Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns Animated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank Miller's original Carrie Kelley designs from 1985.
1003063035i00062.jpg

1003063035i00061.jpg

Inspired by this drawing of Maggie Chascarrillo as a female Robin by Jaime Hernandez that appeared in Comics Journal #76 (1982).
1003063014i00039.jpg

And suggested by John Byrne, as Frank Miller explained in his introduction to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - 10th Anniversary Edition.
img0005nk.jpg

Jaime Hernandez did two other drawings of Maggie as a female Robin. This drawing by Jaime Hernandez of Penny Century/Beatriz Garcia as Batwoman and Maggie as Robin appeared in Love and Rockets #10 (1985).
tumblrm6p0lwocml1qawsxd.jpg

This drawing of Luba as Batwoman by Gilbert Hernandez and Maggie as Robin by Jaime Hernandez was done at a Comic-Con in 1987.
112410hernandez2.jpg

Julie Madison/Portia Storme was the first female to wear the Robin costume in Detective Comics #49 (1941) "Clayface Walks Again" by Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson.
img0001jsr.jpg
 
Last edited:
[YT]38Th4GGesOQ[/YT]
Impressive clip. Impressively faithful to the source material.
batmantdkr1033thedarkkn.jpg

batmantdkr1033thedarkkn.jpg
batmantdkr1033thedarkkn.jpg

batmantdkr1035thedarkkn.jpg
 
Last edited:
Impressive animation, but I can't shake that it all looks more clean and polished than I'm used to seeing with DKR.
 
Impressive animation, but I can't shake that it all looks more clean and polished than I'm used to seeing with DKR.

Can't expect it to look exactly the same as the comic book. It doesn't look too clean and polished to me.
47968643.png

66051477.png

30775895.png

Director Jay Oliva said, "The palette is very muted. If there's one thing that Frank (Miller) doesn't do, is he doesn't do bright colors. I mean, Gotham is dirty, it's grungy. It's a lot of greys. I wanted to make sure it looked like the comic book as much as possible. From the character designs to the props, it all looked like it was in that Frank Miller style."
[YT]QA-OwozG970[/YT]
They were definitely focusing on giving Batman: The Dark Knight Returns the essential grit, as they were with Batman: Year One.
Director Lauren Montgomery said about Batman: Year One, "Yeah, we actually tried to follow it as closely as we could from the colors to the characters, and just tried to make Gotham as dirty and ugly as we possibly could. That’s just a harder thing to do than you realize, just getting the overseas artists to really put that extra detail in the backgrounds with just like cracks and trash. We kept getting these perfectly clean cities back and have to make notes, 'It needs to be dirty. Put graffiti, put crap in there.' So yeah, it’s hard to make – you don’t realize how difficult it is to get a realistic looking alley way because when they’re painting it digitally, a lot of things tend to look pretty clean and pretty pristine. So just to go in and add that extra detail like things being crooked is that much more work. But we tried to get as much of that in there as we could so that the city really felt real."

Toonzone News: "So is this the dirtiest, grungiest animated movie you’ve ever worked on?"

Lauren Montgomery: "I think so because a lot of our other ones – we’ve never really had a Gotham that has looked as dirty as this. It really needed to feel just miserable because so much of the comic is about Gordon being surrounded by corruption and just being miserable in Gotham, and Bruce realizing what Gotham is and wanting to make it better. So the city had to be a character in the movie itself. So we wanted to just make it feel like the dirty, sad Gotham that it needed to be."
http://www.toonzone.net/2011/07/sdcc2011-quotbatman-year-one-quot-roundtable-interviews/

Hate the voice used for Batman. It's too calm, normal, and even at times jovial.

Whenever I see Batman, I hear him as Bale now. The growl is iconic. And it's how it's been described in the best versions of the source material.

