The Dark Knight Returns

[silentflute]

Batman was dark before Frank Miller went onboard. You can thank Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams for that.

That's all well and good, but by the mid 80's this seems to have been forgotten.Miller reminded people, and did so on a much edgier,adult scale than O'Neil.


The Dark Knight Returns along with Tim Burton's Batman convinced ignorant bastards that he's not the campy 60's Adam West version or constantly said "Chum."

DKR did.Burton's film,however, was just as camp as the 60's show,only dolled up in black leather and gothic architecture.Total crap.

And again, you're giving the Dark Knight Returns way too much credit. It took more than that. It also took Maus and especially the Watchmen to change how many people viewed the comic book industry. The Watchmen did way more than the Dark Knight Returns.

Watchmen is the greatest comic ever written.Period.That said, it didn't get nearly as much coverage as DKR back in '86.Two reasons for this:1)DKR came out first and used a Prestige format book binding that had never been used in American comics 2)Batman was an iconic character that the world recognized-as opposed to the characters in Watchmen. If you are going to attempt to debate something, make sure you know your facts.


You completely misunderstand what I said. I liked how Batman and the Monster Men was a psuedo sequel to Batman: Year One and took off very shortly afterwards. They feel as if they are in the same world, but they are two different styles of writing. Wagner isn't aping Miller's style.

He's certainly aping Mazzuchelli's stle.The fact that he's dong a "pseudo sequel" alone is aping Miller's style.i'd be more impressed if he didn't try to do a sequel to Miller's work.The only person qualified to do a sequel to Miller's work is Miller.


He's using his own. Hence why Batman is going after more of a supervillainy type of character (Hugo Strange) than more realistic villains (such as the Roman and Catwoman).

That would only make sense, as after Year One , things escalate and costumed super villians are introduced.not terribly original.Just logical.


Also, Batman and the Monster Men did have a few instances of humor which Year One completely lacked (like when Alfred was astonished that Bruce was actually considering adding fins to the Batmobile). Same world, completely different reads.


Year One had plenty of humor.I don't expect someone like you to get it though.

You're so freaking delusional when it comes to your Miller fanboyism.

Au contraire.It's you that has no grasp of reality.
How old were you when DKR came out?

Again, it's just like Wagner, same world, different feel and read. You need to get this mindset that there are people who are superior to Miller when it comes to Batman.

I haven't come across any.And if there were, I'd know them.

However, one thing is certain when he works with Tim Sale, it's a sure thing that it is going to be great.

Negative.It's sure to be boring,cliche with moments of purely bad writing.



Batman: The Long Halloween, Batman: Dark Victory, Spider-Man: Blue, Daredevil: Yellow, and Hulk: Gray are masterpieces.

Only in your mind.




But Loeb is not a lazy person either, you're just saying that because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.He's heavily involved in the direction of the Marvel Universe. He's involved with the Heroes TV show. He's writing Onslaught Reborn, Ultimate Power, Wolverine, Ultimates 3, and Ultimate Wolverine. He's also rather busy too.

Learn to comprehend:I never said Loeb wasa lazy person.My statement had nothing to do with his output.I said he was a lazy writer- meaning that he writes the obvious,cliche ridden riding on the Miller bandwagon stories.

You want a lazy creator, look up Rob Liefield. That man is plagarism after plagarism. Or Joe Madureira who isn't even finished drawing with even a quarter of Ultimates 3 even though he's been on the damn book since 2005 and Ed McGuiness is rumored to have already finished Ultimates 4.

Granted, they both suck too.

The Dark Knight Returns is a good story. But it isn't the second comming that many people like yourself make it as. Most overrated comic ever.

Again, learn your history.When something has that much of a cultural impact, then it's moronic to say it's overrated.I bet you think Ali was overrated.Bruce Lee too.

 

[The Leaguer]

DKR is overrated and downright poorly written. Long Halloween is what it wishes it could have been.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Again, learn your history.When something has that much of a cultural impact, then it's moronic to say it's overrated.I bet you think Ali was overrated.Bruce Lee too.

I'm sorry, but DKR had no where near the cultural impact that Ali or Bruce Lee did, in fact it didn't really have a cultural impact at all.

