The Dark Knight Returns

[Cobblepot]

Well atleast it's boosting up your post count.
I would say guys put it to rest...and discuss the great things about this book?
Would Batman have been as popular as he is today, without this book?

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Like I have said REPEATEDLY:HE PREFERS NOT TO KILL.If push comes to shove and he has to ( ie to save an innocent person) then I'm sure he would.

Hmmm.Are you in denial?The man was shot point blank with a machine gun and went through a window that was at least 3 stories up.And you need proof?

First I agree with you that if Bat's had no other choice that he might kill to save others.....but I think you need to read TDKR again....the mutant that was shot point blank with a machine gun and fell through a window was NOT SHOT BY BATMAN but shot by the other mutant trying to shoot a bat in the room.

 

[silentflute]

First I agree with you that if Bat's had no other choice that he might kill to save others.....but I think you need to read TDKR again....the mutant that was shot point blank with a machine gun and fell through a window was NOT SHOT BY BATMAN but shot by the other mutant trying to shoot a bat in the room.

Apologies, my mistake.Yes the one that went through the window was shot by the other mutant.

Re:the mutant that was shot by Batman-- it always seemed to me that he had killed him.There's an air of finality to his last line:"I believe you".

I'm sure that others will continue to debate that' there's no proof, but whatever.I still stand by what I've said: he prefers not to kill, but if he had to to save an innocent person, he would.

 

[silentflute]

Yes, DC took the story out of continuity before it could make any impact whatsoever on Batman's continuity.

If it sold as many copies as it did it must have made some impact on readers.Just because DC decided not to put into continuity doesn't mean that the damage hadn't been done.This whole concept of continuity with these American Gods is a joke.


I've called you a jackass and a twit because you've been acting one.

No,you called me that because you're frustrated at what I'm saying cuz it doesn't fit into you're pristine world.

You've been saying things that are clearly wrong, yet you keep insisting that you're right.

Again, continuity does not dictate that I'm wrong.If only ONE( and there have been more than one) creator had batman kill, and DC published the story, then clearly there is room for interpretation.Because my vision of batman doesn't match yours, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

You think that you are winning this arguement when everyone tells you that you are not.

What do I care what a bunch of fools think?in fact, alot of people on these boards don't know their head from their ass, they only think they do.

You're the one acting childish by using my parents as insults. You want to insult me, then insult me. Don't use my parents.

Guess you've never heard of playing the dozens.


I have been proving your points wrong.

No, you haven't.

Yes in the history of the character Batman has killed that is not up for debate. But the stories that Kane has done and Miller's Batman stories where Batman has killed are not even in continuity anymore.

Stop bringing up the continuity factor.The writer is always more important than continuity.Period.

Just because Batman at one point in history has killed doesn't mean that he is willing to kill. The New Earth Batman is not willing to kill.

I'm done with this conversation.See above answer.





That's the point of All-Star DC. It's basically the book where they will let the creators like Miller and Morrison and Hughes and Johns do whatever the hell they want, without being bounded to continuity. It's not an Elseworlds, it's All-Star.

Yep.And it's still Batman.Continuity be damned.

And obviously we are not getting good results from this. All-Star Batman and Robin has a reputation of being massively late due to both Miller and Lee.

Actually just due to Lee.


It has a reputation of being poorly written (yes there are people like you who do like it, but we are talking about the reputation of the book and right now, it has a rather poor one).

Yeah but consider the source of that reputation- pathetic fanboys who can't take a batman that actually has balls and is not interchageable with a slew of other DC or Marvel heroes.No credibility.The sales speak volumes though.For all these guys that hate the book, they can't wait to go out and get the new issue.

 

[hippie_hunter]

If it sold as many copies as it did it must have made some impact on readers.Just because DC decided not to put into continuity doesn't mean that the damage hadn't been done.This whole concept of continuity with these American Gods is a joke.

1. You shouldn't be reading DC considering how much you hate continuity.

2. DC got rid of the story before any "damage" can be done.

No,you called me that because you're frustrated at what I'm saying cuz it doesn't fit into you're pristine world.

When you are being dead wrong and when I and others completely prove it to you that you are dead wrong, yet you keep on insisting that you are right means that you are being a jackass.

