The Dark Knight Returns

[CConn]

Before it came out?

It would make sense.

 

[CLARKY]

I just finished reading the Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller and I thought it was great. If you have read it, please share your thoughts. If you haven't, then i recomend you read it.

I'm certainly going to be flamed for this but I've read it and I hate it. I think the art is not convincing, and the story is IMO horrible.
It destroyed the character and was the beginning of badass ***hole batman. I don't think it was necessary. I'm not saying it was badly written, no, there was rythm, plot and all, I'm just talking about the ideas. Personally I could have forget the book but an army of authors/writers used it, even caricaturated it, in the mainstream comic books without any control.
If something works in the book, I think it should have stayed contained IN the book.
I think it is one of the worst story about batman. IMVOO.

 

[CLARKY]

even if I keep thinking batman: year one is not a "batman" story but a jim Gordon story, I concur with The Leaguer, I think Y1 was much better.

 

[silentflute]

And on that note, cue in the SUPERFRIENDS theme music....

 

[CConn]

I'm certainly going to be flamed for this but I've read it and I hate it. I think the art is not convincing, and the story is IMO horrible.
It destroyed the character and was the beginning of badass ***hole batman. I don't think it was necessary. I'm not saying it was badly written, no, there was rythm, plot and all, I'm just talking about the ideas. Personally I could have forget the book but an army of authors/writers used it, even caricaturated it, in the mainstream comic books without any control.
If something works in the book, I think it should have stayed contained IN the book.
I think it is one of the worst story about batman. IMVOO.

So you're blaming the book itself for other writers going overboard? That hardly makes sense to me.

 

[Irony-Man]

I remember the context in which DKR was released. It was the first major comic series of the eighties to get recognition from both genre and mainstream media. It was a boldly innovative and controversial look at a conventional hero who had been regarded as camp by most of the population who only knew Batman from the TV show.

It was also the first time that North America was exposed to the European and Japanese tradition of comics dealing with issues for adults and being treated as a valid literary art form.

Miller's artistic style perfectly reflected the themes and subtext of his message, which is that superheroes either become enemies of the system they have sworn to uphold - the disenchanted Bruce Wayne/Batman who really endorses a brand of fascism by the end- or co-opted and neutered by the very people they once fought to bring to justice - a Superman whose ability to function depends on compromising the very reason for his functioning by selling out to government control.

You also have the yin/yang or duality of the roles played by Batman and Superman demonstrated by the artwork. Batman is large and grim and as the story progresses returning to his original gray and black form. The art shows every scar and wrinkle brought on him by his life's work. His size -larger as Batman than as Wayne- indicates how diminished he felt as himself and how his power was directly related to his role as Batman. He becomes more of a untamed uncontrollable force of nature when he reassumes his destiny as Batman.

Conversely, Superman who actually is a force of nature is drawn in bright colours, and as Kent his large, round blank eyes (as portrayed by glasses made unnecessary by his acknowledgement of his identity) convey an innocent and guileless quality similar to "Little Orphan Annie". Note that he is diminished and then restored by the nuclear explosion - and the sight of the stricken and shriveled Superman is one of the most haunting images in comics IMHO - but Batman seems to go stronger and purer as the story develops as his focus returns to give him a clarity of purpose even stronger than his traditional pursuit of justice/revenge. There is no doubt of the winner in a battle between the two.

Finally, you have to put DKR into he context of literary and mythological heroes. One of the weaknesses of comics as a literary form is its inability to provide an ending point for its characters. This is due in great part to the commercial nature of its existence. Yet all great characters need an end. Arthur would not be Arthur without his death at the hand of Mordred and his final journey to Avalon, to return in Britain's time of need. Robin Hood, poisoned by Marion fires his last arrow and is buried where it lands. These denouements provide the bittersweet and dignified closure to a hero's career. We know they can't go on forever, but hope that they have found peace or, at the very least, a renewed sense of purpose at the end. DKR was one of the first attempts to do this in comics and is, I think, responsible for Marvel comics attempts to providing endings for some of their characters - ie Hulk and Wolverine- and also for DC's character rollover where the original here - ie Green Lantern - is replaced by a newer younger hero adopting his/her mantle.

Like it or not, DKR provided the paradigm shift necessary for comics to become what they now are.