Besides comic readers, who in the general public gave, or gives a hoot about DKR? The only "cultural impact" DKR has was it's slight influence in the Burton films, because those films were the signal that showed the general public that Batman wasn't campy anymore. And about the only thing DKR influenced the Burton films in was tone, and like others have said DKR can't even claim originality in being the first comic since the 40's to write a dark Batman. O'Neal already did that.

DKR did not have a cultural impact, it made an impact on comics, but culture? Not a chance.

 

[Mylord]

How can DKR be "downright poorly written" when it is considered being one of the most influential comics of all time (for Batman, certainly it is) by many people; characters are presented in interesting, fresh and believable way, the story itself is catching from the first page and original considering that there wasn't mainstream comics like that before it? It's Miller's at his best, so the inner monologues are simply fantastic.

It's Long Halloween which could be considered as poorly written, with it's bland characters and stupid plot points (Maroni's motivation of scaring Dent, for example).

Try to think before you write something, Leaguer. It won't hurt you.

 

[hippie_hunter]

That's all well and good, but by the mid 80's this seems to have been forgotten.Miller reminded people, and did so on a much edgier,adult scale than O'Neil.

I'm just saying that people need to stop giving Miller the credit for making Batman dark again. O'Neil is responsible for it. All Miller did was make people notice and it took both Miller and Burton to do it.

DKR did.Burton's film,however, was just as camp as the 60's show,only dolled up in black leather and gothic architecture.Total crap.

Burton's Batman film gave more notice to Batman's darkness than the Dark Knight Returns. You give waaay too much credit to Miller for it. And I can't beleive that you're hating on it

Watchmen is the greatest comic ever written.Period.That said, it didn't get nearly as much coverage as DKR back in '86.Two reasons for this:1)DKR came out first and used a Prestige format book binding that had never been used in American comics 2)Batman was an iconic character that the world recognized-as opposed to the characters in Watchmen. If you are going to attempt to debate something, make sure you know your facts.

Dude, the Watchmen has done way more for the comic industry than the Dark Knight Returns ever will. The Dark Knight Returns will forever be a part of comic book literature just like every comic. The Watchmen has been accepted as a part of mainstream literature. Time Magazine puts it as one of the 100 Greatest English Literature Novels from 1923 - 2005. It won a Hugo Award.

He's certainly aping Mazzuchelli's stle.The fact that he's dong a "pseudo sequel" alone is aping Miller's style.i'd be more impressed if he didn't try to do a sequel to Miller's work.The only person qualified to do a sequel to Miller's work is Miller.

Art wise, I agree that Wagner attempted to go with a Mazzuchelli feel, but he certainly wasn't aping Miller's style. And a sequel to Year One that is taken seriously and not turned into a complete parody halfway into the series written by Miller would be pretty damn cool.

Year One had plenty of humor.I don't expect someone like you to get it though.

Year One was a completely serious book. It's dark. It's gloomy. It's very serious. Honestly I found no humor in the book and a moment of humor would feel very out of place in it.

Au contraire.It's you that has no grasp of reality.

Whatever

How old were you when DKR came out?

I wasn't even born then.

I haven't come across any.And if there were, I'd know them.

A Miller fanboy who can't think of any superior writers of Batman. How surprising. I'll give you a few. Morrison. O'Neil. Loeb. Brubaker. Rucka. Dini.

Negative.It's sure to be boring,cliche with moments of purely bad writing.

Only in your mind

Learn to comprehend:I never said Loeb wasa lazy person.My statement had nothing to do with his output.I said he was a lazy writer- meaning that he writes the obvious,cliche ridden riding on the Miller bandwagon stories.

My mistake. Some of his stuff is rather cliche ridden crap. But he has written some great stuff, something you can't comprehend.

Granted, they both suck too.

True dat!

Again, learn your history.When something has that much of a cultural impact, then it's moronic to say it's overrated.I bet you think Ali was overrated.Bruce Lee too.

The Dark Knight Returns should NEVER EVER be compared to cultural icons such as Mohammad Ali and Bruce Lee. It's a freaking comic book and no comic has ever gotten that kind of status!