Again, continuity does not dictate that I'm wrong.If only ONE( and there have been more than one) creator had batman kill, and DC published the story, then clearly there is room for interpretation.Because my vision of batman doesn't match yours, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Continuity does prove you wrong

And only one creative team did have Batman kill: Bill Finger and Bob Kane. Batman hasn't killed in continuity since then. Your vision of Batman being willing to kill is wrong. If Batman was willing to tolerate death the he would have let Jason Todd kill the Joker in Batman #650 or would have done it himself YEARS ago.

Guess you've never heard of playing the dozens.

No, you're just being childish.

No, you haven't.

Yes I have, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Stop bringing up the continuity factor.The writer is always more important than continuity.Period.

1. Continuity is more important than the writer. It prevents the writer from completely bastardizing a character which is the worst thing you can do to a creation.

2. If we are going to go by your writer is more important, then I am still right, Batman practically hasn't killed in over 60 years.

Yep.And it's still Batman.Continuity be damned.

It's a rather poor rendition of Batman and most people do not like it.

Actually just due to Lee.

You just keep telling yourself that.

Yeah but consider the source of that reputation- pathetic fanboys who can't take a batman that actually has balls and is not interchageable with a slew of other DC or Marvel heroes.No credibility.The sales speak volumes though.For all these guys that hate the book, they can't wait to go out and get the new issue.

No, this is from IGN.com on why it has such a bad reputation

With talent like Frank Miller and Jim Lee on board, All-Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder seemed like it would be an incredible series. Unfortunately the book has not lived up to its potential. The book was intended to be a re-imagining of the Batman mythos. Though the title would not be set in continuity, it was going to retrace the origin of the first Robin, Dick Grayson. The book was plagued by bizarre characterizations. Though he redefined the Dark Knight, Frank Miller's voice in this comic was way off target. Batman was quick-tempered, irrational and unusually forceful. Rather than guide Dick Grayson to be Robin, Batman treats him as a soldier in a war. When Grayson defiantly asks who Batman thinks he is, Wayne replies, "I'm the goddamn Batman." The moment, intended to be very serious, was ridiculed by the readers and press. It has actually become a joke amongst comic book fans. You're probably wondering why we keep referring to All-Star in the past tense. Was it cancelled? Not quite (though it might as well have been). Gross mischaracterizations aside, we have yet to mention the book's biggest problem: the shipping schedule. Since launching 17 months ago, only four issues have hit store shelves. Delays plague the book and though DC has provided initial information about issues five and six, there is no definite time table established for the arrival of those books. The delays are this title's biggest problem. It's impossible to collect or read a chapter-based story when there is no arrival date for the next installment. At least Harry Potter titles present complete stories and are hundreds of pages long. Many readers are probably wondering about Jim Lee's artwork. The prolific artist is just as good here as ever. In fact he's probably better now than ever before. One sequence that really stood out to us was a sequence that uses a two-page spread and swirls the panels around the pages in a circular motion. While most artists would fail to properly portray the scenes and lead the reader through them, Lee does just fine. His pencils are superb and this Batman makes his previous attempts on the character (Lee teamed with Jeph Loeb for a storyline called "Hush") look primitive. His shading and willingness to experiment with layout and design are more evident than ever. Jim Lee's art is definitely not a problem here. He's just slow. Way too slow to make this book worthwhile. We're quite certain the majority of the blame lies with him, as his other books have suffered extensive delays as well. The delays combined with the bizarre characterization absolutely ruin this series. There is no way All-Star Batman should be on your shopping list or considered if you're developing one.
Currently: Awful
Future Prognosis: Awful

 

[Infinity9999x]

The fact is, Batman is against killing. He's stated OPENLY that he's against killing in the comics. So I really can't understand how you continue this argument.

I'm not debating that he is against killing, I'm debating that he's not beyond killing.How is it that you are not understanding this???

Well, if I'm using you're logic here, Batman killed in his comics for only about the first year of his introduction. After that he didn't kill, so that's roughly 67 years of not killing. Oh, unless we coun't Son of the Deamon, and I'll be generous and give that a year. So that's 67 years of not killing.

Again, see above answer.


I think the interpretations of most of the writers say Batman DOESN'T kill. Like I said in the post above, even Miller had him state that he would not kill.

Like I have said REPEATEDLY:HE PREFERS NOT TO KILL.If push comes to shove and he has to ( ie to save an innocent person) then I'm sure he would.



Alright...listen, we don't know the other mutant was toast. It did not show him die so we don't know he died, plain and simple.

