Dark Knight Strikes Again poll/discussion

[Gaspard]

I hope this thread doesn't become one of those Miller rules, Miller sucks discussions, and I also hope you guys aren't too tired about talking his work, since there are some other threads with Miller in them that have been pretty active. I just wanted to get some opinions on the book. Oh, and for those who haven't read it, spoilers ahead!

Re-reading the book recently made me realize how much better it really is than when I first read it. I didn't have a clue about the other characters, back then being just a "Batfan". The first time I read it I didn't know what to expect, but I loved DKR and along with Year One it's the best Bat-book out there imo, so I gave it a shot. What I found out is that DKSA really isn't a Batman story. I actually think it's more a Superman story. DKR was all about Bruce/Batman, but the main character in DKSA is Superman. Batman can't even be seen in the book too often, whereas Superman seems to be always there.

What did I not like about the book? Well, I have to say that some of the art was pretty terrible. Some of the characters, or backgrounds looked like they were either rushed in on the paper, or just looked sort of "lazy". I thought there was too much of the small "sidestories", or whatever you want to call them, between the big story that was happening. I mean, sure, some of the commentary is fun and fits, but I just think there's too much of it. And why has Frank totally left out Tim Drake from his universe? And why did he turn Dick into Joker, that I quite didn't figure out yet, but to me it really seems that he doesn't like the character of Robin in general. Maybe that's what really is wrong with his current work on All-Star? One last thing, where was Aquaman!? I haven't read the character at all really, like I haven't the Martian Manhunter or Green Arrow either, except for the parts in which they appear in Frank's books, or Kingdom Come, but Frank could have introduced me to a supposed other . These are just some of the questions/problems that I had with the book.

But basically I enjoyed the book a lot. Frank's a great writer in my mind, and his Batman/Daredevil work is awesome. He's also my favourite artist out there, his style fits the comic book beautifully. Here's a few great shots I was able to get for this post:

http://www.autolankoski.fi/kandor.jpg

http://www.autolankoski.fi/atom.jpg

http://www.autolankoski.fi/manhunter.jpg


http://www.autolankoski.fi/marvel.jpg

[the film freak]

http://www.autolankoski.fi/marvel.jpg

I love that line. I would love to see a Miller Captain Marvel book.

[shyguy]

I think a lot of the negative reaction for DKSA comes from approaching the work with the expectation that it's going to be something it's not based on a misunderstanding or misremembering of DKR.

A lot of people forget or don't acknowledge the degree to which DKR is a really funny, over-the-top satire. Because of that, a lot of people seem to read Dark Knight Strikes Again expecting a serious Batman story, which it is not. DKR is outrageous and cartoony. It's hilarious in many parts and definitely goes against the grain of the post-Kingdom Come tendency on the part of writers at DC to take their superheroes wayyy too seriously. As is the case with a lot of Miller's work, there's a genuine enthusiasm evident in the work coupled with a self-awareness that this stuff is ultimately really goofy.

The art gets a lot of criticism as well, but I really like it. Again, it's not supposed to look like the art from Dark Knightt Returns. Like the story, it's extremely stylized and fits the tone of the story perfectly. The coloring is great as well. But lots of fans dislike any art that isn't semi-realistic and hyper-detailed.

In fact, I think the reason that All-Star Batman and Robin doesn't work for me the way DKSA does is because Jim Lee's art isn't really capable of conveying the wit and humor you find in Miller's work in DKSA.

I do think Miller dropped the ball on Wonder Woman. I think he could have done a lot more with the weird and kinky elements of the character (bondage, loving submission).

[the goddamn batman]

I love this book. I don't have an essay on it, nor do I want to write one. But, I do love this book.

[Agentum]

I don't like it at all, he goes to far with the art and it's hard to follow what is what.

I probably never read it again, i think DKR didn't need a sequel so long after, but i guess it was about money.

I have more fun reading the newspaper than this.
If it is supposed to be humorus i guess i just don't understand it, i don't laugh at things like this.