This Batman isn't Bale's Batman. The voice is appropriately different for Frank Miller's Batman. Peter Weller's voice suits Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Universe Batman. Peter Weller's a great character actor and his voice captures the grizzled, gruff gravitas and hard edge of Miller's Batman. Miller's Batman, especially at age 55 in Dark Knight Returns, is calm, cool and collected, professional, and, yes, even at times jovial.
In Amazing Heroes #102 (1986) Frank Miller said, "There's a tremendous amount of joy to the character, as dark as he is." Miller presents Batman as smiling "because I couldn't believe anyone who had the necessary amount of 'magic' in him to make him a superhero would always be so depressed."
img00071l.jpg

img00041hn.jpg

In Comics Interview #31 (1986) Frank Miller said "As a matter of fact, the strongest presentation of the character to date comes from the forties. There was something in the art back then that made him look huge - it wasn't just his shoulders, big as they were. There was also a sense of joy, grim as he was, there was a sense of joy, just in what he did, that I'm trying to bring back."
img00131xt.jpg

batmantdkr2072thedarkkn.jpg
batmantdkr2078thedarkkn.jpg
 
Last edited:
Superb animation ? Wow. We're talking about those straight lines , the lifeless backgrounds , the unappealing digital coloring , the non existence of scene direction or simply the total destruction of the beautiful art of DKR ?

Its kinda crazy how i can go grab a clip for an animation made during 1940 or 50 and its much better than that horrible thing.

What happened to the beautifully handrawn animation american studios were so proud during decades ? How its possible we only get these horrid and lifeless products ? I know people say its for kids , and yada yada yada , but DKR or Year One deserved so much more , than this horrible straight to dvd DC keeps making.

Looking at some of the panels posted in this topic and then look at that clip or trailers....damn !

One thing i liked. Robocop.
 
Superb animation ? Wow. We're talking about those straight lines , the lifeless backgrounds , the unappealing digital coloring , the non existence of scene direction or simply the total destruction of the beautiful art of DKR ?

Its kinda crazy how i can go grab a clip for an animation made during 1940 or 50 and its much better than that horrible thing.

What happened to the beautifully handrawn animation american studios were so proud during decades ? How its possible we only get these horrid and lifeless products ? I know people say its for kids , and yada yada yada , but DKR or Year One deserved so much more , than this horrible straight to dvd DC keeps making.

Looking at some of the panels posted in this topic and then look at that clip or trailers....damn !

One thing i liked. Robocop.

I kinda agree. Same for All star superman. those are very dull and soulless adaptations.
 
To some extent I agree...

Can you imagine if Bruce Timm and Co. got to produce a PG-13 adaptation of this comic back during the B:TAS days?

B:TAS was/is so much more atmospheric than anything these clean, digital animated DVD's have produced.

But this adaptation still looks beautiful for what it is.
 
To some extent I agree...

Can you imagine if Bruce Timm and Co. got to produce a PG-13 adaptation of this comic back during the B:TAS days?

B:TAS was/is so much more atmospheric than anything these clean, digital animated DVD's have produced.

But this adaptation still looks beautiful for what it is.

It is beautiful, but it's also soulless IMO.

Take under the red hood, it's not as beautiful, but at least it has a soul. It's even better than its comic counterpart storywise.
 
I didn't think thats entirely fair... the crew behind this adaptation are incredibly passionate about the comic and are clearly striving for their best.

This is what animation with time constraints and a limited budget looks like now... and already from that clip I can tell they have gone the extra mile to add some grit to the scenes.

Sadly the days of cel-based cartoons are gone and this is what we are left with.
 
I didn't think thats entirely fair... the crew behind this adaptation are incredibly passionate about the comic and are clearly striving for their best.

This is what animation with time constraints and a limited budget looks like now... and already from that clip I can tell they have gone the extra mile to add some grit to the scenes.

Sadly the days of cel-based cartoons are gone and this is what we are left with.


