The Dark Knight Strikes Again

[Spastic Minnow]

So, what are people's final thoughts on the sequel.

I did some searching around and couldn't find a 'final' thread on it or even a talkback for the third issue, so here it is.

My final verdict: I didn't like it. I'm not saying I completely hated it, but I didn't like it.

It's not the popular conception, but I didn't mind the art, it was fine.

Storywise, alot of it was fun. Rerintroducing the old heros with no attention paid to DCU continuity was okay by me. The stuff when they got to kick butt was definitely nice. The megolomanaical Luthor and Braniac were a bit much though, as was the daughter of Superman and Wonder Woman.

The one thing I did HATE was the vilification of Dick Grayson. That has to be one of the stupidest decisions ever made. IF there was ever a stable character in the Batman family it was Dick. After reading this old thread (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33639&) I was wondering if this was not the original ending of the story. Did Miller actually sabotage his own story? I guess it's possible he just got really mad about the negative reaction the first two issues got and put in something to really piss us off . But this is just speculation

[Marc]

Here's the thread: Batman: DK2 Talkback (Spoilers) (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43019&perpage=20&highlight=frank%20miller%20talkback&pagenumber=1)
Lots of great discussion, mostly negative however. I for one loved DK2.

- Cap

[Gluttonous God]

Originally posted by CaptainInfinity
I for one loved DK2.
- Cap
I for two... or would it be me for two...

[kid_flash]

Started out cool, but by the end I couldn't help but think "Somewhere out there, Frank Miller is laughing."

[HelloKittyKat]

I think the best thing to make Miller pay for the last issue is to send him a bunch of Superman and Robin merchandise until it fills his house.

[Jor-El]

kid_flash,

Exactly my sentiments. Miller did this to show that he can do absolutely anything, write any piece of worthless crap, and people will still by it by the scores. It's not fair at all to writers and artists who have talent, but do not get the same coverage.

[Reed Richards]

Frank Miller is a dog, an ABSOLUTE dog for putting out this trash

It's like an athlete throwing a game b/c he bet against himself.

I've seen what Frank can do, and this is absolute trash compared to it


::waits for Frank (you know who you are) to come in here and defend his work::

[Comic Book Boy]

Originally posted by Gluttonous God
I for two... or would it be me for two...

Me 3! :D

[Gotham Knights '68]

Remember - everyone has their own opinion :rolleyes: .

Count me in as one who enjoyed DK2 :)

(see old thread)

[Clayface]

Add me to the list of people that likes it. Again, see the old thread for details and comments.

[The Guard]

It's crap. Total crap. And yeah, I can back that up.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Clayface
Add me to the list of people that likes it. Again, see the old thread for details and comments.
Hey, was our somewhat heated discussion about DK2#2 deleted?? I don't see any reason why...

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Salvor
Hey, was our somewhat heated discussion about DK2#2 deleted?? I don't see any reason why...


Which one? CaptainInfinity linked to the most significantly long and heated debate about it that I can remember. Was there another one you're referring to?

[MJavert]

I for one, really did enjoy DK2...Some have complained that it is not a true "Sequel" in the sense of the word "Sequel" where the characters progress along a more or less logical extension of the events in the first installment. Dk2 was a different animal, however, in that it is more of a conceptual sequel whose relationship is analagous instead of direct.

DK1 represented a bleak, decidedly 80's view of comics and urban life. The Batman that was represented there was exactly what was needed in order to solve the problems of increasing urban violence in a Reaganesque Gotham City. What he represented was the hero needed for such times, where Nuclear War and urban riots were very much a reality. Miller took that same relationship of a Batman who reacts to his time, and applied it to a 1990's/2000's mindset where consumerism, MegaCorporations, and a propagandistic media are very much things of reality. Miller is an established veteran in the field and all of the choices he makes with regard to art and coloring are deliberate. These choices are a direct outgrowth, IMHO, of his placing Batman in this later context. The gaudiness and the colors and the splashiness of the panels reflect what has become of modern entertainment; the devolution of music and most of the other media into pure spectacle. The sequel is a direct contrast to the original in almost every way, from the colors to the art to the underlying social issues, crafted in such a way that provides for a good story.