 

[silentflute]

I remember the context in which DKR was released. It was the first major comic series of the eighties to get recognition from both genre and mainstream media. It was a boldly innovative and controversial look at a conventional hero who had been regarded as camp by most of the population who only knew Batman from the TV show.

It was also the first time that North America was exposed to the European and Japanese tradition of comics dealing with issues for adults and being treated as a valid literary art form.

Miller's artistic style perfectly reflected the themes and subtext of his message, which is that superheroes either become enemies of the system they have sworn to uphold - the disenchanted Bruce Wayne/Batman who really endorses a brand of fascism by the end- or co-opted and neutered by the very people they once fought to bring to justice - a Superman whose ability to function depends on compromising the very reason for his functioning by selling out to government control.

You also have the yin/yang or duality of the roles played by Batman and Superman demonstrated by the artwork. Batman is large and grim and as the story progresses returning to his original gray and black form. The art shows every scar and wrinkle brought on him by his life's work. His size -larger as Batman than as Wayne- indicates how diminished he felt as himself and how his power was directly related to his role as Batman. He becomes more of a untamed uncontrollable force of nature when he reassumes his destiny as Batman.

Conversely, Superman who actually is a force of nature is drawn in bright colours, and as Kent his large, round blank eyes (as portrayed by glasses made unnecessary by his acknowledgement of his identity) convey an innocent and guileless quality similar to "Little Orphan Annie". Note that he is diminished and then restored by the nuclear explosion - and the sight of the stricken and shriveled Superman is one of the most haunting images in comics IMHO - but Batman seems to go stronger and purer as the story develops as his focus returns to give him a clarity of purpose even stronger than his traditional pursuit of justice/revenge. There is no doubt of the winner in a battle between the two.

Finally, you have to put DKR into he context of literary and mythological heroes. One of the weaknesses of comics as a literary form is its inability to provide an ending point for its characters. This is due in great part to the commercial nature of its existence. Yet all great characters need an end. Arthur would not be Arthur without his death at the hand of Mordred and his final journey to Avalon, to return in Britain's time of need. Robin Hood, poisoned by Marion fires his last arrow and is buried where it lands. These denouements provide the bittersweet and dignified closure to a hero's career. We know they can't go on forever, but hope that they have found peace or, at the very least, a renewed sense of purpose at the end. DKR was one of the first attempts to do this in comics and is, I think, responsible for Marvel comics attempts to providing endings for some of their characters - ie Hulk and Wolverine- and also for DC's character rollover where the original here - ie Green Lantern - is replaced by a newer younger hero adopting his/her mantle.

Like it or not, DKR provided the paradigm shift necessary for comics to become what they now are.

Very well said.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

I remember the context in which DKR was released. It was the first major comic series of the eighties to get recognition from both genre and mainstream media. It was a boldly innovative and controversial look at a conventional hero who had been regarded as camp by most of the population who only knew Batman from the TV show.

It was also the first time that North America was exposed to the European and Japanese tradition of comics dealing with issues for adults and being treated as a valid literary art form.

Miller's artistic style perfectly reflected the themes and subtext of his message, which is that superheroes either become enemies of the system they have sworn to uphold - the disenchanted Bruce Wayne/Batman who really endorses a brand of fascism by the end- or co-opted and neutered by the very people they once fought to bring to justice - a Superman whose ability to function depends on compromising the very reason for his functioning by selling out to government control.

You also have the yin/yang or duality of the roles played by Batman and Superman demonstrated by the artwork. Batman is large and grim and as the story progresses returning to his original gray and black form. The art shows every scar and wrinkle brought on him by his life's work. His size -larger as Batman than as Wayne- indicates how diminished he felt as himself and how his power was directly related to his role as Batman. He becomes more of a untamed uncontrollable force of nature when he reassumes his destiny as Batman.

Conversely, Superman who actually is a force of nature is drawn in bright colours, and as Kent his large, round blank eyes (as portrayed by glasses made unnecessary by his acknowledgement of his identity) convey an innocent and guileless quality similar to "Little Orphan Annie". Note that he is diminished and then restored by the nuclear explosion - and the sight of the stricken and shriveled Superman is one of the most haunting images in comics IMHO - but Batman seems to go stronger and purer as the story develops as his focus returns to give him a clarity of purpose even stronger than his traditional pursuit of justice/revenge. There is no doubt of the winner in a battle between the two.

