Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns Animated - Part 1

[theMan-Bat]

That doesn't mean he doesn't come across arrogant though. I'm not bothered that he seems arrogant as he's always been a man full of confidence anyway. I actually have a better appreciation for Superman in this story than I used too and part of that was how much better he was portrayed in the movie. Like I said though not saying the arrogance is a negative.

How was Superman portrayed so much better in the movie? His portrayal was extremely faithful to the novel.

 

[BH/HHH]

How was Superman portrayed so much better in the movie? His portrayal was extremely faithful to the novel.

Basically removing the inner monolgues helped severly Clark and Bruce both comes across as ********s on the book due to the inner monolgues. And also the one line its not our world its theirs really made me see why this Superman was the way he was.

I just think aswell seeing how cool some of the stuff he does in motion is better too. I think the film improved over the book.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Much of what was in their internal monologues against each other has been added into their dialogue in the film. Clark tells Bruce he's being idiotic, etc. Clark and Bruce still come across as enemies in the film. They don't come across as bad people in the novel or the film to me, just people with very different views and methods. Superman's basic philosophy in the novel is the same as in the film, that it's the superheroes responsibility to serve the people, work with them and abide by the laws of their world, rather than to rule above them. Superman wants to be trusted, not feared, unlike Bruce. In the book we learn Superman's point of view through Superman's inner monologues, "The rest of us learned to cope. The rest of us recognized the danger--of the endless envy of those not blessed. Diana went back to her people. Hal went to the stars. But you, Bruce--you, with your wild obsession. I gave them my obedience. Mother Earth--you're adopted son will honor you." Much of that is also said in the film in Clark's dialogue to Bruce. Watching it all in motion on film is fun. A great thing about the Part 1 and Part 2 films is that they have exposed the story line to more people and also has gotten more people to appreciate the Dark Knight Returns.

This movie has repaired my decayed opinion of the book.

It's still not my favorite portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman, and I still find some of the concepts (like the mutants) to be silly and kind of dumb, but the bigger ideas at play (the political aspect and ramifications things have on the world, the analysis of Bruce's obsession/conviction, the way he looks at combat surgically, etc), and the tone, are a blast.

Somehow I had forgotten just how good the book was outside of my one or two gripes with it. Not that I thought it was bad, but it's way better than I remembered. t:

My only criticism is that I wished the coloring was more like the book... Much more atmospheric.

 

[BH/HHH]

Clark in the book says Bruce you idiot that's worse than calling someone idiotic. The speech to mother earth wasn't even in the film. I just think some of the inner monologues in the book make those two come across as quite *****y but hey that's just me.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Calling someone idiotic is as insulting, to me, and shows what Superman thinks of Bruce and his behavior. I'm aware that Superman's inner monologue to Mother Earth "I have always served you...you're adopted son will honor you," etc. isn't in the film, yet Superman's dedication to serve and help the Earth and it's people, abiding by their laws, rather than take over and rule over them is retained in the film with the "it's not our world, it's theirs" dialogue, etc.

 

[Drz]

How was Superman portrayed so much better in the movie? His portrayal was extremely faithful to the novel.

It is funny how people on the internet just can't accept the idea of liking or loving anything by Frank Miller, but must make up claims like that the movie improved on something.

Anyhow, still waiting on that double-collection Blu-ray, hopefully one will come later this year.

 

[BH/HHH]

It is funny how people on the internet just can't accept the idea of liking or loving anything by Frank Miller, but must make up claims like that the movie improved on something.

Anyhow, still waiting on that double-collection Blu-ray, hopefully one will come later this year.

How am I making claims up? You know I'm not the only one who thinks he came across better in the film than in the book. All you have to do is read the inner monologues of Bruce and Clark throughout the back and notice with most of that dialogue not been in the film the characters come across far less *****ey. You don't have to agree with me but you can't say I'm making stuff up.

And as usual Man-bat you can't seem to accept someone having anything other than praise at the precious works of Frank Miller. Calling what someone is doing idiotic (in reference to Bruce trying to fight him) is not the same as calling someone an idiot. End of the day Millers take on Superman isn't Superman to me but I agree that it does work for this story and the film definitely made me feel a lot better about it than the book did.

 

[Micromind]

The action parts looked stunning in the animated movie as compared to the book.

I hated Carrie Kelly Robin when I read the book and thought that she was not as good as the other Robins, but the movie improves her version.

Superman does look more sympathetic in the movie (so does Batman though both have different viewpoints.)

During fight between Batman and Superman -

Superman says:"what are you doing, you want me to kill you ?"

Bruce says: "Oh, You are not going to kill me"

which gives away that fact that he has some plan in his mind, a fact that was not as clear in the book.

The last scene when Clark visits Bruce Wayne's grave is much more powerful in the movie than in the book.

here we can see that Clark is sad but when he hears the heart beats he realized what Bruce has planned and he also recognizes Carrie as Robin.