Hmmm.Are you in denial?The man was shot point blank with a machine gun and went through a window that was at least 3 stories up.And you need proof?


We can say we think he lived, or he died, but the fact is, and there is no way you can argue with this, is WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.
He could have died, or he could have lived to be 75 and have 30 grandchildren. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. So you can't say that he killed in DKR for sure, because you don't know. You can say you think he did, but none of us can be sure if he did or didn't kill anyone in DKR.

Ok

Actually, we don't know if he went through a window or not. It simply shows him slumping back against what appears to be a wall (because there is a bullet hole in it). And he was shot point blank, but it could have been his upper shoulder, his knee, anything. I think Miller left it ambiguous on purpose, probably with the idea to get fanboys like us overanalyze it, but hell, it's fun anyways.

Now, you do pose an interesting fact. Batman is human and I do think he could be pushed to killing, but I pretty much think the only person that could ever do that would be the Joker.

In the comics, Batman will never resort to killing a mugger who's holding a child hostage simply because of the fact that it's the comics, and Batman will never not be able to save the child and not kill the bad guy.

But, if Batman were put in a situation where there was absolutley no way out, and he absolutley had to kill someone to save another innocent person's life. then yes, I think he would kill the bad guy. But will Batman ever be put in a situation like that in the comics? No, because the writers and DC have made Batman's vow not to kill a big part of his character. Is it realistic? Of course not, but then again it's a comic, nothing's realistic.

So do I think Batman would kill? Yes, only if he absolutley had no other choice to save an innocent life from a bad person. But like I said, we're never going to find Batman stuck in that situation.


And on the whole continuity thing. You have to have continuity to have a character, that's just a fact. Why? If we had no continuity, we'd have no character. The writers could do anything they wanted with Batman. Would could have him be a celebit monk, one could have him be gay, one could have him be the punisher in a bat suit. It would be chaos. Without continuity there would be no way to give the character traits or recognizeable attributes. It would essentially be a different character every time someone read a comic, and who would want to read a series of unrelated stories about a main character who seems to be completley different, besides his name, every time the comic comes out?

Without continuity, we don't have a character, we just have writer writing the story they want, wether or not it fits to the characters at all.

 

[silentflute]

1. You shouldn't be reading DC considering how much you hate continuity.

I rarely read comics these days.

2. DC got rid of the story before any "damage" can be done.

Yeah go on and believe that.There are people to this day that are pissed that DC did that.


When you are being dead wrong and when I and others completely prove it to you that you are dead wrong,

Again you have proven nothing.The fact that Batman was done as acmpy TV show and as a serious crime thriller in Batman Begins PROVES that the character can be interpreted in many ways.


yet you keep on insisting that you are right means that you are being a jackass.

No, it means I'm right and you're to dumb to get your head out of your DC continuity ass and realize that the charcter is bigger than any bull**** continuity.


Continuity does prove you wrong

On the contrary.Continuity doesn't effect me at all cuz I pay it no mind.

And only one creative team did have Batman kill: Bill Finger and Bob Kane. Batman hasn't killed in continuity since then. Your vision of Batman being willing to kill is wrong. If Batman was willing to tolerate death the he would have let Jason Todd kill the Joker in Batman #650 or would have done it himself YEARS ago.

You REALLY have comprehension problems don't cha?Seriously.I'm not being mean here,but if you actually understood what I've beenwriting, I'm saying that he would kill if forced(ie the mutant situation with the child hostage in DKR).NOT the same thing as saying "i'll kill the Joker because I know If i don't hell keep on killing".Big difference.Seriously,take a reading comprehension class.You need it.

No, you're just being childish.

No, I'm just not playing by you're rules.


Yes I have, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

No you haven't.Not once.

1. Continuity is more important than the writer. It prevents the writer from completely bastardizing a character which is the worst thing you can do to a creation.

Well that only happens if you publish bad writers?Doesn't it?t:


2. If we are going to go by your writer is more important, then I am still right, Batman practically hasn't killed in over 60 years.

Just because he hasn't doesn't mean he wouldn't.


It's a rather poor rendition of Batman and most people do not like it.

Depends on who you ask.The story isn't even finished so it's rather unfair to judge it at this point.


You just keep telling yourself that.

i don't have to. Jim Lee himself has said it enough times.Again, work on your comprehension.When an artist trakes FULL blame for a story when he doesn't have to, he aint lying.