Needless to say I might be prone to the overanalysis of what people deem "funnybooks" but i really did enjoy DK2. LOL, my one BIG complaint, however, IS the Dick Grayson characterization, however, i digress, add me to the list of those who really did enjoy DK2 as something new and different.

Rick

[Clayface]

Hey Salvor: Is this (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?threadid=20496&highlight=Miller) the one you were talking about? I forgot about it, but just dug it up in a search.

[The Guard]

I for one, really did enjoy DK2...Some have complained that it is not a true "Sequel" in the sense of the word "Sequel" where the characters progress along a more or less logical extension of the events in the first installment. Dk2 was a different animal, however, in that it is more of a conceptual sequel whose relationship is analagous instead of direct.

Miller took that same relationship of a Batman who reacts to his time, and applied it to a 1990's/2000's mindset where consumerism, MegaCorporations, and a propagandistic media are very much things of reality.

Miller is an established veteran in the field and all of the choices he makes with regard to art and coloring are deliberate. These choices are a direct outgrowth, IMHO, of his placing Batman in this later context. The gaudiness and the colors and the splashiness of the panels reflect what has become of modern entertainment; the devolution of music and most of the other media into pure spectacle. The sequel is a direct contrast to the original in almost every way, from the colors to the art to the underlying social issues, crafted in such a way that provides for a good story.

And the crappy art that makes Batman devolve panel by panel? The fact that Batman kills without remorse? The fact that he kills his former partner? The ridiculous parallells to KINGDOM COME and BATMAN BEYOND: RETURN OF THE JOKER? The fact that he tools around in the flying 1940's Batmobile? How do you explain these things? Miller was laughing all the way to the bank. He didn't put love or care into this. This wasn't even Batman. Hell, it wasn't even the DCU. Where the heroes were, that was cool. But then he slaughtered the Martian Manhunter's character. Added pointless things like the Hawk and Dove reference. I mean, I can go panel by panel and rip this thing to shreds on characterizations alone. There was no story here. There was nothing worthy of Batman here. He had a chance to deliver the greatest sequel of all time, and chose to spend his time giving us his tired old message.

[Clayface]

*Sigh*

Do we really have to go through this entire argument again? Its all been said in the thread CaptainInfinity linked to above. We're just going to go around in circles.

[MJavert]

Sorry, I wasn't around for the first thread, i apologize for stirring up any ill will, lol, just had to get my word in ;-)

Rick

[Clayface]

Originally posted by MJavert
Sorry, I wasn't around for the first thread, i apologize for stirring up any ill will, lol, just had to get my word in ;-)



Oh no, its cool. You're more than welcome to add your thoughts, especially since you weren't here the first time and thus haven't had a chance to express your thoughts.

I was referring more to The Guard and his comments. We've debated his problems with the title before, and he's raising the same questions all over again. I suspect that if he wasn't happy with any of the responses anyone in the past has given, he's not going to be happy with any of the responses from anyone at all.

However, if you'd like to add your thoughts, or go a few rounds with him, go right ahead - that's what the boards are here for. Just know that you're probably not going to do much to change his mind.

[The Detective]

A whole thread bashing me? Oh wait, you're not talking about a me, it's a book.



(To those of you who don't reconize sarcasm, that was a joke. I knew perfectly well what you were talking about. I was just playing around)

[TheScarecrow]

I've never read this, but given the reviews and things I've read about what happens with the plot, there is no way in hell I am going to waste my money on a piece of garbage like this.

I am sorry, but a Batman who easily kills people without remorse is no Batman that I want to read or watch (if I want that, I'll read The Punisher). Frank Miller's original DKR is awesome and nails (imo) the best qualities of the Batman character and his fascinating world, and I feel no need to read what looks like an extremely sub-par follow up to that concept.

Frank Miller still has a lot of fans that support him, but on this one, I am not giving him my support at all. Call me a "non-fan" if you want, but that is the way it is with me.

Sorry, I'm done rambling now.

[kid_flash]

Originally posted by Barry Allen
kid_flash,

Exactly my sentiments. Miller did this to show that he can do absolutely anything, write any piece of worthless crap, and people will still by it by the scores. It's not fair at all to writers and artists who have talent, but do not get the same coverage.

And that's why Frank Miller is the coolest guy in the room. I mean, think about it - It's one thing to throw out complete crap and think it's good storytelling. But when you throw out complete crap for the sheer purpose of showing people that a) You'll buy anything that says "Frank Miller" and "Batman" on the cover page, and b) Show people that there really wasn't supposed to be a sequel to DKR.

