The Dark Knight Returns

[Jack O Lantern]

I hated how he wrecked Superman to make Batman seem superior

 

[Agentsands77]

The Two-Face and Superman parts rocked, the rest absolutely sucked.

IMO, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS has plenty of good moments, but it also has heavy doses of WTF?!

It's an iconic book, no doubt, but I don't think it plays well today. It was tailor-made for the big, brash 80s, but if the same book came out today, I get the sense that Batfans would tear it apart for its lack of subtlety and its incoherent feel.

 

[CyberFaust]

I hated how he wrecked Superman to make Batman seem superior

Batman IS superior!

The dark knight returns is all i wanted it to be, gritty and Frank Miller-ish, ultimately cool.t:

 

[Punch]

IMO, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS has plenty of good moments, but it also has heavy doses of WTF?!

It's an iconic book, no doubt, but I don't think it plays well today. It was tailor-made for the big, brash 80s, but if the same book came out today, I get the sense that Batfans would tear it apart for its lack of subtlety and its incoherent feel.

I'd say that it holds up rather nicely in our current world situation. But what really holds up well, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a movie relatively soon, is Give Me Liberty

 

[Carmine Falcone]

I'm reading it again now, absolutely love it.

 

[Frosty81]

I read it for the first time, earlier this year. I really, really enjoyed it. I have actually been intending to re-read it for some time. I just need to hurry up and finish the 'Monster Men' book.

- Chris

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Batman IS superior!

The dark knight returns is all i wanted it to be, gritty and Frank Miller-ish, ultimately cool.t:

You can like Batman more but I have yet to see a good reason as to why he has to make Superman the governments *****, anyone who knows about Superman knows that would never happen, tell a Batman story if you want but if you are going to include other characters stay true to their character as well

 

[hippie_hunter]

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.

The Dark Knight Returns is like the Ultimates in my opinion. It's very well received and it's a big seller, and they're not bad. But it's not my cup of tea and I think it's very overrated. I prefer Year One much better (it's one of my favorite Batman stories) and All-Star Batman and Robin is trash

Though what you said basically hit the spot on what DKR has done for Batman and the comics industry and even if you are not a fan of Miller like myself, to deny it is just plain stupidity.

 

[hippie_hunter]

That said, it is indeed the greatest Batman story ever told.

You really need to pick up The Long Halloween, Batman and the Monster Men, The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughs, and Dark Victory

 

[Agentsands77]

You really need to pick up The Long Halloween, Batman and the Monster Men, The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughs, and Dark Victory

Agreed with all of that, and I'd add more. YEAR ONE (the only Miller Batman work worth reading, and even then, it's overrated), DEATH AND THE MAIDENS, SON OF THE DEMON, and so on. I don't think THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is all that great.

In fact, I just flat-out don't like THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and a quick re-read last night reminded me of the reasons why.

#1. Frank Miller's overwritten, overblown style. Miller has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and I can't stand it. It's too much. Just read the passage where Bruce stands in the cave alone, thinking (before he's assumed the mantle of Batman). It's terribly written. And I haven't even started on the WTF?! elements like the robot dolls that fly and the Batmobile being the size of the Death Star and so forth.

#2. Miller's take on Batman. I have to admit, I'm just not a huge fan of the psycho Batman that Miller introduced here. And that's precisely what I get. Miller's inner dialogue is ultimately what seals the deal here: "So many lovely ways to hurt him." Ugh.

#3. Miller's take on Superman. It really cheapens the character.

 

[CyberFaust]

You can like Batman more but I have yet to see a good reason as to why he has to make Superman the governments *****, anyone who knows about Superman knows that would never happen, tell a Batman story if you want but if you are going to include other characters stay true to their character as well

True, i know nothing of Sups but i'll start reading some and i'll try and get a good look at him too

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Agreed with all of that, and I'd add more. YEAR ONE (the only Miller Batman work worth reading, and even then, it's overrated), DEATH AND THE MAIDENS, SON OF THE DEMON, and so on. I don't think THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is all that great.

In fact, I just flat-out don't like THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and a quick re-read last night reminded me of the reasons why.

