything by Lewis, Tolkien, or the latest New York Times Bestseller writer. I don't care for any of them actually.
[/B]

Then we agree that we have different opinions. But my point stands. A children's story can have just as much depth as a story geared towards adults. And there are many, many writers out there who are ignored just because they aren't as well-known and haven't had a hype machine to help spread the good word on their work.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


How did I know you would pick up on this? ;)



Gee, you callin me predictable Maxie? ;)




Am I mistaken or have you not been around much? Either way, good to see you again.


You are correct, sir. I was out of town for a couple of weeks - went to a research conference. I'm back for a ltitle while now - going to be leaving for a while in August again though.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Leap Larry Jojo


Then we agree that we have different opinions. But my point stands. A children's story can have just as much depth as a story geared towards adults. And there are many, many writers out there who are ignored just because they aren't as well-known and haven't had a hype machine to help spread the good word on their work.


Oh, I totally agree - I'm not arguing with you on that at all. I agree that there are many good writers out there that don't get recognition for their work. Just a by product of our society I guess. For example, most of the movies that I would consider "great" were never blockbusters because there are so many people out there that want shallow and flashy rather than in depth and mature.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Clayface



Oh, I totally agree - I'm not arguing with you on that at all. I agree that there are many good writers out there that don't get recognition for their work. Just a by product of our society I guess. For example, most of the movies that I would consider "great" were never blockbusters because there are so many people out there that want shallow and flashy rather than in depth and mature.


Yeah, I was arguing with Earth X about this. Maybe that's not what he meant about Alan Moore being the best comic writer out there, but I felt I had to preach about something concerning underhyped writers.

[EarthX]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leap Larry Jojo
Yeah, I was arguing with Earth X about this. Maybe that's not what he meant about Alan Moore being the best comic writer out there, but I felt I had to preach about something concerning underhyped writers.[QUOTE]

I said he's the best because I think he is, across the board, the best comic writer today. For some reason, you assumed I liked him because he has written "mature" stuff. I think Waid, Busiek and Ostrander are also great writers and I tend to buy everything they write, but to me, Moore and Gaiman have a storytelling insight in them that puts them on a level just above those guys.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by EarthX


I said he's the best because I think he is, across the board, the best comic writer today. For some reason, you assumed I liked him because he has written "mature" stuff. I think Waid, Busiek and Ostrander are also great writers and I tend to buy everything they write, but to me, Moore and Gaiman have a storytelling insight in them that puts them on a level just above those guys. [/B]

You mentioned that you liked "maturity" in your comics in some of your previous posts, and in other threads as well. That's not an assumption, it's a fact.

However, I *know* that you did not specify why you liked Moore (though obviously his ability to write intelligent stories targeted at an older audience has something to do with it), but I was hoping that you didn't like him just because he gets the most hype in the industry. I also did not see how his new line of America's Best Comics was that much superior to the rest of the comics out in the stands. They are good, yes, but hardly representative of Moore at his best.

I'd also like to say that the best comics are not wholly the writer's contribution. Watchmen is just as much Dave Gibbon's story as it was Alan Moore's. From Hell is just as much Eddie Campbell's story as Alan Moore's. He was blessed with great partners throughout his career, and he was smart enough to choose good artists. But that's not to say he doesn't have his lemons. His WildCATs run, for instance, was some of the worst superhero work on the market at the time.

Anyway, I just don't think Moore should take all the credit in those comics. When people say a writer is the best "storyteller", I feel unsure, since artists usually have the most control over pacing, visual subtleties, etc,.

Anyway, just some ramblings. Hope you don't take offense at some of my arguments. A lot of this is merely food for thought.

[watsonlives]

Miller and Moore are not considered great because they writ on mature themes, but because they do it better than anybody else. here is a perfect example, from Frank Miller's dark Knight Returns.

The drawing on the panel shows Joker giving free cotton candy to boyscouts at the fair. Jokers thought caption says this:

"They could put me in a helicopter and fly me up into the air and line the bodies head to toe on the ground in delightful geometric patterns like an endless June Taylor dancers routine... And it would never be enough. No, I don't keep count. But you do.
And I love you for it."

Is that cool or what?