So I dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be Frank Miller's entire reason for putting it out, since I can't remember one interview where he said he particularly liked it.

[Terminatah]

If Frank Miller purposely made a bad comic to protest the value of his own name, then he's a stupid idiot. That is not selfless. I can't think of anything more self-involved. Why doesn't he just commit suicide while he's at it? It'd be the ultimate act of narcissism. Anyway, if that's the case, then forget him. The world doesn't need artists like that.

But that's only if.

-Terminatah

[Clayface]

Originally posted by TheScarecrow
I've never read this, but given the reviews and things I've read about what happens with the plot, there is no way in hell I am going to waste my money on a piece of garbage like this.



Now I can understand not wanting to spend your money on it if you don't like some of the things you've read about it. Comics are pretty expensive, and dropping $20-30 for a volume you may not like in the long run is pretty risky.

But don't you think calling it a "piece of garbage" without ever having even read it is a bit...closeminded, to say the least? What's the harm in reading it before passing judgement? Head on down to your local Barnes & Noble or Borders, grab a copy off the shelf, sit down, and have yourself a little look-see before you condemn it and the person that wrote it. It's free, and will only cost you a little time. And who knows, you may end up liking it.



Originally posted by TheScarecrow

I am sorry, but a Batman who easily kills people without remorse is no Batman that I want to read or watch (if I want that, I'll read The Punisher).



So I guess the original Batman comics - the ones put out by the character's creators - are not worth reading then either? Batman killed numerous times without any remorse in those. So much for the classics! :rolleyes:

[kid_flash]

First, if you think doing this has anything to do with ending your own life....well, never mind, it should speak for itself just fine.

Getting back to it....of course it's self-centered and egotistic! That's like the entire point! To show Frank Miller can do anything he wants and get away with it. Maybe not with the fan approval, but with a giant check rumored to be near the $1 million mark and nothing but praise from the DC editorial team (because DAMMIT YOU DON'T INSULT FRANK MILLER! HE CREATED ELEKTRA! Or something). This is the defining signal that Frank Miller really doesn't need to work anymore, and he showed us himself. He didn't take a cue from any editorial reviews or public pressure or anything. He knew there shouldn't be a sequel to DKR, so he got $1 million to give us crap. If that's not genius...well, look at it this way:
Alan Moore's been pressured since the beginning of time (1987) to produce endless memorabilia/sequels/spin-offs of WATCHMEN. But he knows that that work was meant to stand on its own, and was meant to be a once-in-a-lifetime event. And while I personally think he's a genius for doing that, everyone hates him for it.
Frank Miller probably just figured if he was gonna go out, he'd go out with $1 million.

Am I pissed I lost $24 to a story I hated? Sure, on that level. But just the sheer knowledge that I believe Frank Miller did it just to spite the die-hards is well worth the $24.

Still the coolest guy in the room.

[Spastic Minnow]

I wonder how well the TPB is selling, I certainly am not buying it. For one thing, as I said before, I didn't like it, for another, even if I did like it the three originals were practically TPB's already, so it would just be redundant to buy another one.

[TheScarecrow]

Originally posted by Clayface
Now I can understand not wanting to spend your money on it if you don't like some of the things you've read about it. Comics are pretty expensive, and dropping $20-30 for a volume you may not like in the long run is pretty risky.

But don't you think calling it a "piece of garbage" without ever having even read it is a bit...closeminded, to say the least? What's the harm in reading it before passing judgement?

Yeah, that was probably a little harsh of me. Sorry about that.


Head on down to your local Barnes & Noble or Borders, grab a copy off the shelf, sit down, and have yourself a little look-see before you condemn it and the person that wrote it. It's free, and will only cost you a little time. And who knows, you may end up liking it.

I'll probably do that if I have time to kill the next time I go to the bookstore, but I probably won't buy it. Not only does the Batman "remorseless killing" part turn me off, but the whole plot sounds a tad incoherent and very unlike the original series that had such great writing and pacing.

Maybe I don't get Miller's mindset here, but why do a sequel to a classic that has none of the qualities of the original that made it so great?