#1. Frank Miller's overwritten, overblown style. Miller has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and I can't stand it. It's too much. Just read the passage where Bruce stands in the cave alone, thinking (before he's assumed the mantle of Batman). It's terribly written. And I haven't even started on the WTF?! elements like the robot dolls that fly and the Batmobile being the size of the Death Star and so forth.

#2. Miller's take on Batman. I have to admit, I'm just not a huge fan of the psycho Batman that Miller introduced here. And that's precisely what I get. Miller's inner dialogue is ultimately what seals the deal here: "So many lovely ways to hurt him." Ugh.

#3. Miller's take on Superman. It really cheapens the character.

1. I wouldn't go as far as to say that he has no subtlety. To me, his writing, while a lot like a sledgehammer to the face, also has small nails around it that while you wouldn't neccesarily reconize them at first, you still in some way feel it.

2. Well, it makes sense with what's happened to him so far. First off, the over THIRTY years of crime-fighting, putting on a completely different alter-ego for so long, it's easy to see that personality take shape into a completely different being in the mind and overtake a man. Then, after practically risking his life, sacrificing his blood, sweat, and tears to try and keep his city safe, ten years later, not only is it just as bad as it was before, it's even worse. That's more than enough to make anyone good and angry.

3. While I really don't see Superman being a tool of the government like that--his personality and such is similar, but I can't see him going as far as to do that--it works for the story. Even still, he still has some good moments, like in Bruce's furneral and when he gets weakened and tries to reach the sun--that moment is actually one of my favorite Superman moments. I just find the idea of Superman speaking to the planet Earth, as most of the US is covered in nuclear winter, promising the planet that "her adopted son will not fail her," breathtaking and very interesting.

All in all--when it comes to Miller's take, specifically DKR and perhaps All-Star, to me, they feel more like what a real person in the real world would be like. It makes for interesting stories--but those in Elseworlds or out-of-continuity stories, really.

 

[Agentsands77]

1. I wouldn't go as far as to say that he has no subtlety. To me, his writing, while a lot like a sledgehammer to the face, also has small nails around it that while you wouldn't neccesarily reconize them at first, you still in some way feel it.

Eh, he's still no Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman. He's mostly a big giant fanboy that likes to write big giant fanboy stuff. The only time I enjoyed his writing was in the DAREDEVIL days and when he wrote YEAR ONE.

2. Well, it makes sense with what's happened to him so far. First off, the over THIRTY years of crime-fighting, putting on a completely different alter-ego for so long, it's easy to see that personality take shape into a completely different being in the mind and overtake a man. Then, after practically risking his life, sacrificing his blood, sweat, and tears to try and keep his city safe, ten years later, not only is it just as bad as it was before, it's even worse. That's more than enough to make anyone good and angry.

Well, it depends what look you take at the character. Miller's clearly going off of somebody who's been unhinged for quite some time (as ALL STAR BATMAN AND ROBIN, supposedly a prequel to DKR, illustrates).

I do believe that Batman would never stop fighting, but I don't see such a pessimistic, self-destructive ending in sight. Maybe that's because I hold a more shamelessly heroic and noble view of the character. I don't like Miller's Bat "The Punisher" Man.

I'm more in the DEATH AND THE MAIDENS school of thought - that Batman eventually moves on from his parent's deaths, that he is who he is because he wants to be, and that he's not a crazy. I'd buy the KINGDOM COME Bat-future before I'd buy Miller's.

3. While I really don't see Superman being a tool of the government like that--his personality and such is similar, but I can't see him going as far as to do that--it works for the story.

I suppose. But ultimately it's not the Superman I know and love, and it feels like a slap in the face to that character.

I just find the idea of Superman speaking to the planet Earth, as most of the US is covered in nuclear winter, promising the planet that "her adopted son will not fail her," breathtaking and very interesting.

I found that passage silly. Mostly because Miller can't write anything without it sounding massively overblown.

 

[silentflute]

#1. Frank Miller's overwritten, overblown style. Miller has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and I can't stand it. It's too much. Just read the passage where Bruce stands in the cave alone, thinking (before he's assumed the mantle of Batman). It's terribly written.


No,it isn't.

And I haven't even started on the WTF?! elements like the robot dolls that fly and the Batmobile being the size of the Death Star and so forth.

Considering the plethora of outlandish moments in 60+ yrs of Batman comics, flying robots should be the least of anyone's worries.