I respect their passion and that they did their best. But I guess they should take a crew whose best is better than that. It's bautiful, but it's not interesting to me. I was really bored by Batman Year one, not only because of Mckenzie's acting, but also because there was no life in it. Nothing special. I'm not too fond of panel by panel adaptations anyway. I don't think it adds a lot to the comic book usually. But like I said, Under the red hood was really dynamic. The action was kinetic and enjoyable, the acting was excellent, the score was great, and the story was better than in the comics. It was a great adaptation, and I enjoy wateching it each time more. Year one on the other hand, feels boring to me, and... empty. I certainly hope I won't feel the same about TDKR though.
 
I love classic animation, particularly Fleischer Superman, and I don't belittle it for being rotoscoped animation.
sup082.jpg

And I also don't belittle the Batman: The Dark Knight Returns animation as horrible, soulless, lifeless and unappealing for being digitally animated. I find this enjoyable, lifelike and appealing...
47968643.png

Some people criticize the Fleischer Superman for being rotoscoped animation (the animator's equivalent of tracing), which some regard as cheating. I regard rotoscoping as a classic valuable aid for animation to attain and capture and synchronize realistic appearances, lifelike human movement in animation with very true-to-life ranges of movements. I see digital as another extension and viable tool for animating. While the Fleischer Superman animation will never be topped in my opinion, I'm enjoying the Dark Knight Returns animation, I enjoyed the Batman: Year One animation, appreciating the faithfulness to the source material. The Batman: Year One Batman: Year and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns films are for those of us that want to see Frank Miller's Batman: Year One and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns come alive on film. Bruce Timm said that with Batman: Year One, "There was literally some places where we literally xeroxed panels from the comic and just literally slapped them on a storyboard and said, 'well, there you go, nobody needs to draw that.'"
[YT]JSen1OGdinI[/YT]
 
Last edited:
Hate the voice used for Batman. It's too calm, normal, and even at times jovial.

Whenever I see Batman, I hear him as Bale now. The growl is iconic. And it's how it's been described in the best versions of the source material.


Batman is not supposed to sound like he needs to keep a pack of sucrets in his utility belt. It's also been described as Eastwood like in the source material; not as unintelligible so I don't know where you're getting that from.
 
theMan-Bat i have nothing against different techniques (although cell animation is something i really cherish), especially the digitization of animation , which brought to animators inumerous possibilities that typical table animations restrained. The problem is always how you used them to your advantage...and in this day and age we have a very low standard to animation. I dont want to badmouth too much the animation , because i understand these are kinda low budget targeted to a non demanding audiences...still i hoped for more , much more. Not jarring animation , with horrible cgi boxy car models , colors that are too bright and saturated , and backgrounds that are completely lifeless. And i dont even want to talk to what they did with Millers art (which im actually not a big fan , but works beautifully in DKR).

What actually causes me great surprise is how you grab a great book (year one) and end up with a mediocre product (and it looks like dkr is going on the same route). I've bought the blu of year one and i dont think i will ever see it again. There's absolutely no sense of direction in any scene. I know they wanted to make a very literal adaption , but still a motion picture is not a book. What works in that panel someone posted (the two cops) may need to be adjusted to motion. Miller gives us a shot of two cops , then a closeup to one of them (with more brightness) and he cuts to a shot of Batman from his back. I watch the clip and i see no direction in the scene. Just a complete lifeless motion through what happens in those panels.

As for rotoscoping , it's actually a great technique , that helped a lot of animators to progress how to draw motion. Its funny you brought Fleischer work , because i find it much better than what we have here (and we are talking about a 1940's short work....!!).
 
theMan-Bat i have nothing against different techniques (although cell animation is something i really cherish), especially the digitization of animation , which brought to animators inumerous possibilities that typical table animations restrained. The problem is always how you used them to your advantage...and in this day and age we have a very low standard to animation. I dont want to badmouth too much the animation , because i understand these are kinda low budget targeted to a non demanding audiences...still i hoped for more , much more. Not jarring animation , with horrible cgi boxy car models , colors that are too bright and saturated , and backgrounds that are completely lifeless. And i dont even want to talk to what they did with Millers art (which im actually not a big fan , but works beautifully in DKR).