[TROUBLEZ]

It was definetly interesting. Some of the concepts were cool like how the Atom was imprisoned. When I read it though, I don't get lost in the story, or involved in it, I just think that Miller is doing whatever he wants to do, and wants to experiment. The horrible photoshoping by Lynn Varley, when normally a very good painter/colorist, leads me to believe that. After Elektra Lives Again I'm not too fond of any of his newer work.

[gatchamandave]

A lot of people forget or don't acknowledge the degree to which DKR is a really funny, over-the-top satire. .


With respect shyguy, I've heard that alleged by many a fan of both DKR and All-Star that they are mooted " satires ". The problem I have is - satire of what ? Modern American politics ? The state of the comic-book industry ?

I'd genuinely like to hear an answer from some-oen - because I've read through DKR three times now and find very little evidence of satire. That which exists - naked news-readers and girl bands that show of their pendulous breasts, the president is dead and its an artficially generated image - don't strike me as terribly clever given that

(1) such things actually exist in the media- for example naked newsreaders regularly appeared on an old UK satellite station in the 90s along with stripping weather-girls and topless darts. On ice, no less. I forget its name but other UK readers might recall it. Girl bands sell themselves every day of the week, along with pretty-boy bands - in an age of Brittany Spears a girl wearing a spray-on cat-suit doesn't look terribly satirical to me.

(2) Howard Chaykin, to name but one, was doing that sort of thing 20 years ago in American Flagg. So Frank is hardly original - indeed if it is satire it strikes me as pretty lame by comparison.

[OverMaster]

such things actually exist in the media- for example naked newsreaders regularly appeared on an old UK satellite station in the 90s along with stripping weather-girls and topless darts. On ice, no less. I forget its name but other UK readers might recall it.

Actually, IIRC, the Naked News Canadian show with the same premise is still going.

I do have some liking for DKSA and a few of its concepts (Plastic Man's bits, the Question's role, although it needed more development, the irreverent, frantic, yet funny tone), but its flaws were very big (unneeded, absurd Dick Grayson bashing, Superman being mostly pathetic, Batman and Luthor's plans not being that smart when you think about them, etc).

[Gaspard]

What was up with Green Lantern by the way. He'd turn himself into a dinosaur or something?

[Damo]

I loathe this book. I don't have an essay on it, nor do I want to write one. But, I do loathe this book.

(Sorry G.D.B., but you really did say what I wanted, just in reverse.)

[RichStanz]

I probably never read it again, i think DKR didn't need a sequel so long after, but i guess it was about money.

I re-read DKR about 2 years ago, after I initially read DKSA.

When I finished DKR, I felt so pumped to keep reading. "Don't end there, I want more." Then I remembered where the story actually went. I didn't like DKSA upon first reading, but I had to take this chance and re-read DKSA to see if it was still my real review.

I don't know. Its not bad, but even if it was amazing (which I don't think it honestly is) it never would survived that hype.

No story could follow up DKR, because it really is one of those seminal comic events. You remember the first time you saw those pages.

But if you can just separate DKSA from all the hype, its not awful.

[The Foreigner]

With respect shyguy, I've heard that alleged by many a fan of both DKR and All-Star that they are mooted " satires ". The problem I have is - satire of what ? Modern American politics ? The state of the comic-book industry ?

I'd genuinely like to hear an answer from some-oen - because I've read through DKR three times now and find very little evidence of satire.

The Dark Knight Returns is clearly a satire of the Reagan administration, among other things.

How you could not see that after reading it three times baffles me.

EDIT: By the way, I voted "It's not DKR, but it's a fun book" in the poll. My biggest beef with DKSA is it's execution. Great ideas (Atom trapped in a petri dish, Flash's giant hamster wheel, mysterious new Joker on a killing spree) that were just poorly put together.

I still enjoy it, and love the Absolute Dark Knight volume.