So I guess the original Batman comics - the ones put out by the character's creators - are not worth reading then either? Batman killed numerous times without any remorse in those. So much for the classics! :rolleyes:

Yeah, but I do believe Bob Kane stopped doing that after awhile because he wanted to take the character that in his mind was a better direction (at lest that is what I've heard, but I could be wrong), and I'm very glad he did stop doing it, to tell you the truth.

When I think of "classic" Batman stories, I think of things like the original Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, Batman: Year One, many episodes of Batman: The Animated Series, and others where Batman doesn't find it easy to kill people and just tried to bring them to justice. Yeah, he's rough on his villains and criminals, and can be hard to get along with for guys like Superman and others, but he is someone who I actually root for and respect, and love reading/watching stories that involve him.

Maybe I just don't get why Miller needed to undo all that with Strikes Again. :confused:

[Reed Richards]

Originally posted by Clayface



So I guess the original Batman comics - the ones put out by the character's creators - are not worth reading then either? Batman killed numerous times without any remorse in those. So much for the classics! :rolleyes:
[/B]


No offense meant CF, but you often use this point in your arguments and I've heard quite differently.

The story you reference is one where some giants attack gotham and batman gets in his batplane and shoots them with a machine gun-- as far as I know, there is no other example of these stories you so often wax nostolgic over in threads where you use this as an example.

Am i wrong here? I am by NO means a Bat-expert.

[HelloKittyKat]

Originally posted by Reed Richards
No offense meant CF, but you often use this point in your arguments and I've heard quite differently.

The story you reference is one where some giants attack gotham and batman gets in his batplane and shoots them with a machine gun-- as far as I know, there is no other example of these stories you so often wax nostolgic over in threads where you use this as an example.

Am i wrong here? I am by NO means a Bat-expert.

I have Batman Archives Volume 1. Batman did a bit of killing, usually stuff like giants and vampires though, but I clearly remember him snapping a crook's neck by swinging in and kicking him.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by Clayface
Hey Salvor: Is this (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?threadid=20496&highlight=Miller) the one you were talking about? I forgot about it, but just dug it up in a search.
Yeah that's the one. Thanks for digging it up!

[Terminatah]

Originally posted by kid_flash
First, if you think doing this has anything to do with ending your own life....well, never mind, it should speak for itself just fine. Refuting something on auto-pilot is the recourse of a weak mind. If you have something to say, say it. The connection between Miller's (alleged) dive and the general act of suicide is simple. Fulfillment through self-destruction.


Originally posted by kid_flash
Getting back to it....of course it's self-centered and egotistic! That's like the entire point! To show Frank Miller can do anything he wants and get away with it. Maybe not with the fan approval, but with a giant check rumored to be near the $1 million mark and nothing but praise from the DC editorial team (because DAMMIT YOU DON'T INSULT FRANK MILLER! HE CREATED ELEKTRA! Or something). This is the defining signal that Frank Miller really doesn't need to work anymore, and he showed us himself. He didn't take a cue from any editorial reviews or public pressure or anything. He knew there shouldn't be a sequel to DKR, so he got $1 million to give us crap. If that's not genius... It's a waste of time. It's an insult to himself. It's an insult to the readers. It's an insult to the medium. It's an insult to all artists. But someone paid him money for it, so it's genius? No, it's the exact opposite of genius. It's a testament to ignorance, greed, narcissism, and choosing failure instead of risking it for greatness.

Again, allegedly. For all we know, he could've been doing his best. And that I admire. But there's nothing remarkable about someone who cheapens his own talent. Anyone can do that.


Originally posted by kid_flash
well, look at it this way:
Alan Moore's been pressured since the beginning of time (1987) to produce endless memorabilia/sequels/spin-offs of WATCHMEN. But he knows that that work was meant to stand on its own, and was meant to be a once-in-a-lifetime event. And while I personally think he's a genius for doing that, everyone hates him for it.
Frank Miller probably just figured if he was gonna go out, he'd go out with $1 million. So one man's a genius because he has integrity, and another man is a genius because he doesn't (allegedly). Maybe everyone is a genius. Right now, a baby is crapping his pants, not because he needs to, but because he knows one of his parents will get up and change him. That baby is a genius.


Originally posted by kid_flash
Am I pissed I lost $24 to a story I hated? Sure, on that level. But just the sheer knowledge that I believe Frank Miller did it just to spite the die-hards is well worth the $24.That'll teach everyone who appreciated his work.