What actually causes me great surprise is how you grab a great book (year one) and end up with a mediocre product (and it looks like dkr is going on the same route). I've bought the blu of year one and i dont think i will ever see it again. There's absolutely no sense of direction in any scene. I know they wanted to make a very literal adaption , but still a motion picture is not a book. What works in that panel someone posted (the two cops) may need to be adjusted to motion. Miller gives us a shot of two cops , then a closeup to one of them (with more brightness) and he cuts to a shot of Batman from his back. I watch the clip and i see no direction in the scene. Just a complete lifeless motion through what happens in those panels.

As for rotoscoping , it's actually a great technique , that helped a lot of animators to progress how to draw motion. Its funny you brought Fleischer work , because i find it much better than what we have here (and we are talking about a 1940's short work....!!).

Great post. Thats exactly why I thought Year one and all star superman were soulless.
 
Well what exactly would you do differently from pros like Bruce Timm etc?
 
Well what exactly would you do differently from pros like Bruce Timm etc?

no PF. Not you... not the old "they are pros, you aren't so don't say anything negative" argument.

I'm not a pro. I never said I was. That doesn't prevent me from thinking this adaptation are lifeless, and, in Year one case, absolutely boring.
 
Léo Ho Tep;24235545 said:
no PF. Not you... not the old "they are pros, you aren't so don't say anything negative" argument.

I'm not a pro. I never said I was. That doesn't prevent me from thinking this adaptation are lifeless, and, in Year one case, absolutely boring.

No... I'm not saying that. Say as much negative things as you want if you feel that way.

It just that clearly Bruce Timm and Co. have tried to put soul into the film... even color scripting the movie (which they've never done before). But they are working with limited bidget and time restraints.

They've made it look as good and as soulful as they could.
 
No... I'm not saying that. Say as much negative things as you want if you feel that way.

It just that clearly Bruce Timm and Co. have tried to put soul into the film... even color scripting the movie (which they've never done before). But they are working with limited bidget and time restraints.

They've made it look as good and as soulful as they could.

I won't judge TDKr until I've seen it. And I really hope I'm wrong. But in the case of year one, no matter what passion they brought, I never felt engaged in a story that I love.
 
Anyone have the new(er?) trailer? Rented "Wrath of the Titans" the other night and there was a trailer for it that I had not seen before... started with a lot more of Bruce watching the news... but maybe I missed something.
 
theMan-Bat i have nothing against different techniques (although cell animation is something i really cherish), especially the digitization of animation , which brought to animators inumerous possibilities that typical table animations restrained. The problem is always how you used them to your advantage...and in this day and age we have a very low standard to animation. I dont want to badmouth too much the animation , because i understand these are kinda low budget targeted to a non demanding audiences...still i hoped for more , much more. Not jarring animation , with horrible cgi boxy car models , colors that are too bright and saturated , and backgrounds that are completely lifeless. And i dont even want to talk to what they did with Millers art (which im actually not a big fan , but works beautifully in DKR).

What actually causes me great surprise is how you grab a great book (year one) and end up with a mediocre product (and it looks like dkr is going on the same route). I've bought the blu of year one and i dont think i will ever see it again. There's absolutely no sense of direction in any scene. I know they wanted to make a very literal adaption , but still a motion picture is not a book. What works in that panel someone posted (the two cops) may need to be adjusted to motion. Miller gives us a shot of two cops , then a closeup to one of them (with more brightness) and he cuts to a shot of Batman from his back. I watch the clip and i see no direction in the scene. Just a complete lifeless motion through what happens in those panels.

As for rotoscoping , it's actually a great technique , that helped a lot of animators to progress how to draw motion. Its funny you brought Fleischer work , because i find it much better than what we have here (and we are talking about a 1940's short work....!!).