Finally, you have to put DKR into he context of literary and mythological heroes. One of the weaknesses of comics as a literary form is its inability to provide an ending point for its characters. This is due in great part to the commercial nature of its existence. Yet all great characters need an end. Arthur would not be Arthur without his death at the hand of Mordred and his final journey to Avalon, to return in Britain's time of need. Robin Hood, poisoned by Marion fires his last arrow and is buried where it lands. These denouements provide the bittersweet and dignified closure to a hero's career. We know they can't go on forever, but hope that they have found peace or, at the very least, a renewed sense of purpose at the end. DKR was one of the first attempts to do this in comics and is, I think, responsible for Marvel comics attempts to providing endings for some of their characters - ie Hulk and Wolverine- and also for DC's character rollover where the original here - ie Green Lantern - is replaced by a newer younger hero adopting his/her mantle.

Like it or not, DKR provided the paradigm shift necessary for comics to become what they now are.

Pretty good, but I disagree with one thing--Batman being a fascist in the story. He didn't really want to control people--just punish those who hurt others.

Also, that wasn't Miller's intent at all. He's said before that Batman in Dark Knight Returns was his attempt to "bring in an Anarchist superhero in Reagan's America."

 

[Secret_Riddle]

"dick, you always were my little monkey wrench"
-big bad batman

 

[TwilightPro101]

This one is great, but the sequel was...so blah, but I think Frank Miller speaks of the times with these particular stories. It's just the sequel is rather lacking in both the art and story department, unlike this one.

 

[Nepenthes]

Also CLARKY Batman is a grim arshole in DKR because it's set in a shiiity future where crimefighting has taken its toll. Miller wasn't out to redefine Batmans character in the present.

DKR is leagues ahead of any other Batman story imo. It's in its own category.

EDIT: Why havn't I noticed your posts here before Irony-Man?

 

[Irony-Man]

Also CLARKY Batman is a grim arshole in DKR because it's set in a shiiity future where crimefighting has taken its toll. Miller wasn't out to redefine Batmans character in the present.

DKR is leagues ahead of any other Batman story imo. It's in its own category.

EDIT: Why havn't I noticed your posts here before Irony-Man?

I've been around for a while but for the past year or so I've been too busy to post much although I've been reading the boards frequently.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

I picked up the first issue of Spider-man Reign today and its pretty much a dark knight returns rip off for spider-man. Its in the future, hes suffered great losses, its violent, hes a wreck and the style of writing reminds me of Millers writing style especially the inner dialogues. and the art is also similar.

 

[Mister C]

Great book

frankmiller

nuff said

 

[Matt.S99]

i have it its a great read!my dads reading it now

 

[Infinity9999x]

I love DKR, it got me hooked on Batman, but I do have a few problems with it.

Mainly the story towards the end, I just couldn't see Batman taking basically crazy mudering kids under his wing. Kids who were unstable, and by looking at how quickly they turned on their first leader, kids who would probably kill and leave Batman at the drop of the hat once they sensed someone more powerfull coming. That was the part of the story I didn't like, other then that I loved it.

I didn't mind the way Bats acted in DKR, because honestly, how else would Batman act in a situation like that? I don't like that some writers tried to bring that characterization into the mainstream, because mainstream Bats really didn't need to be acting like a prick all the time.

And as for YR1, because many people have mentioned that in here, I love that too, but I think I still give the best Bat Book award to TLH. I loved that story, and it was the perfect characterization of Batman in my opinion.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

DKR is a great story,but the artwork was always a little..off with me.The story does make up for it.

Year One is a bit better.

 

[[The Director]]

"Dark Knight Returns" is an iconic book (and a really original take on the character), but I could never tolerate the artwork - it's awful. Frank Miller is a solid writer, though. I don't care for the gritty, killing-machine that Miller turned Batman into, but it was a fun read.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

I love DKR, it got me hooked on Batman, but I do have a few problems with it.

Mainly the story towards the end, I just couldn't see Batman taking basically crazy mudering kids under his wing. Kids who were unstable, and by looking at how quickly they turned on their first leader, kids who would probably kill and leave Batman at the drop of the hat once they sensed someone more powerfull coming. That was the part of the story I didn't like, other then that I loved it.