 

[Micromind]

sorry, double post.

 

[spider-neil]

The addition of the lines; 'were you a friend', to which Clark replies 'I don't know, I think so' is just brilliant and could have come from Miller's own pen.

 

[BH/HHH]

The action parts looked stunning in the animated movie as compared to the book.

I hated Carrie Kelly Robin when I read the book and thought that she was not as good as the other Robins, but the movie improves her version.

Superman does look more sympathetic in the movie (so does Batman though both have different viewpoints.)

During fight between Batman and Superman -

Superman says:"what are you doing, you want me to kill you ?"

Bruce says: "Oh, You are not going to kill me"

which gives away that fact that he has some plan in his mind, a fact that was not as clear in the book.

The last scene when Clark visits Bruce Wayne's grave is much more powerful in the movie than in the book.

here we can see that Clark is sad but when he hears the heart beats he realized what Bruce has planned and he also recognizes Carrie as Robin.

Exactly

And yeah Batman comes across my sympathetic too. Like I said the removal of most of the dialogue from the inner monolgues really does make the characters more likeable.

I really do dislike the line when Bruce tells Clark to remember the one man who beat him, yes it was his plan but he needed help also if Clark had wanted to kill him he could've done it very quickly and easily but its his reluctance to kill Bruce that Bruces plan works. So he wasn't really the one man who beat him it was him, Oliver and Robin.

I agree also that Carrie Kelly here was also an improvement on the comic.

 

[Micromind]

^ Yeah, neither actually wants to kill each other, they are both putting up a show of beating each other for the authorities, to convince them that Supes is not soft on Batman and Batman goes down fighting.

 

[BH/HHH]

^ Yeah, neither actually wants to kill each other, they are both putting up a show of beating each other for the authorities, to convince them that Supes is not soft on Batman and Batman goes down fighting.

Yes definitely and its all confirmed in a at the end. It really is a great ending.

 

[theMan-Bat]

And as usual Man-bat you can't seem to accept someone having anything other than praise at the precious works of Frank Miller.

Drz and I are two different people. And have I even been praising the "precious" works of Frank Miller? Not really. I've defended it, because I defend what I consider good enough to defend, but I've not called Dark Knight Returns "a masterpiece," or "the greatest story ever" or "genius." It's not even my favorite Batman story. "There is No Hope in Crime Alley" by Denny O'Neil is. I don't mind criticisms and differing opinions, I just don't like factual inaccuracies. Superman's portrayal in the film is extremely faithful to the novel. It is Miller's take on Superman faithfully adapted to film, as is Bruce and Carrie Kelley, etc. That's not opinion, that's stating a fact. Even Clark's wink, etc. which you call a "great ending" is also from the novel.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Ever since I read it many years ago, I have always felt TDKR book to be the masterpiece many call it to be, the greatest Batman story ever told, genius and It is my favorite Batman story. Even above YO or many other Bat-books.

But That's just me, #IMHO.


Bruce Timm and Co did not disappoint with these two films adaptations as well.

 

[BH/HHH]

Drz and I are two different people. And have I even been praising the "precious" works of Frank Miller? Not really. I've defended it, because I defend what I consider good enough to defend, but I've not called Dark Knight Returns "a masterpiece," or "the greatest story ever" or "genius." It's not even my favorite Batman story. "There is No Hope in Crime Alley" by Denny O'Neil is. I don't mind criticisms and differing opinions, I just don't like factual inaccuracies. Superman's portrayal in the film is extremely faithful to the novel. It is Miller's take on Superman faithfully adapted to film, as is Bruce and Carrie Kelley, etc. That's not opinion, that's stating a fact. Even Clark's wink, etc. which you call a "great ending" is also from the novel.

How is it stating a fact when there are differences between the movie version and the book just by the removal of inner monologues I'm not saying its vastly different but it's definitely not exactly the same.

Carrie Kellt was also different she was far more acrobatic in the film than the book.

I never said the wink wasn't great in the book now did I?

There's no need for you to get on your high horse just cause I disagree with you. Lots of people have sad the exact same thing I have that Superman comes across better in the film than the book.

 

[Terror Inc.]

Am I the only one that liked part 1 better than part 2?

 

[theMan-Bat]

Am I the only one that liked part 1 better than part 2?

Well, I like Part 2 better than Part 1. I prefer the second half of the novel more than the first half as well.

Ever since I read it many years ago, I have always felt TDKR book to be the masterpiece many call it to be, the greatest Batman story ever told, genius and It is my favorite Batman story. Even above YO or many other Bat-books.

It's among my favorites, just not my top favorite Batman story of all time.

How is it stating a fact when there are differences between the movie version and the book just by the removal of inner monologues I'm not saying its vastly different but it's definitely not exactly the same.

I said it's extremely faithful to the source material, I didn't say it's exactly the same entirely. Not hearing the internal thoughts does not make it unfaithful, especially since many those important points that were expressed in the internal thoughts are included in the spoken dialogue in the films.