Like I said, the Fleischer Superman animation will never be topped in my opinion. The 1988 book The Fleischer Story by Leslie Cabarga explains that when Paramount proposed that the Fleischer studio tackle Superman, Dave Fleischer was at first reluctant. For one thing, it would be very expensive to animate realistic human anatomy sucessfully. So, hoping to dissuade them, Dave told Paramount it would cost $90,000 to make each cartoon short (according to Dave, a typical cartoon short's cost was $25,000 to make). To his surprise, Paramount approved the budget and Superman went into production. The budget allowed for extensive rotoscoping. "Paramount was very picky about those Superman cartoons", one animator said. Again, the Fleischer Superman animation will never be topped in my opinion. That doesn't prohibit me from enjoying the Dark Knight Returns animation, I also enjoyed the Batman: Year One animation, appreciating how faithful they are to the source material. I don't find the animation horrible or lifeless.
 
Last edited:
Anyone have the new(er?) trailer? Rented "Wrath of the Titans" the other night and there was a trailer for it that I had not seen before... started with a lot more of Bruce watching the news... but maybe I missed something.

Do you mean this trailer?
[YT]Mj_chgvGIlE[/YT]
 
Interview with Michael McKean, voice of Arkham Home psychiatrist Bartholomew Wolper in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns - Part 1 and 2...

QUESTION: How did you come to think of Arkham psychiatrist Bartholomew Wolper?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: Dr. Wolper is a very, very good shrink…if you ask him. He’s a guy who likes the sound of his own voice; he finds his ego very soothing, even though it seems a little ponderous from the outside. But he is convinced of his own genius, and definitely convinced that these poor, twisted souls who have been entrusted to his care are redeemable because he knows who the real bad guy is.

QUESTION: And that bad guy is?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: Wolper thinks that Batman is a social disease. He thinks that it is, in fact, Batman’s ego that is driving the crime wave in Gotham City. And he sets out to prove it. I don’t think he actually makes the case, but you can’t tell him that (Laughs) or anything else, for that matter.

QUESTION: How did you approach playing this character?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: My first impulse was Dr. Phil, but it didn’t work – it was too folksy. I think that a man whose ego is such a construct that it supersedes everything else around him, that’s kind of an interesting character to portray. There are some great examples in history. And I think a man who plays God – especially when it concerns human intelligence, human psyche, human emotions – he’s kind of like a prestidigitator. He’s the expert in the room, and when he tells you something is so, he expects you to believe it. And it’s only when he comes right up against the real world that it all falls apart.

QUESTION: In addition to acting, you also direct. And you’ve worked with (voice director) Andrea Romano on a number of projects. What makes Andrea so good at what she does?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: Andrea Romano has a kind of a soothing, friendly personality, which of course masks a tyrant (Laughs). Kidding, kidding. I think she’s an amazing talent and I trust her implicitly. Often if I’m directing, I’ll say, “Look, I won’t give you a line reading, but” and then I’ll try to make my case and get you to say what you’re supposed to say. As an actor, I actually ask Andrea for a line reading, because she knows exactly what she’s doing. She’s been doing it a long time, and she’s the best in the business. So I utterly respect her taste and opinion. And she’s also a great cheerleader – there’s never a time when I think, “Geez, I don’t know what I’m doing here.” Even if I don’t know what I’m doing, she always convinces me that I do…and then she sets me straight (Laughs). It’s kind of brilliant.