[StrikeForce Albert]

It's stupid fun

I also love the "You Bum" line

[Ripper]

Its a fun story indeed, no DKR though

[Ungoliantschilde]

To me, the best image was when Shazam dies, and he goes out with the battle cry. (I can't find an image of it, but if you've read the book, you know the scene.)

The book was vastly different than DKR, so it's a little tough for people to read, especially when it is the actual sequel to DKR. I think Miller was being experimental and kind of letting his wonderful imagination run through that unique blend of Pop-Culture and Comics (that could be called his view of reality) with a Chainsaw and some Krazy Glue. He uses a mish-mash of pop-culture, politcal commentary, philosophy, and just plain cool images to make for a really interesting way of looking at the DCU. I love how he took a three issue book and made some very scathing attacks on American Society in only a few pages. The Super-Chix are obvious parodies, just like the President was in DKR. I like this book a lot, and yet I cannot bring myself to recommend it to a new-reader. It's just not a Batman story for the casual reader. It's complicated, dense, and critical, but it's not light-hearted.

[glue]

I voted "I have no idea." I don't remember anything about it other than buying the first two issues and not being able to finish them. I'm not a big DKR fan either, though.

[Agentum]

I voted "I have no idea." I don't remember anything about it other than buying the first two issues and not being able to finish them. I'm not a big DKR fan either, though.
But that sounds to me like you didn't like it?

I don't either always read what i think is bad, i know when i don't like it pretty soon.

I think its funny that books that is like this one is almost always considered real art by some people "the wonderful imaginations" and "popculture and Millers wiev of reality"

And some think its so humorus and other says it not, well i like to be able to understand what it is without "study" the book first:D

But maybe this is a book that you need to look deeper at to get anything out of, i have the hardcover(they sold them extremly cheap) if i one day want to:)

[gatchamandave]

The Dark Knight Returns is clearly a satire of the Reagan administration, among other things.

How you could not see that after reading it three times baffles me.

EDIT: By the way, I voted "It's not DKR, but it's a fun book" in the poll. My biggest beef with DKSA is it's execution. Great ideas (Atom trapped in a petri dish, Flash's giant hamster wheel, mysterious new Joker on a killing spree) that were just poorly put together.

I still enjoy it, and love the Absolute Dark Knight volume.

Oops sorry, Foreigner, I meant to write DKSA ( silly old fool that I am ) - I got the Reagan era satire of DKR at the time. No, it's DKSA that I don't see much in the way of satire in -that's why I referred to naked news-readers, girl-bands in spray on catsuits and computer generated presidents....which I don't recall in DKR ( but then I've already demonstrated by ability to mix the two up, I suppose )

Or perhaps it's more correct to say I don't see much in the way of original satire in it. Maybe that's just a sign of the times, that current politicians and media celebrities have reached a stage that they are impossible to satirise ?

Anyway, sorry for confusing everyone.

[the goddamn batman]

Damo, it's cool. I laughed.



I'd say that American pop culture and politics in general, are nothing but a parody of themselves at this point. So, making a parody out of a parody is going to be odd. Or leave something to be desired.

I don't know. I think it works as a sequel.

By going against it's own grain the way DKR did in the 80's... it works as a sequel.

By making fun of American pop culture and politics the way DKR did in the 80's... it works as a sequel.

By offering art that by any measure, isn't 'standard comic art' it works as a sequel.

(I'm tired, that's all I got for now)

How well? Oh, I don't know. But, I like it.



In all fairness, Lynn should have hand painted it... but some of those pages are fucking breath taking! Period. YOu could say they aren't, but you'd be wrong.


And, why is it Dick Grayson bashing? I never understood the opinion that it was bashing Dick. Can someone explian this to me??

[Gaspard]

I wasn't the one who said bashing... I have come to a conclusion though, that Frank doesn't like Robin/Grayson. Here's why: In DKR, he has written that Bruce and Dick aren't talking to each other; He made him Joker in DKSA; and he's made Bruce tell Dick to hunt rats for dinner in the cave!