No, this is from IGN.com on why it has such a bad reputation

Who cares?Is IGN the be all end all?It's some dude with an opinion.Just like you.And me.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I rarely read comics these days.

Well that explains A LOT!

Yeah go on and believe that.There are people to this day that are pissed that DC did that.

I'm sure that there are people who are pissed that Son of the Demon was taken out of continuity. By "damage" I was talking about effects on Batman's continuity.

Again you have proven nothing.The fact that Batman was done as acmpy TV show and as a serious crime thriller in Batman Begins PROVES that the character can be interpreted in many ways.

Yes I have. I've put down actual scenes from comics of modern Batman that shows that he is absolutely against killing at all.

No, it means I'm right and you're to dumb to get your head out of your DC continuity ass and realize that the charcter is bigger than any bull**** continuity.

You need continuity to build up a character.

On the contrary.Continuity doesn't effect me at all cuz I pay it no mind.

And it is why you have been proven wrong on many accounts.

You REALLY have comprehension problems don't cha?Seriously.I'm not being mean here,but if you actually understood what I've beenwriting, I'm saying that he would kill if forced(ie the mutant situation with the child hostage in DKR).NOT the same thing as saying "i'll kill the Joker because I know If i don't hell keep on killing".Big difference.Seriously,take a reading comprehension class.You need it.

I was talking about your "forced" situation. Batman was placed in that situation in Batman #650. He either had to shoot Jason Todd and kill him to stop him from killing the Joker or let Jason Todd kill the Joker. Batman found a way around that by throwing a batarang at Jason's neck causing massive bleeding.

No, I'm just not playing by you're rules.

No you are not playing by my rules. You're the one going off saying childish insults such as blowing my father, having a bad barber, etc. I'm calling you a jackass twit because you are acting like a childish jackass twit.

No you haven't.Not once.

Yes, I have.

Well that only happens if you publish bad writers?Doesn't it?t:

Agreed.

Just because he hasn't doesn't mean he wouldn't.

But only one creative team has had Batman kill and he hasn't done it in over 60 years for crying out loud!

Depends on who you ask.The story isn't even finished so it's rather unfair to judge it at this point.

Most people say that they hate it. And it's fair to judge it. It's extremely late and the characterization is extremely bizarre.

i don't have to. Jim Lee himself has said it enough times.Again, work on your comprehension.When an artist trakes FULL blame for a story when he doesn't have to, he aint lying.

You have to realise that both Jim Lee and Frank Miller are very busy men.

Who cares?Is IGN the be all end all?It's some dude with an opinion.Just like you.And me.

Usually, IGN Comics sucks ass in their opinions and reviews and such. But this paragraph actually summarizes the reputation the book has. A poor one.

 

[The Batman]

Damn. Read this recently. Decent, but overrated. Sometimes the art confused the hell out of me, but alot of the ideas were good.

 

[crazy monkey]

Well atleast it's boosting up your post count.
I would say guys put it to rest...and discuss the great things about this book?
Would Batman have been as popular as he is today, without this book?

Cobblepot, you speak truth.

I think Batman's popularity rests on a variety of foundations, but Frank Miller is not one of them. However, he certainly helped pour the concrete.

People relate to Batman's humanity, which was always present from his inception. Miller brought him down the last peg by writing him deconstructed, crumbling; an aged man full of regrets and in denial.

People like Batman's attitude towards injustice. He's a rebel who disregards protocol and red tape and sticks up for the innocent. Miller built him into a people's champion of mythic proportions, even bringing a god to its needs in his war on corruption.

People like that Batman is a total badass. O'Neil had laid the foundation for that years before DKR, bringing Batman back to his pulp fiction roots. Miller reimagined him as an aggressive animal, hungry for the screams of the wicked.

Miller's Batman is less perfect, more like us on an emotional level. Certainly more than Denny's vision of an unblemished knight who only fights in the dark, rather than actually allowing the darkness into his being.

So, I'm pretty sure Batman's popularity would have stayed the course with or without DKR. If anything helped Batman's popularity and shaped his identity in the comics in recent years, I'd say it was The Animated Series. It created a great, balanced vision of his personality and methods. And while the show's Batman was an amalgam of a few different versions, I saw more of Year One's Bat than the more famous Miller work.

-- END!

