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

**James Harvey** · 01-03-2002, 02:00 AM

Discuss this classic Batman story!

BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS

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

Hailed as a comics masterpiece, The Dark Knight Returns is Frank Miller's (300 and Sin City) reinvention of the legend of Batman. 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.It is ten years after an aging Batman has retired, and Gotham City has sunk deeper into decadence and lawlessness. Now, when 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.

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** · 01-03-2002, 10:16 PM

Now this is a cool comic!

**TheScarecrow** · 03-30-2002, 08:21 PM

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** · 04-07-2002, 07:15 PM

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

Right after reading it...

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

**Terminatah** · 04-07-2002, 07:55 PM

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** · 04-08-2002, 10:29 AM

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

**SilverKnight** · 07-06-2002, 03:16 AM

(Note, there's some light swearing in this. And this is ME, so take that for what it's worth. 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.

**Zoddman** · 07-06-2002, 03:33 AM

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** · 07-06-2002, 12:13 PM

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** · 07-18-2002, 02:50 PM

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** · 07-18-2002, 03:03 PM

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** · 07-18-2002, 11:14 PM

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** · 07-19-2002, 01:58 AM

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** · 07-19-2002, 03:12 AM

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** · 07-19-2002, 03:45 AM

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** · 07-19-2002, 10:03 AM

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** · 07-19-2002, 10:33 AM

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** · 07-19-2002, 11:32 AM

****

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** · 07-20-2002, 03:08 PM

I LOVED IT!!

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** · 07-20-2002, 06:28 PM

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).