Originally posted by kid_flash
Still the coolest guy in the room. More delusion juice?

-Terminatah

[Salvor]

Originally posted by kid_flash
Getting back to it....of course it's self-centered and egotistic! That's like the entire point! To show Frank Miller can do anything he wants and get away with it. Maybe not with the fan approval, but with a giant check rumored to be near the $1 million mark and nothing but praise from the DC editorial team (because DAMMIT YOU DON'T INSULT FRANK MILLER! HE CREATED ELEKTRA! Or something). This is the defining signal that Frank Miller really doesn't need to work anymore, and he showed us himself. He didn't take a cue from any editorial reviews or public pressure or anything. He knew there shouldn't be a sequel to DKR, so he got $1 million to give us crap. If that's not genius...well, look at it this way:
Alan Moore's been pressured since the beginning of time (1987) to produce endless memorabilia/sequels/spin-offs of WATCHMEN. But he knows that that work was meant to stand on its own, and was meant to be a once-in-a-lifetime event. And while I personally think he's a genius for doing that, everyone hates him for it.
Frank Miller probably just figured if he was gonna go out, he'd go out with $1 million.
Heavy on the "probably". It's funny because I once shared your opinion and here I am, pitting against it.

"because DAMMIT YOU DON'T INSULT FRANK MILLER! HE CREATED ELEKTRA! Or something". No, you got it all wrong. You just don't insult anyone. Frank Miller is like any other artist, he has a certain vision of things, and whether ppl like it or not, it's still the way he envisions things. So you gotta respect that, and if you don't like what he does, then fine, dislike it, but don't insult the artist because his work didn't make up to your expectations.

Do u even realize how outrageous your post is? You're calling FM a greedy, self-centered ba$tard while you don't even know the guy? Earth to kid_flash, making a judgement based on what you read in magazines or on ridiculous assumptions, never a good thing.

What strikes me in what you wrote is the fact that you're so certain you know the "truth". You know that Miller is some kind of mastermind who had it all planned, and you even act as if you're complimenting him by saying so. But as it turns out, you're actually insulting both him and his free will. Who are youto know what's in his mind?

Sorry about the seemingly harsh tone of this rant but some posts cannot stay ignored.

[The Guard]

No offense meant CF, but you often use this point in your arguments and I've heard quite differently.

The story you reference is one where some giants attack gotham and batman gets in his batplane and shoots them with a machine gun-- as far as I know, there is no other example of these stories you so often wax nostolgic over in threads where you use this as an example.

Am i wrong here? I am by NO means a Bat-expert.

That did happen. Batman carried a gun at one time. And he did kill the giants, who had been men before Hugo Strange used his serum on them. But Batman's words as he did so: "As much as I hate to take human life, I'm afraid this time it's neccessary."

Frank Miller's Batman REVELED in causing anguish and death. Now, while his previous Batman reveled in causing pain, as the current Batman sometimes does, he did not love killing. He didn't kill The Mutants. He couldn't even kill The Joker when he had the chance in DKR. But the Batman in DARK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN is a total 180 of that character. Why else would he use a "razorcape"? But then he appreciates that Carrie gives one of his men a dressing down for killing a guard? WHAT DID BATMAN JUST DO?

Like it or not, here is how I feel:

Yes, Frank Miller is an artist. But to use a baseball analogy here, Mr. Miller seems to feel that he is "bigger then the game". He's not. He's not more important then the characters themselves. As an artist, he has an obligation to the characters and the legend that he's helped create. He failed miserably with DKSA. Look at what he did to J'onn J'onnz? How in the name of God would the 1980's version of J'onn ever end up an ignorant drunk? It's not just J'onn, it's a plethora of things. The story is clearly drawn from KINGDOME COME and RETURN OF THE JOKER in places. What the hell is Miller thinking with the final battle between Bruce and Dick? Batman chops his ward's head off with an axe? Huh? THIS is not the Batman who had an edge but cared in DKR. This is no sequel. This is not even a good statement. A good statement is Alan Moore refusing to write a sequel to WATCHMEN. If Miller never wanted to write DKR2, he shouldn't have. What Miller has done...is crap.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Reed Richards
No offense meant CF, but you often use this point in your arguments and I've heard quite differently.