 

[bulletbillx]

DKR is to superhero comic books what Final Fantasy 7 is to Console RPGs. Good but overrated with some of the most annoying fanboys in the world to boot.

 

[hippie_hunter]

DKR is to superhero comic books what Final Fantasy 7 is to Console RPGs. Good but overrated with some of the most annoying fanboys in the world to boot.

Wow, that is like the perfect comparison EVER

 

[silentflute]

I'm sorry, but DKR had no where near the cultural impact that Ali or Bruce Lee did, in fact it didn't really have a cultural impact at all.

I never said it did.

Besides comic readers, who in the general public gave, or gives a hoot about DKR?

Rolling Stone and Newsweek.

The only "cultural impact" DKR has was it's slight influence in the Burton films, because those films were the signal that showed the general public that Batman wasn't campy anymore.

Ironic, considering the film was totally camp.


And about the only thing DKR influenced the Burton films in was tone, and like others have said DKR can't even claim originality in being the first comic since the 40's to write a dark Batman. O'Neal already did that.

Again, O'Neil did not write an adult Batman.He wrote a good Batman,but his interpretation lacked anything specifically unique that would set him apart from Daredevil,Captain America etc.

DKR did not have a cultural impact, it made an impact on comics, but culture? Not a chance.

Made an impact on comics, and comics are a big part of American culture.In fact, along with jazz it's one of the major American voices.

 

[silentflute]

I'm just saying that people need to stop giving Miller the credit for making Batman dark again. O'Neil is responsible for it. All Miller did was make people notice and it took both Miller and Burton to do it.

O'neil does not write as good a Batman as Miller.Period.He does , however,write a better Joker.


Burton's Batman film gave more notice to Batman's darkness than the Dark Knight Returns. You give waaay too much credit to Miller for it. And I can't beleive that you're hating on it

Why?It got absolutley everything wrong about the caharcters.If you wanna see a good btamn translated to screen look no further than Nolan's film.


Dude, the Watchmen has done way more for the comic industry than the Dark Knight Returns ever will.

Agreed.But that doesn't change the fact that DKR was more popular upon initial release.You weren't even born at the time to see this.I was right smack in the middle of it.

The Dark Knight Returns will forever be a part of comic book literature just like every comic. The Watchmen has been accepted as a part of mainstream literature. Time Magazine puts it as one of the 100 Greatest English Literature Novels from 1923 - 2005. It won a Hugo Award.

True.And deservedly so.It's one of the greatest piece of works in any medium, not just comics.And btw, it's 'Watchmen' - without "the".


Art wise, I agree that Wagner attempted to go with a Mazzuchelli feel, but he certainly wasn't aping Miller's style. And a sequel to Year One that is taken seriously and not turned into a complete parody halfway into the series written by Miller would be pretty damn cool.

Why?Year One is perfect the way it is.It would be redundant to do year Two in the exact same style.


Year One was a completely serious book. It's dark. It's gloomy. It's very serious. Honestly I found no humor in the book and a moment of humor would feel very out of place in it.

maybe when you get older you'll be able to see the humor.Trust me it's there.Miller always uses humor in his work.There's nothing more irritating then reading something that's so one note.





I wasn't even born then.

That explains a lot.


A Miller fanboy who can't think of any superior writers of Batman. How surprising. I'll give you a few. Morrison. O'Neil. Loeb. Brubaker. Rucka. Dini.

And you're wrong on all counts.




My mistake. Some of his stuff is rather cliche ridden crap. But he has written some great stuff, something you can't comprehend.

Oh I comprehend fine.that's why I choose not to acknowledge that crap.




The Dark Knight Returns should NEVER EVER be compared to cultural icons such as Mohammad Ali and Bruce Lee. It's a freaking comic book and no comic has ever gotten that kind of status!

Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali were my childhood heroes and in many ways they still are my heroes.I NEVER EVER compared DKR's success with their status.I was simply illustrating to you that if you are going to deny the sheer amount of respect and attention DKR got outside of the comic industry (which you really have no business doing considering you weren't even born at the time), then you may as well go ahead and say that about icons that are much bigger(ie Ali, Lee)- which u would still have no business saying either.