 

[Kraven]

I finally read this, and although I still liked it a lot, it was a bit overrated. I probably would've liked it more if it wasn't so overhyped to me by other reviews I read. I thought Year One was better.

 

[Nepenthes]

it gets better the more you read it. the way the panels are put together, there's a classic scene on every page

 

[Castlewood]

I actually don't like TDKR all that much. It's a bit overrated.

AND, it doesn't "feel" like Batman to me. It's futuristic, there's mutants, a chick Robin, a Joker dressed like a white mobster, Reagan/political acknowledgements and messages, big fights with lazers and weird alien creatures, weird colors, weird drawings and art... it's not very dark in color terms, but dark in tone and mood. At one point, Batman is smiling.

I don't know... Batman seems more like a Schumacher type of thing in this graphic novel. Batman smiled in "Forever" and we all hated it, and yet you love it when he does it here.

Hell, this story is more ridiculous than anything Schumacher ever did. I'm not trying to defend his two films because they're rubbish, but even HE was more faithful than Miller's work here.

And everyone says "Oh, this is what brought Batman back to his original roots." I don't think so... there hasn't been anything FARTHER from what Batman is.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Miller's work... I LOVE Year One... but this is just.... not Batman to me. I don't think Batman should ever be depicted or looked at in this manner... nor is it anything close to what he was intended to be. It's too "far out" for me. It's bad.

 

[Kraven]

You make it sound like Batman smiling makes a terrible story. Also, just wanted to say that Michael Keaton also smiled in one of his Batman films, doesn't necessarily ruin the film.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Cobblepot, you speak truth.

I think Batman's popularity rests on a variety of foundations, but Frank Miller is not one of them. However, he certainly helped pour the concrete.

People relate to Batman's humanity, which was always present from his inception. Miller brought him down the last peg by writing him deconstructed, crumbling; an aged man full of regrets and in denial.

People like Batman's attitude towards injustice. He's a rebel who disregards protocol and red tape and sticks up for the innocent. Miller built him into a people's champion of mythic proportions, even bringing a god to its needs in his war on corruption.

People like that Batman is a total badass. O'Neil had laid the foundation for that years before DKR, bringing Batman back to his pulp fiction roots. Miller reimagined him as an aggressive animal, hungry for the screams of the wicked.

Miller's Batman is less perfect, more like us on an emotional level. Certainly more than Denny's vision of an unblemished knight who only fights in the dark, rather than actually allowing the darkness into his being.

So, I'm pretty sure Batman's popularity would have stayed the course with or without DKR. If anything helped Batman's popularity and shaped his identity in the comics in recent years, I'd say it was The Animated Series. It created a great, balanced vision of his personality and methods. And while the show's Batman was an amalgam of a few different versions, I saw more of Year One's Bat than the more famous Miller work.

-- END!

QFT.

I actually don't like TDKR all that much. It's a bit overrated.

AND, it doesn't "feel" like Batman to me. It's futuristic, there's mutants, a chick Robin, a Joker dressed like a white mobster, Reagan/political acknowledgements and messages, big fights with lazers and weird alien creatures, weird colors, weird drawings and art... it's not very dark in color terms, but dark in tone and mood. At one point, Batman is smiling.

I don't know... Batman seems more like a Schumacher type of thing in this graphic novel. Batman smiled in "Forever" and we all hated it, and yet you love it when he does it here.

Hell, this story is more ridiculous than anything Schumacher ever did. I'm not trying to defend his two films because they're rubbish, but even HE was more faithful than Miller's work here.

And everyone says "Oh, this is what brought Batman back to his original roots." I don't think so... there hasn't been anything FARTHER from what Batman is.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Miller's work... I LOVE Year One... but this is just.... not Batman to me. I don't think Batman should ever be depicted or looked at in this manner... nor is it anything close to what he was intended to be. It's too "far out" for me. It's bad.

...Okay, first off, it is a complete and utter paradox for it to be both futuristic and yet have Reagan. Besides, just because it has future elements, doesn't mean it can't be a good Batman story (Year 100, for example).

But...Schmucker? Seriously, were you even reading the same book?

If you seriously think that this is akin to the neon Schmucker s**t, then you're either just looking and failing to find anything bad to say, or you seriously need your eyes checked.

As for the smile, well...

The difference between the two is that Kilmer's smile was a s**t-eatin', happy-go-lucky grin. Miller's on the other hand, is the sick-ass one that says, "I'm going to beat the living s**t out of you and love every damn second of it."