The story you reference is one where some giants attack gotham and batman gets in his batplane and shoots them with a machine gun-- as far as I know, there is no other example of these stories you so often wax nostolgic over in threads where you use this as an example.

Am i wrong here? I am by NO means a Bat-expert.


As HelloKittyKat mentioned, Batman Archives Volume 1 shows Batman killing without remorse again and again. I list several examples here (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?postid=388713#post388713).

[kid_flash]

I dunno. I guess my post came out all wrong. I'm dropping my end of the argument and I hope ya'll won't hold this against me for the next year or whatever.

[BlackoutCreature]

I read all three issues of "Dark Knight Strikes Again" (didnt buy them, but i read them). And it wasnt good. Even if u can get past everything u know about Batman, Superman, Dick Greyson and a ton of other characters that were featured and look at them as new characters with the same names. Even if u can look past this supposing to be a sequel to a book that it shares none of the same look, feel or quality with, and makes large continuity errors with. Even if u can get past the art work that hurts your eyeballs. Your still left with a book with a nonsensical story, no pacing, plotlines and characters that jump out of nowhere and dont lead anywhere, and no real conclusion. Its just a poorly written book.

[TimTwoFace]

I was excited when I first heard Miller was doing a sequel, because I enjoyed the first miniseries so much. That was an immediate classic. Here, there is no real storyline; everything, I mean, EVERYTHING is different, and aside from a few key points (such as when Batman meets Superman in the Batcave in part 1), there's not much else happening in this story.

I liked how Superman was brought in and used, and Wonder Woman had a nice appearance. Nearly all of the other ex-heroes weren't written in a way that engaged me at all.

Lex Luthor in the story was a good idea, too - too bad all the other villains (ie, that hideous Joker copy) were shamelessly poor.

I'm still out to lunch on Dick Grayson. I have no problem with him in the story, but why do Bruce and he hate each other so much? And if I remember correctly, a decapitated Dick actually speaks towards the end of part 3 during a big battle royale. What is THAT?

He tried too hard to be "shocking" - that's why all those "News in the Nude" segments were popping up everywhere. Did we really need that? No. I would have rather gone with the style he used in the first series. It had its share of craziness without meaning (ie, topless nazi chicks and very tiny Green Arrow cameos) but the basic theme and storyline made sense.

I give this two stars at best.

-Tim

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Originally posted by TheScarecrow
Yeah, but I do believe Bob Kane stopped doing that after awhile because he wanted to take the character that in his mind was a better direction (at lest that is what I've heard, but I could be wrong), and I'm very glad he did stop doing it, to tell you the truth.

Actually, I think it was more DC Editorial making that decision rather than Bob Kane. The original Batman (now that I've actually READ more of the original 'Tec comics) was depicted as a variation of the average pulp hero who didn't have any compunctions in killing their foes. I think the rationale behind the decision was to make him distinct from those pulp heroes, and maybe to bring him more in line with Superman, who was never depicted as a killer. Whether it was a correct decision (in the 30's or in Miller's DKSB) is left as an exercise for the reader.

As a side note, Steve Ditko believed Spider-Man should never age, being a perpetual high-school teenager. There are times where saying "No" to the original creator isn't such a horrible thing to do.

-- Ed/Ace

[Gotham Knights '68]

Wasn't or isn't DK2 considered an Elseworlds Tale? And in elseworlds tales, aren't things completely twisted around in the image of its creator? Taking existing characters and making their own continuity or universe so to speak?

Look at the vampire trilogy - I happened to really enjoy them cause they were kinda interesting - to see how Batman would be as a vampire, a true creature of the night. A very interesting twist on the character of Batman - but an elseworlds tale in the end. Thats how I see DK2 - as Frank Miller writing the DC Universe story he wanted to create in his own twisted mind. All that other stuff about laughing to the bank, and him laughing at the fans who enjoy reading his stories - I just can't really buy into that - I think he wrote an insane elseworlds tale that was very mindblowing and so outta the realm of what everyone expected involving loved characters like Batman, Robin & Superman. And its true, he obviously has a mad on for Superman as we have seen in the first DK - but thats his thing - I found it quite amusing.

Also, not sure but, was DK2 ever truly meant to be a sequal or its own new story. Was it the "hype machine" that made it into one??