QUESTION: Does being part of a Batman film have any personal significance for you?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: When I was a kid, I adored the 1950s Batman. I liked the Superman comics and Justice League and Flash and the Atom – nobody does the Atom anymore, and that was a cool superhero – but I did love Batman. I loved the fact that they always found a way to stage the climactic scenes in a warehouse of gigantic toys, or huge oversized stuffed animals. And even as a kid, I sort of knew, “Well, he is sort of bored. He wants to draw something new other than just a street corner and a couple of guys fisting it out.” So I was a big comic book fan, and I loved the DC stuff.
When I went to college, the ABC series began airing (in 1966). I was at Carnegie Mellon (University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and I’ll never forget that everyone was looking forward to Batman and it was going to be the best thing ever. In those days, there was only one or two TV sets in the entire dorm. So we went down to the common room at McGill Hall and the show came on – and the minute the “Pows!” and “Bams!” and sound effects came on screen, the whole place went insane. Now these were all young men of ages 17 to 23, but suddenly we were all kids again. It was phenomenal. So it is kind of nice to revisit that (memory) by being in this film.
I also had the honor of playing the Joker in one of Mr. Timm’s episodes (the "Legends of the Dark Knight" (1998) episode of Batman: The Animated Series). Mark Hamill was doing the voice at the time, but they had a flashback to the 1950s, so I got to play the Joker in one episode. That was pretty exciting, too. And now it’s nice to be in a full-scale, class production like this.

QUESTION: With all your years of comic book reading, and your interest in the superhero realm, do you have a character you’d most like to play or voice?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: Comics actually taught me how to read. From the age of 3 or 4, my older sister would help me along with my reading lessons, telling me how to sound out words. Then I’d sit with my comics and really develop my reading. I remember that as I was reading comics, I had voices in my head for the characters. But I honestly don’t think I have one that I’d really want to take on. Maybe Bizarro-Superman. That’d be fun to do.

QUESTION: You’ve carved quite the resume of film, TV and stage performances, and yet you find time for a lot of animation voiceovers. For you, is that additional work … or working fun?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: It is an awful lot of fun. The only time I don’t like voiceover stuff is if I have a ton of ADR work to do. I did a film called Short Circuit 2 (1988), where I had a lot of scenes with a robot. And it was a real robot – it was operated off screen, but it really was a mechanical man. And, of course, they had the motors going at all times. Every move the robot made, there would be a noise with that movement. So every scene I had with this damn robot, which was about half the film, I had to loop everything. And that drives me crazy. But when you’re working with people like Rob Paulsen (voice of Pinky on Pinky and the Brain (1995-1998)) and Maurice LaMarche (voice of Brain on Pinky and the Brain) – I did a bunch of Animaniacs (1993, 1994 and 1998) and a couple of Pinky and the Brain episodes (1996-1998) – those guys make it such a great party atmosphere. They’re so funny and so smart – just amazing people to work with. That’s the best part of the job.

QUESTION: With so many memorable roles in your lengthy list of credits, what do people stop and ask you about the most?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: I guess Spinal Tap (1984), just because we keep coming back. We made the movie 25 years ago and occasionally we tour and make TV appearances and put out product (Break Like the Wind (1992) and Back from the Dead (2009) albums). So people know me from that. Occasionally somebody will come up and say “You’re Gibby from Dream On (1991-1996),” not very often, but sometimes. Laverne & Shirley (1976-1983) – not so much. That’s a long time ago, and we’ve all changed (Laughs). And, of course, the last few pictures I made with Chris Guest. People love Best in Show (2000). People always say the same thing to me about that film – they say, “You know, you and your boyfriend had the best relationship of all the couples in the film.” And they’re so totally right (Laughs). We were made for each other. So that’s a lot of fun, too.

QUESTION: Dr. Wolper is actually featured in both Part 1 and Part 2 of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Can you give us a little teaser of what to expect in the second half of the story?

MICHAEL MCKEAN: The Joker is kind of Dr. Wolper’s pet patient. He is the most irredeemable, as far as society is concerned, which Dr. Wolper takes as a challenge. He’s thrilled and delighted when he sees the Joker making such progress, and he thinks that he’s done so well that the next step is to bring him out into the public to kind of show off his own work. It doesn’t go well.

http://www.toonzone.net/2012/08/pr-michael-mckean-on-voicing-egomaniacal-arkham-asylum-psychiatrist-in-batman-the-dark-knight-returns-pt-1/#.UECGTNaPX3N
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"