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I actually don't like TDKR all that much. It's a bit overrated.

AND, it doesn't "feel" like Batman to me. It's futuristic, there's mutants, a chick Robin, a Joker dressed like a white mobster, Reagan/political acknowledgements and messages, big fights with lazers and weird alien creatures, weird colors, weird drawings and art... it's not very dark in color terms, but dark in tone and mood. At one point, Batman is smiling.

I don't know... Batman seems more like a Schumacher type of thing in this graphic novel. Batman smiled in "Forever" and we all hated it, and yet you love it when he does it here.

Hell, this story is more ridiculous than anything Schumacher ever did. I'm not trying to defend his two films because they're rubbish, but even HE was more faithful than Miller's work here.

And everyone says "Oh, this is what brought Batman back to his original roots." I don't think so... there hasn't been anything FARTHER from what Batman is.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Miller's work... I LOVE Year One... but this is just.... not Batman to me. I don't think Batman should ever be depicted or looked at in this manner... nor is it anything close to what he was intended to be. It's too "far out" for me. It's bad.

I'm not going to try to debate the merits of you argument.....but just to point out a few incorrect fact of your statement
[1] the gang are called mutants in name only
[2] I dont remember any big fights with lazers
[3] The only fight with any weird alien creature was with Superman

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

QFT.



...Okay, first off, it is a complete and utter paradox for it to be both futuristic and yet have Reagan. Besides, just because it has future elements, doesn't mean it can't be a good Batman story (Year 100, for example).

But...Schmucker? Seriously, were you even reading the same book?

If you seriously think that this is akin to the neon Schmucker s**t, then you're either just looking and failing to find anything bad to say, or you seriously need your eyes checked.

As for the smile, well...

The difference between the two is that Kilmer's smile was a s**t-eatin', happy-go-lucky grin. Miller's on the other hand, is the sick-ass one that says, "I'm going to beat the living s**t out of you and love every damn second of it."

When this book was written and published Reagen was still in his 2nd term in office and there were many talks in the political arena to resind the law that restricts any one man from holding the office of preaident for more then 2 terms.So calling Millers wright of a world set about 15 years in the future of 1986 where Reagan still held office a "paradox" is a slight mis-use of the word.

 

[bestever23]

What's Funny Is I bet All Star Batman will turn Into a Masterpiece. The Art Is Stunning and The Story Is Slow but It's Frank Miller. But then again...It's Frank Miller. As The Dark Knight Returns? It's A Classic. Only thing I don't like Is the Girl Robin. It's just lame and disrespectful to all the past robins.It's funny how honestly Batman looks like A child molester I mean I think she's only 13 or 14. one scene she's hugging him and he's naked lol but I love the book. I love how batman vs superman was so amazingly done right. Dark knight strikes back Is ripping on Robin again at the end. Frank miller doesn't like Robins and That's my only concern with All star batman and robin. He'll probley make robin gay and crazy at the end of the book.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

When this book was written and published Reagen was still in his 2nd term in office and there were many talks in the political arena to resind the law that restricts any one man from holding the office of preaident for more then 2 terms.So calling Millers wright of a world set about 15 years in the future of 1986 where Reagan still held office a "paradox" is a slight mis-use of the word.

But, if I remember correctly, Miller had the character be exactly as old as the year he was introduced, 1939, which is about 55. And if he was born in '39, and is 55, it would be around '87 or so.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

But, if I remember correctly, Miller had the character be exactly as old as the year he was introduced, 1939, which is about 55. And if he was born in '39, and is 55, it would be around '87 or so.

Your wrong!!!!!!!!! Do the math even if one uses your numbers he would have been 48 years old not 55.Miller did the character from a stand point that the batman or the mordern time then 1986 in his 30's....then retires around 45 and returns at 55 years of age with would put his return into the late 90's or early 2000's.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Your wrong!!!!!!!!! Do the math even if one uses your numbers he would have been 48 years old not 55.Miller did the character from a stand point that the batman or the mordern time then 1986 in his 30's....then retires around 45 and returns at 55 years of age with would put his return into the late 90's or early 2000's.

Well, I'm rubbish at math, so don't blame me for my mental disability!

But, I could have swore I heard something like that, though.

 

[silentflute]

I actually don't like TDKR all that much. It's a bit overrated.