Well, the city was practically on fire, the man needed more reinforcements than just Robin to save it, so he had no choice. The SOBs were already for him, obviously, so I'd wager that Batman told them not to kill, and they got on his boat, and by that point, I think he was big and scary and mythic enough to make the remaining Mutants follow him.

What I find interesting was that people always complain about Batman being killing crazy and yet he never conclusively kills anyone (the Mutant with the baby hostage is a big iffy. I wonder if anyone ever asked Frank about it...) and the only time he ever used a real gun was the aforementioned hostage situation and using Yindel's gun to set off plastique to make his escape in the Tunnel of Love.

 

[Qoèlet]

(the Mutant with the baby hostage is a big iffy. I wonder if anyone ever asked Frank about it...)

It's not iffy so much as it's out of place and confusing. It's explicitly stated some time after that scene that Batman never killed anyone. The whole conflict when he confronts the Joker revolves around the fact that he is unwilling to kill anybody. All textual evidence points to the fact that Batman has never killed, and won't kill. But then Batman also states on at least two occassions that he detests guns, and he doesn't hesitate to use one in that scene.

I think it's best to list that scene as an aberration: a bad choice that Miller made because it contradicts at least one relevant point of the plot, and confuses another very important issue. Proof that Miller might be a good writer, but he is far from perfect.
Bear in mind that the four books came out seperately, and presumably Miller wrote them one at a time.. so while he has Batman wielding a gun and possibly killing a man in Book 2, he might not have realized at that point in time that it was going to be essential in Book 3 to establish that Batman has never killed anyone and hates guns. I don't like to look at it that way, however, because if that's the case Miller did some shoddy work. It might be true nonetheless.

 

[Hades]

I don't see what's so wrong with the art.

It's gritty and ugly. Fits the story

Very good book, though I think it's a tad overrated.

I'd go more into detail as to why I feel that way, but It's been so long since I've read it :/

 

[silentflute]

It's not iffy so much as it's out of place and confusing. It's explicitly stated some time after that scene that Batman never killed anyone. The whole conflict when he confronts the Joker revolves around the fact that he is unwilling to kill anybody. All textual evidence points to the fact that Batman has never killed, and won't kill. But then Batman also states on at least two occassions that he detests guns, and he doesn't hesitate to use one in that scene.

I think it's best to list that scene as an aberration: a bad choice that Miller made because it contradicts at least one relevant point of the plot, and confuses another very important issue. Proof that Miller might be a good writer, but he is far from perfect.
Bear in mind that the four books came out seperately, and presumably Miller wrote them one at a time.. so while he has Batman wielding a gun and possibly killing a man in Book 2, he might not have realized at that point in time that it was going to be essential in Book 3 to establish that Batman has never killed anyone and hates guns. I don't like to look at it that way, however, because if that's the case Miller did some shoddy work. It might be true nonetheless.

It's not a contradiction per se.Miller's Batman clearly feels that the kid gloves are off when a child is in danger.Hence shooting the mutant, and in ASB&R running down the police cars to get Dick Grayson.

 

[Qoèlet]

It's not a contradiction per se.Miller's Batman clearly feels that the kid gloves are off when a child is in danger.Hence shooting the mutant, and in ASB&R running down the police cars to get Dick Grayson.

I see what you mean, but I'm not too sure I buy that. There were plenty of kids in danger at the carnival when he decides not to kill the Joker, and plenty in Gotham when be went ahead and broke the SOB's rifle and declared it was a coward's weapon and the Son's of Batman would need to use nonlethal means if they were going to follow him to bring order to the city.

 

[Punch]

I see what you mean, but I'm not too sure I buy that. There were plenty of kids in danger at the carnival when he decides not to kill the Joker, and plenty in Gotham when be went ahead and broke the SOB's rifle and declared it was a coward's weapon and the Son's of Batman would need to use nonlethal means if they were going to follow him to bring order to the city.

Those are not the same type of situations.
Batman could not save the baby in any way other than by killing the mutant. That's the whole point of his saying "I believe you". He believed that the mutant would kill the baby so he had to compromise his morals.

When he had the Joker in his hands, though, he knew that he didn't have to kill him to subdue him at that point, so he couldn't go through with it.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

One of my all-time favorite comics.