 

[dkamphaus43]

Batman was dark before Frank Miller went onboard. You can thank Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams for that.

Don't forget about Steve Englehart and Marshall Rogers. I think they did an even better job!

 

[Punch]

Saying Watchmen is accepted in the world of literature is really misleading. Everyone isn't aware of it like some of you want to believe.

Also saying Watchmen did more for comics is a useless statement, as it can't possible be proven.

 

[BubbaGump]

Saying Watchmen is accepted in the world of literature is really misleading. Everyone isn't aware of it like some of you want to believe.

True. Even though it's on TIME's list of 100 greatest novels (the only comic book on there) it really had no impact on literature. It was just a book. A great book at that--but that's just it. It's just a book. It wasn't Gone With the Wind. Fanboys will be praising it for years to come, and yet the rest of the world will remain oblivous to their noise.

 

[souloffire]

DKR is overrated and downright poorly written. Long Halloween is what it wishes it could have been.

I feel that TLH is overrated and very poorly written.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I just read TDKR. I thought it was good but I have to say it's overrated. The whole jumping to the news annoyed me a lot. Found them panels boring. Superman Vs Batman was great. Didn't like The Joker too much in this one.

 

[souloffire]

I think the reason why some people who read DKR for the first time find it overrated because they have already seen the effect it had on comics before they even read it. It doesn't seem as groudbreaking to them because they have already seen this type of comic , but before DKR nobody had seen this type of writing in a story involving a mainstream character. It's impact was huge and it lasts to this day.

 

[BubbaGump]

DKR is great, but I found the 9/11 parallels a bit creepy.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think the reason why some people who read DKR for the first time find it overrated because they have already seen the effect it had on comics before they even read it. It doesn't seem as groudbreaking to them because they have already seen this type of comic , but before DKR nobody had seen this type of writing in a story involving a mainstream character. It's impact was huge and it lasts to this day.

You do have a point there.

For me, I read it based on people saying it's one of the greatest comics ever and I just didn't find it to be that way. I've enjoyed a lot more comics more than I enjoyed the Dark Knight Returns.

Also I hated the way Miller treated Superman. He's such a tool in that story. And Superman is one of my favorite characters. Miller gets Batman when he's on his A-Game (not his Dark Knight Strikes Again and All-Star game). He really does. And he does a great job at it. But keep him the f**k away from Superman, he doesn't get him at all.

And the fanboys are also a bit of a turnoff

 

[hippie_hunter]

O'neil does not write as good a Batman as Miller.Period.He does , however,write a better Joker.

To each his own. For me I prefer O'Neil, Loeb, Rucka, and others. All-Star and Dark Knight Strikes Again really tainted Frank Miller from a great Batman writer to a mixed bag Batman writer for me.

Why?It got absolutley everything wrong about the caharcters.If you wanna see a good btamn translated to screen look no further than Nolan's film.

For the first Batman movie, it felt like it was Batman and I loved how Jack Nicholson portrayed the Joker. And I'm a sucker for the Prince soundtrack

Batman Returns felt more like a cool Tim Burton movie than a Batman movie so that's why I liked it.

True.And deservedly so.It's one of the greatest piece of works in any medium, not just comics.And btw, it's 'Watchmen' - without "the".

I know, it just feels wierd without the "The"

Why?Year One is perfect the way it is.It would be redundant to do year Two in the exact same style.

I don't think it would be redundant. I would like to see another Frank Miller Batman story that doesn't have Batman acting like a psychopath and in a serious tone.

Now that I think about it, Year Two by Miller would be a bad idea. With Year One, The Man Who Laughs, Batman and the Monster Men, Batman and the Mad Monk, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Robin: Year One, and Batgirl: Year One, the adventures of Batman's early days can get cluttered up quickly.

maybe when you get older you'll be able to see the humor.Trust me it's there.Miller always uses humor in his work.There's nothing more irritating then reading something that's so one note.

I don't see Year One as a one note story. I just don't find any humor in it. Enlighten me, where's the humor?