AND, it doesn't "feel" like Batman to me. It's futuristic, there's mutants, a chick Robin, a Joker dressed like a white mobster, Reagan/political acknowledgements and messages, big fights with lazers and weird alien creatures, weird colors, weird drawings and art... it's not very dark in color terms, but dark in tone and mood. At one point, Batman is smiling.

Actually the color is very dark-as well as the tone.What's wrong with Batman smiling??He's human, you know.

I don't know... Batman seems more like a Schumacher type of thing in this graphic novel. Batman smiled in "Forever" and we all hated it, and yet you love it when he does it here.

People didn't hate Forever because Batman smiled. Ridiculous.

Hell, this story is more ridiculous than anything Schumacher ever did. I'm not trying to defend his two films because they're rubbish, but even HE was more faithful than Miller's work here.

Yeah ok.

And everyone says "Oh, this is what brought Batman back to his original roots." I don't think so... there hasn't been anything FARTHER from what Batman is.

It did bring back Batman to his roots- that's fact,not opinion.And in the process kick started the whole Batman phenomenon again.You going to argue with history?

Don't get me wrong, I admire Miller's work... I LOVE Year One... but this is just.... not Batman to me. I don't think Batman should ever be depicted or looked at in this manner... nor is it anything close to what he was intended to be.

Hmm...and what pray tell,in your opinion,what was Batman intended to be?(This should be good)


It's too "far out" for me.

Obviously.

It's bad.

Yeah it's real baaad.As in bad ass.

 

[Irony-Man]

You're missing the point of the "Reagan" issue. Nowhere was the President identified as Reagan, but as with all good art, DKR was reflecting on contemporary issues. Yes it was set in the future but it was not a futuristic story. It was an attempt to take a recognizable format, the superhero comic, and use it to explore issues such as modern urban decay, the devolution of government into to constant spin control where the communication of the message is more important than the message itself and the feeling of impotence held by the common citizen to affect the world around them.

Read "1984" for God's sake. It was not an attempt to predict the future, but a dissertation on the nature of communism set in Britain so that the touch points of society would be more readily identifiable to the reader than if it had been set in the USSR.

You don't need to take things literally all the time.

 

[Cobblepot]

So, I'm pretty sure Batman's popularity would have stayed the course with or without DKR. If anything helped Batman's popularity and shaped his identity in the comics in recent years, I'd say it was The Animated Series. It created a great, balanced vision of his personality and methods. And while the show's Batman was an amalgam of a few different versions, I saw more of Year One's Bat than the more famous Miller work.

-- END!

You underestimate DKR.
Burton was inspired by it and let it set the tone for "Batman".
Without the succes of "Batman" , WB would have never greenlit "BTAS".
I agree with you that BTAS is now more influencial, but DKR got the ball rolling. DKR was the first Batman comic to get huge media attention, it atracted new fans and old fans who'd forgotten Batman.

 

[crazy monkey]

I don't think I'm underestimating anything. If you conisder my post in its entirety, I repeatedly acknowledge what Miller accomplished with DKR, in that he attributed greater depth and pathos to the Batman, thereby enhancing elements of his persona that the public already loved.

However, you asked if Batman would be as popular as he is today without the book's publishing. I feel Batman's popularity does not hinge on the work of one individual. Such a sentiment would be a great discredit to the hundreds of writers, artists and editors that have collaborated to reinvent the character time and again, not to mention his creators themselves.

I can't see how Tim Burton could have been inspired by it, since, by his own admittal, he has never read a comic book. in. his. life. (If you ask me, that fact is made painfully obvious through his attempts at two films based off a comic book character.) So, since Batman the film is completely a product of Timmy's imagination, and since there are no direct references or homages to DKR in any of its minutes, I'm fairly certain that I'd have to sit through the same crock of s*** that I did back in '89. That's with or without Miller's grizzled old warhorse ever seeing print.

You do have a point regarding TAS. Warner's definitely banked on a Batman cartoon due to the success of the movie's marketing with kids. Not really the movie itself, per se, but the fact that every piece of crap with a Batsymbol on it sold out. I remember girls at school with big Batsymbol earings, and they didn't even see the movie or know what the hell it represented. Batman was just the cool brand to be seen in that year. So yeah, that paved the way for my favorite American 'toon.

But sorry, Cobby, I don't see a straight line drawn from Burton to Miller.

-- END!