#2. Miller's take on Batman. I have to admit, I'm just not a huge fan of the psycho Batman that Miller introduced here. And that's precisely what I get. Miller's inner dialogue is ultimately what seals the deal here: "So many lovely ways to hurt him." Ugh.

Damn straight.That's how a man who saw his parents shot to death in a dark alleyway would think.Nothing like taking pleasure in hurting the element that causes these tragic things.

#3. Miller's take on Superman. It really cheapens the character.

I wouldn't say cheapens.In fact, Miller's superman has his moments of redemption.Particularly in DK2, where he is portrayed as a real hero.But let's face the facts :next to Batman,he looks very dumb.Most of 'em do.

 

[hippie_hunter]

#1. Frank Miller's overwritten, overblown style. Miller has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and I can't stand it. It's too much. Just read the passage where Bruce stands in the cave alone, thinking (before he's assumed the mantle of Batman). It's terribly written.


No,it isn't.

And I haven't even started on the WTF?! elements like the robot dolls that fly and the Batmobile being the size of the Death Star and so forth.

Considering the plethora of outlandish moments in 60+ yrs of Batman comics, flying robots should be the least of anyone's worries.

#2. Miller's take on Batman. I have to admit, I'm just not a huge fan of the psycho Batman that Miller introduced here. And that's precisely what I get. Miller's inner dialogue is ultimately what seals the deal here: "So many lovely ways to hurt him." Ugh.

Damn straight.That's how a man who saw his parents shot to death in a dark alleyway would think.Nothing like taking pleasure in hurting the element that causes these tragic things.

#3. Miller's take on Superman. It really cheapens the character.

I wouldn't say cheapens.In fact, Miller's superman has his moments of redemption.Particularly in DK2, where he is portrayed as a real hero.But let's face the facts :next to Batman,he looks very dumb.Most of 'em do.

Wow....I am NEVER...EVER...going to take you seriously EVER again

 

[The Leaguer]

I never took him seriously to begin with.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I never took him seriously to begin with.

I thought he was just a simple Miller fanboy at first, but this is blatantly obvious that he has a complete hard-on for the guy.

 

[Agentsands77]

I thought he was just a simple Miller fanboy at first, but this is blatantly obvious that he has a complete hard-on for the guy.

Indeed.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Here's perhaps the best review of DKR I have ever read. It's also on the Misc. Comics forum on the TPB review thread.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns

I swear, what Frank Miller has written here just might be the manliest work of fiction in history. You have to wear gloves while reading it to keep your hands from being stained by the testosterone that bleeds off of every page. Every time I put it down I wanted to walk out of my house shirtless and unshaven and get into a drunken bar fight while smoking a cheap cigar. If you're worried about your son wanting to join the cheerleading squad, get him this book and watch him gain fifty pounds of pure muscle from just touching it.

Miller has a very fascinating and disturbing take on Batman, and his manly artwork is in top form here. All in all, a fantastic read that serves as a perfect example of why people loved Frank Miller before he went bat**** insane. 9/10

 

[silentflute]

I thought he was just a simple Miller fanboy at first, but this is blatantly obvious that he has a complete hard-on for the guy.

Fact:very few readers get what Miller does.There's much subtext in DK2 that went unnoticed.

 

[silentflute]

Wow....I am NEVER...EVER...going to take you seriously EVER again

Why?I guess you can't look beyond you're own myopic vision.

 

[Agentsands77]

Fact:very few readers get what Miller does.There's much subtext in DK2 that went unnoticed.

DK2 is certainly loaded with subtext (and it wasn't really subtle subtext, for that matter), but the issue is that the main text itself floundered.

 

[The Leaguer]

Why?I guess you can't look beyond you're own myopic vision.

It's probably just that he can't look past your idiocy.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's probably just that he can't look past your idiocy.

That's the answer. I don't bash people who like comics I don't like such as The Ultimates and The Dark Knight Returns. It's just simply that they are not my cup of tea. But when people protect crap which needs to be burned and pass it off as something great (like DKSA and All-Star Batman and Robin), that's a completely different story.

You simply cannot see that Miller has gone the way of Chris Claremont. They were both great writers, but now, ugh. You see Miller as some great God, whom you have a major hard-on for.

 

[The Leaguer]

To every question.