Bruce Lee and Muhammad Ali were my childhood heroes and in many ways they still are my heroes.I NEVER EVER compared DKR's success with their status.I was simply illustrating to you that if you are going to deny the sheer amount of respect and attention DKR got outside of the comic industry (which you really have no business doing considering you weren't even born at the time), then you may as well go ahead and say that about icons that are much bigger(ie Ali, Lee)- which u would still have no business saying either.

Dude, no comic has even been as big as the way you describe the Dark Knight Returns.

 

[BubbaGump]

You do have a point there.

For me, I read it based on people saying it's one of the greatest comics ever and I just didn't find it to be that way. I've enjoyed a lot more comics more than I enjoyed the Dark Knight Returns.

Also I hated the way Miller treated Superman. He's such a tool in that story. And Superman is one of my favorite characters. Miller gets Batman when he's on his A-Game (not his Dark Knight Strikes Again and All-Star game). He really does. And he does a great job at it. But keep him the f**k away from Superman, he doesn't get him at all.

And the fanboys are also a bit of a turnoff

The reason why Miller made Superman that way is because he shows somewhat of a disliking to the character. He mentioned so in The Comics Journal Library: Frank Miller. He said there's something about Superman--his attitude of "Ha, I can fly and you can't," that ticks him off.

IMO, I like how he handled Superman in DKR. Superman has become such a cliche of Truth, Justice, and the American way that it was nice to see something different.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The reason why Miller made Superman that way is because he shows somewhat of a disliking to the character. He mentioned so in The Comics Journal Library: Frank Miller. He said there's something about Superman--his attitude of "Ha, I can fly and you can't," that ticks him off.

IMO, I like how he handled Superman in DKR. Superman has become such a cliche of Truth, Justice, and the American way that it was nice to see something different.

Bah, he came off too much of a government stoogy tool.

 

[BubbaGump]

Bah, he came off too much of a government stoogy tool.

Wasn't that the point?

 

[The Empire Ape]

Wasn't that the point?

Yes, but it's just wrong. Superman would never act this way.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

Wasn't it hinted that it was Superman who caused Greem Arrow to loose his arm?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Wasn't that the point?

Yeah it was. But Superman isn't a tool. Nor a government puppet. Nor would he get beaten by Batman.

 

[BubbaGump]

Yes, but it's just wrong. Superman would never act this way.

Batman would never wield a machine gun either. And so what if it's different? You don't have to like it. The entire book is wrong and that's why it was such a big deal back then.

Yeah it was. But Superman isn't a tool. Nor a government puppet. Nor would he get beaten by Batman.

Superman isn't a tool, nor a government puppet, yet he was in DKR. It's a bit too late to stop it now. It's Frank Miller we're talking about.

I like DKR. But it isn't my favorite comic book. That title would go to All Star Batman and Robin. Just kidding. Making sure you're paying attention. t:

What's so great about Miller is that he isn't afraid to go out of the norm. He's out there, he's different. Unlike Loeb (I love him, but there are some parts of his writing I don't like). Loeb uses those cliche monologue boxes, and no way is he subtle in his writing.

"Something. Someone cut the batline." Like we don't know. He could've put the icing on the cake by adding "I'm falling."

"Harley Quinn. The Joker's girlfriend." So got anything else to say that we don't know already? How about the identity of the killer?

Long Halloween spoiler. No looky.

Spoiler

"Alberto Falcone is Holiday. He faked his own death on New Year's Eve to throw us off." I actually rolled my eyes at this point. "To throw us off?!" WTF? How cliche is that? That reason is probably on every mystery soap opera.

I remember someone here saying that Loeb's monologues are better than Miller's. That is absolutely not true. While Miller's dialogues are very descriptive, Loeb's are so simplistic and "dumbed-down" and he relies too much on splash pages (something Miller probably parodied in All Star). Tim Sale is the true hero of Long Halloween. He did most of the work. While Loeb was busy thinking of more splash pages to make his books better looking for the trade paper back, Sale was drawing his ass off. You could say this for any artist/writer collaboration but mostly with Loeb/Sale (see Superman for Tomorrow).

I just can't understand how people can say Loeb is better when his writing is absolutely ripped from Miller's noir style.

P.S. I love Loeb, just didn't like Long Halloween, seeing as I spoiled the ending for myself. I liked Dark Victory better though.