Imho: Dk2

[MattL.]

***IMHO**** (Keep a bucket of salt handy).



DK2 is Frank Miller once again using superheroes as political cartoons all the while reminding us all how much he hates Superman and superheroes in general yet still insists on working on them, while the masses and the comics press put him on a pedestal for his oh so intelligent "deconstructionism".


As if there was something so terrible that it needed to be torn down in the first place. :rolleyes:

Dark for darks sake and Superman and Wonder Woman boffing and creating earthquakes. Ah, yes this truly is the "sophistication" that modern post DKR and Watchmen comics are known for. Of course it'll probably get a blurb in Rolling Stone so that makes it okay. Afterall if we had appreciated the superhero genre for what it is back in 1986 we couldn't survive without the blessings of two minute sound bites from the mainstream media. Yeah! Kill Superman or turn him blue so we can get on CNN! :yawn:

Dont get me wrong. Miller is certainally entitled to his vision such as it is and theres an occasional germ of a good literal or visual idea there (take the classic shot of Bruce and his parents bodies from Year One) but the overall work and the ultimate industry repsonse that will take a work thats an exception to the rule and make it the rule is what I find base and repelant.

To certain extent, DK2 is redundant because (metaphorically speaking) practically every comicbook made since the original came out has been a sequel to Dark Knight Returns! :mad:


Anyway thats just my 2 cents plus $1.50.

[Apache Chief]

Yeah, it bothers me that a book like DK2 gets mainstream media attention, but you have to be a real comics fan to get it. I think a guy who hears about this book on CNN, wanders into a comic store out of curiosity, and picks it up will be completely lost. And as a fan of Superman, I really don't care for this sequel. Miller's hatred for the character is almost palpable. It makes you wonder why he insists on using him.

[The Guard]

Yeah, it bothers me that a book like DK2 gets mainstream media attention, but you have to be a real comics fan to get it. I think a guy who hears about this book on CNN, wanders into a comic store out of curiosity, and picks it up will be completely lost. And as a fan of Superman, I really don't care for this sequel. Miller's hatred for the character is almost palpable. It makes you wonder why he insists on using him.

A real comics fan with an iota of respect for the characters should HATE DK2.

[kid_flash]

I am a "real comics fan" and I have as much respect as humanly possible for these characters. However, I recognize an Elseworlds when I see it (as would any REAL comics fan :p ), and don't go into it to take the characters seriously. DK2 is a really, REALLY fun comic book.

[The Guard]

The fact that it's "ELSEWORLDS" means nothing. DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN at least didn't turn Batman into a murderer. The characterization of Batman has changed from DKR to DKSA.

[kid_flash]

15 years'll do that to a man. Just view 'em as too seperate stories and have some freakin' fun.

[Beyond Batman]

DK2 is the essence of what Batman stands for. Meaning, no one knows what Batman's true intent is, we're just trusting that in the end, it will somehow make some sence and that justice will prevail.

DK2 is a realistic portrayal of what may happen to superhero's who've grown old and worn. Fans who love the invincible version of an infalable Superman and Batman will, of course, be upset because they're seeing their favorite superheros fall to the bottom of the bucket. As if it's a subject of taboo.

Of course people will be upset that Martian Manhunter is a drunken fool, that Batman is brutal old man with a hunger for vengence, that Superman and Wonder Woman have mulitplied their own liter of Super kids, and that Flash and Atom have been slaves to the govenrment, etc...

But I don't see where the "romanticism and escapism" has been taken away. This story still wisks you away into a superhero atmosphere, just a more realistic/shocking version of it... and the aftermath and consequences of such a radical lifestyle as a superhero. So people aren't perfect! Even superhero's. Big deal! I'm glad Miller's going out on a limb to portray that.

In Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, you got a little taste of the same thing. The only difference is that Tim Drake was married with a couple of kids, Barb had a cushy job as commisioner, Bruce was a cranky old man with less wielding anger, and Nightwing was MIA. Because this is a brighter future for the Bat crew, yet an altered state, do you dare call Timm a portrayer of "deconstructionism?" Probably not, because you don't agree with a dark version of Batman.

Isn't Superman a political figure to begin with? He represents the protector of Metropolis and the defender of earth. So why shouldn't he be portrayed as a politcal figure? His arch enemy is the President of the United States for goodness sake, Mr Lex Luthor. So how can you say "DK2 is Frank Miller once again using superheroes as political cartoons..." Using iconic figures as political figures have always been done, even pre-Miller.

[MattL.]

No I literally mean that he uses them as political cartoons. Superman is portrayed as this exaggerated Republican nightmare to the point where he might as well have "trickle down economics" written on his chest.

Millers hate for him comes screaming off the page.

I think Batman Beyond does a much better job of portraying heroes who "aren't perfect" than Millers satire future where in the heroic icons of the DCU have just become total jerkoffs in more of his watch me piss on ya Daddys heroes thing.


As for Batman being "dark", TAS basically has Batman as dark as you would ever need him to be. For some reason people only want to think of Batman as one of two extremes. Adam West or Frank Miller and if you dont do Miller you must be doing Adam West.

You'd be right in that I don't view Batman Beyond as deconstructionism. It doesnt seek to tear anything down. Even if there is deconstruction going on I would argue that they had the guts to put it back together again. As opposed to Miller taking a sledgehammer to it all, pointing at the rubble and going "Ha! They're all base perverted *****holes! If they were real thats what they'd be! Isn't that more sophisticated?" :rolleyes:

"DK2 is the essence of what Batman stands for" --Only if you view the idea and the fantasy of the superhero from a very dim, crass and cynical point of view. Which seems to be the only view on the subject that Miller is capable of so again I question that if he feels so much like he's "outgrown" superheroes then go back to Sin City and have a gory ball.

If you can't appreciate it anymore then just don't do it.


I freely admit that Flash brings up a *very* good and reasonable point. Its an Elseworlds tale. Okay that would be fair enough if the genre and industry didn't have the nasty habit of taking Millers viewpoint on superheroes as the law of how they should be done.

Then again, trend conformity is nothing new for comics.

After 20 years of post-DKR comics, I for one was glad that the shadow was passing until stuff like the Authority and this ugly thing came along.

[The Guard]

15 years'll do that to a man. Just view 'em as too seperate stories and have some freakin' fun.

I can't enjoy a Batman who takes pleasure in murder.

DK2 is the essence of what Batman stands for. Meaning, no one knows what Batman's true intent is, we're just trusting that in the end, it will somehow make some sence and that justice will prevail.

DK2 is a realistic portrayal of what may happen to superhero's who've grown old and worn.

No, KINGDOM COME was a realistic portrayal yadda yadda...

Fans who love the invincible version of an infalable Superman and Batman will, of course, be upset because they're seeing their favorite superheros fall to the bottom of the bucket. As if it's a subject of taboo.

I'm upset that Batman kills, and drives a stupid 1940's Batmobile with wings when he had a damn TANK in DKR.

In Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, you got a little taste of the same thing. The only difference is that Tim Drake was married with a couple of kids, Barb had a cushy job as commisioner, Bruce was a cranky old man with less wielding anger, and Nightwing was MIA. Because this is a brighter future for the Bat crew, yet an altered state, do you dare call Timm a portrayer of "deconstructionism?" Probably not, because you don't agree with a dark version of Batman.

Timm's version was GREAT. Why? Because he was the SAME CHARACTER HE WAS IN BTAS, and TNBA. He has a right to be old and cranky. But he didn't kill. Or recruit teenagers at a concert.

Isn't Superman a political figure to begin with?

No. He's a superhero who is very patriotic.

[Domino]

I support what both Matt L. and The Guard say!