[dancj]

It's just not a Batman story for the casual reader. It's complicated, dense, and critical, but it's not light-hearted.

I'm not sure how you can see DKSA as dense or not light-hearted. It's quite a fast light fun read.

[The Foreigner]

Oops sorry, Foreigner, I meant to write DKSA ( silly old fool that I am ) - I got the Reagan era satire of DKR at the time. No, it's DKSA that I don't see much in the way of satire in -that's why I referred to naked news-readers, girl-bands in spray on catsuits and computer generated presidents....which I don't recall in DKR ( but then I've already demonstrated by ability to mix the two up, I suppose )

Or perhaps it's more correct to say I don't see much in the way of original satire in it. Maybe that's just a sign of the times, that current politicians and media celebrities have reached a stage that they are impossible to satirise ?

Anyway, sorry for confusing everyone.

Oh, my apologies then. I would agreee that DKSA's seeming attempt at satire is quite clumsly and unclear in it's purpose.

And don't even get me started on All Star Batman and Robin. Satire? Puh-lease...

[Agent Helix]

While I can't deny that the panels in the original post of this thread are very well done, I think it's disingenuous not to show some of the shockingly terrible drawings that make up most of the rest of the series.

[Gaspard]

I'm not trying to sell the book here. I told you I loved Frank's art but I also said how some of it in this book was terrible. I think threads just get more interesting to read if you post pictures here and there.

[glue]

But that sounds to me like you didn't like it?


Yeah, but it was when my interest in comics in general was kinda dying off. I probably wouldn't have liked it (given my opinion of DKR), though, so you may be right.

[shyguy]

With respect shyguy, I've heard that alleged by many a fan of both DKR and All-Star that they are mooted " satires ". The problem I have is - satire of what ? Modern American politics ? The state of the comic-book industry ?

I think it varies depending on the work. I read All-Star Batman as a satire of modern comics - with a murderous, abusive "hero" and ludicrous decompression (they were in that car for, like, three issues) and excess (the 5-page spread of the Batcave). And while on one hand I think Jim Lee's art lends itself well to this (he is the superhero artist of the past 10 years), I don't think Lee is capable of injecting his work with the irony or humor you need to pull Miller off (the panty shots of Vicky Vale should have been even more over the top, for instance).

DKSA I read as more of a general satire of American culture, with the computer generated president, Green Arrow and The Question's debates, and stuff like the Superchix. And I actually agree with you that it's not particularly original or clever, but I don't think it's supposed to be. I think it's supposed to be loud, flashy, obvious, and blatant because, well, that's what American culture is like right now.

The rather blatant satire in Dark Knight Returns is more subtle by comparison.

But with Miller, there's always that tension. One minute you're thiking "Ha! That is ridiculous!" and the next you're thinking, "Wow; that's cool." It's something I really didn't get about his work until I saw Sin City.

On any given day I can be laughing my head off at Batman's ridiculous inner monologue in Dark Knight Returns or thinking that it's pretty sweet; Miller's stuff works on a lot of levels like that.
As mentioned, I think the art and coloring is brilliant. I don't have my copy with me, so if anyone feels like it (and I realize it's a chore), I'd actually love to see some of the specific pages/panels that people think are particularly horribly drawn.

[captain_unimpressive]

Aw, man. I wish they would start writing Hal Jordan the way DKSA portrayed him: one upping Alan Scott's Lantern Armor in Kingdom Come by becoming the lantern himself, being truly a cosmic being that can inspire religious awe in those that witness his power.
In fact, Miller did some crazy stuff with every hero he put in. Why wasn't that "I am not the answer-- I am only the QUESTION" panel in there?

Also, I thought the scene when one of the SuperChix realizes their political power, becomes self-aware, and starts trying to discuss politics was hilarious. Though I didn't like the idea of Grayson being gay for Batman.

You know, I've always wondered what DKSA would have become without 9/11happening right in the middle of writing it.