Carrie Kellt was also different she was far more acrobatic in the film than the book.

"Carrie Kellt"? It's Carrie Kelley, Caroline Keene Kelley is her full name, and those acrobatics are largely from in the novel with very little alteration.

And computer skills. She figures out the Batcopter computer system on her own and saves Batman. She saves Batman many times, surprises him and earns his respect.

Horse riding skills.

Slingshot skills.

She's a fun character. I love that she's a girl because it's such a boys club in superhero land. The idea of a Robin who is a 13 year old girl is just adorable. I love how Batman takes her in and accepts her as his new Robin without any "this is no job for a girl" sexist nonsense. The childhood enthusiasm of a young girl as a cheerful, spunky, resourceful helper counterbalances the dark grim nature of Batman perfectly, providing the human touchstone that prevents his inner demons from swallowing him whole. And she provides some much needed comic relief. She's spunky, cleaver, funny. She's not a Batman junior at all, she has a completely different personality than he does.

I never said the wink wasn't great in the book now did I?

Well, you did flat out say, "Miller's take on Superman isn't Superman to me."

There's no need for you to get on your high horse

The truth is, whether you are willing to admit it or not, by accepting and enjoying Batman and Superman in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Part 2, you are accepting and enjoying Miller's version of them.

 

[Micromind]

The animated movie is an adaptation of Frank Miller's TDKR, but even you have to admit certain scenes were added, for example the scene towards the end where Bruce joins the mutants in Cave was not exactly as in the comics, here Oliver Queen first leads the group and then Bruce joins then later.

Also this,

The addition of the lines; 'were you a friend', to which Clark replies 'I don't know, I think so' is just brilliant and could have come from Miller's own pen.

Yes, the movie improves some parts but at the same time it also loses some other (like inner monologues, which some fans consider as important part of the book.)

I think I liked the movie version better, it is all subjective opinion, after all.

 

[BH/HHH]

I give up if you can't see how omitting out of character dialogue from inner monologues doesn't change the perception of the character then you need to go back a d watch it again.

 

[Drz]

I give up if you can't see how omitting out of character dialogue

It's not out of character, it's incharacter. You just have to deal with the fact this is how the characters are being written for the story, now if this was say an incontinuity meant story such as Long Halloween i would understand your complaiment. Frank Miller told his story and that's done, it's not his care or problem that his work always gets influenced and put into mainstream continuity.

 

[BH/HHH]

It's not out of character, it's incharacter. You just have to deal with the fact this is how the characters are being written for the story, now if this was say an incontinuity meant story such as Long Halloween i would understand your complaiment. Frank Miller told his story and that's done, it's not his care or problem that his work always gets influenced and put into mainstream continuity.

I'm referring to the fact that without the inner monologues he doesn't come across as couches in the film. I know tyt for this story that is how Superman is interpreted but in the film he comes across better, I do have an issue with what Miller did cause that us not the Superman that us canon but I do understand he's like that in this story cause this is the story Miller wanted to tell.

 

[BH/HHH]

Well, I like Part 2 better than Part 1. I prefer the second half of the novel more than the first half as well.

It's among my favorites, just not my top favorite Batman story of all time.

I said it's extremely faithful to the source material, I didn't say it's exactly the same entirely. Not hearing the internal thoughts does not make it unfaithful, especially since many those important points that were expressed in the internal thoughts are included in the spoken dialogue in the films.

"Carrie Kellt"? It's Carrie Kelley, Caroline Keene Kelley is her full name, and those acrobatics are largely from in the novel with very little alteration.


Well, you did flat out say, "Miller's take on Superman isn't Superman to me."

The truth is, whether you are willing to admit it or not, by accepting and enjoying Batman and Superman in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Part 2, you are accepting and enjoying Miller's version of them.

The spelling mistake of her nane was my stupid iPad. No need to be a smart ass

I can accept that Superman in this story is for this story but its not my Superman and I can appreciate the ending whether I like the version or not. I don't get why you can't accept that I prefer the movie version cause I hate most if the inner monologues, he comes across far more *****ie in the book with most of that dialogue that's omitted I'm not the only one who thinks this, just agree to disagree cause me and you just don't see eye to eye at all.

 

[Doc Ock]

My iPad causes serious spelling mistakes too...

I think Superman's inclusion in Part 2 is a large reason why I enjoy the film so much. Its different than the usual Superman but it still makes him come off as really cool.

 

[BH/HHH]

My iPad causes serious spelling mistakes too...

I think Superman's inclusion in Part 2 is a large reason why I enjoy the film so much. Its different than the usual Superman but it still makes him come off as really cool.

It was very cool, especially his arrival in Gotham. I just hated the dialogue when he arrives and he says "Bruce you idiot" even though this Superman kills in wars which is also out of character, I do agree he's got a cool factor. Its kind of like Superman Red Son I love that book but its else-worlds and then and only then it's acceptable.