[Punch]

I enjoy this book alot, despite some criticisms I have, the main one being the coloring. I understand what Varley was trying to do, but the xexcution was horrible. There are some panels that are so sloppy that I can't believe they were ever published.
The art also needs some work. I like the overall style, but there are hardly any backgrounds, leaving me feeling like everything took place on a sound stage.

The story is good, though I would have set it further into the future than three years after DKR. It doesn't seem plausible that the world would change so much in that short of a time span. That's why this doesn't feel like a true sequel to me.I did enjoy Miller's take on the media culture that has surfaced, even more so now than in 2001.

I hate the ending.

[The Foreigner]

Though I didn't like the idea of Grayson being gay for Batman.


When Dick says "I loved you," I don't think it suggested anything other than him loving Bruce like a father, or at least that's how I read it.

[The Batman]

DKSA was an odd book for me to read as it was coming out. I loved DKR, porbably one of my favourite comics and easily my favourite Batman story, so I really had some expectations for the sequel. When I read DKSA for the first time there were some things that I really liked about and some stuff that I didn't like about it but mostly I really didn't know what to make out of it.

It wasn't anything at all like what I was expecting. I loved Frank's even more cartoony artwork felt that Varley's experimentation was producing uneven results. It looked amazing in some places but in others, for example her use of pixelization or photoshop patterns, just didn't seem to work for me. Frank had some great big ideas here - Atom trapped in a petri dish, the Flash powering the eastern seaboard in a giant turbine, Hal's home in the stars - these were all great wacky-cool ideas. Even the wierd mutant Dick Grayson/Joker thing was kinda interesting. The political commentary, the faux president and the supervilliany behind the throne, the satire contemporary American culture were all there too and when everything was crammed together it all felt uneven and oddly paced.

I loved how over the top and wacky-cool the story was though I thought it could've been better paced or given more room to breathe. Miller could've easily worked with another 20 or 30 pages in my opinion. I liked what he said about superheroes needing to be bolder and more proactive rather than introspective and how costumes and all these wacky things that kinda became silly in the post-Watchman/DKR comics world were actually pretty neat.

I liked DKSA, I liked it alot and I thought it was a lot better than most give it credit for.

[Punch]

^ Actually I think the pacing is one of it's stronger points. It gives the story a sense of urgency that makes an interesting counter-point to the broad, cartoony look.
I also voted It's pretty good. A lot better than most give it credit for.

[gatchamandave]

I think it varies depending on the work. I read All-Star Batman as a satire of modern comics - with a murderous, abusive "hero" and ludicrous decompression (they were in that car for, like, three issues) and excess (the 5-page spread of the Batcave). And while on one hand I think Jim Lee's art lends itself well to this (he is the superhero artist of the past 10 years), I don't think Lee is capable of injecting his work with the irony or humor you need to pull Miller off (the panty shots of Vicky Vale should have been even more over the top, for instance).

DKSA I read as more of a general satire of American culture, with the computer generated president, Green Arrow and The Question's debates, and stuff like the Superchix. And I actually agree with you that it's not particularly original or clever, but I don't think it's supposed to be. I think it's supposed to be loud, flashy, obvious, and blatant because, well, that's what American culture is like right now.

The rather blatant satire in Dark Knight Returns is more subtle by comparison.


Cheers for the thoughtful reply - and to Foreigner as well.

warmest regards

dave

[Ungoliantschilde]

The reason I think that DKSA is a dense piece of comic art is because of the amount of material covered and lampooned in only 3 prestige format issues. A large number of the JLA get their moments to shine, and each of their appearances is loaded with all kinds of innuendo and implication. Hawk and Dove are only in there for a single panel, and everyone got pissed off because of the implication that they were homosexual lovers. Stuff like that makes it a dense read.

[Apathy Boy]

I loved it in parts (it has the best Ray Palmer scene I've ever read), but hated it in others. I particularly loathed Miller's portrayal of Superman. Miller did such a great job of giving us iconic representations of DC's other heroes and of defying the expectations of fans looking for another DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. And for the most part, he succeeded. But in portraying Clark as such a milksop, it really felt like he was just rehashing old ideas.

Overall, though, I'll give DKSA a thumbs-up. But what do I know? I liked Miller's SPAWN/BATMAN too. Twit.

[dancj]

The reason I think that DKSA is a dense piece of comic art is because of the amount of material covered and lampooned in only 3 prestige format issues.

Bear in mind that they were 80 page issues which is a lot longer than the standard 48 page issues that TDKR came out in

[Slumber Hulk]

Not as good as the original but I liked all the other DC characters in it.
Spoilers:
Who doesn't want to see Bats wail on Sups with Kryptonite Boxing Gloves
Spoilers Fin:

[ChrisTheHomunculus]

Thats probably my favourite scene.
"Get out of my cave."
Brilliant! I agree with people that its not quite DKR, but I think its brilliant. I like the experimentation, I like the portrayals of most of the characters...
I'm gona make a custom Barry Allen in *that* costume.
Chris

[Pike]

The Dark Knight Returns is clearly a satire of the Reagan administration, among other things.

How you could not see that after reading it three times baffles me.


Sort of but not entirely. It's also a satire on the state of world during the cold war. It also praises the Regan ethos of standing up to tyranny when needed so it's a little more complicated than you suggest.

Most importantly though, calling DK II a satire is a cop-out. A satire has to have a strong basis in the subject it is saterizing. For example, in DK I the President is clearly Ronald Regan. Subtle satire is ok so long as it is prefaced by obvious satire.

Pointing to a naked newsreader and using that as your foundation to say that the entire thing was a ironic, post-modernist take on the state of the comic book industry vis-a-vis man's intolerance to his fellow man is just another way of saying that the work was shit.

[Candyland_Assassin]

I didn't really like it at all, but the fact that I read the "City of Crime" compilation right after makes the book look like War and Peace.

Frank Miller is weird, so at least his stuff it interesting. It was no "Ronin" though.

[Gary Joyce]

While the DKSA is good in places the ending kinda leaves a sour note with me and spoils the whole story for me.

[The Foreigner]

I'm gona make a custom Barry Allen in *that* costume.
Chris

I loved the Flash costume. Black and yellow with shorts; awesome re-design that still uses the same basic elements. Very slick.

Sort of but not entirely. It's also a satire on the state of world during the cold war. It also praises the Regan ethos of standing up to tyranny when needed so it's a little more complicated than you suggest.

Oh, I agree. I was simply making a broad statement about DKR's satirical nature in reply to gatchamandave's first response.

But there's definately more to DKR's satire than goofing on Reagan, for sure. Although, in relation to that, one of my favorite moments was Reagan giving a broadcast to the American people-- while in a space station, safe from danger. :D

[achilles2772]

I actually liked this one better then DKR. I read the two in order and was one of the first things I read after getting into comics. I think what I liked was the introduction of the other characters such as Flash and Atom ect... Plus I loved Dick Grayson coming back as a psycho and then getting shot down by Batman. My favorite part was definatelly the whole page shot of Captain Marvel yelling SHAZAM!! Overall great book although the fight between Batman nad Superman from the first one is a great scene.

[Ungoliantschilde]

Something I've noticed is that a great deal of the great authors of our time were /are nutcases. Alan Moore is incredibly difficult to work with, and
"eccentric" barely scratches the surface. John Byrne is... not reasonable. Frank Miller is eccentric, reclusive, and intensely private.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemmingway, and Edgar Allan Poe were all addicted to one substance or another - primarily alcohol. I think people who are incredibly creative are often incredibly eccentric. Frank Miller's stuff is brilliant, but it requires you to think and view characters the way he does. No one else views Batman like he does. No one.

Batman: DKSA is controversial, brilliant, and amazing. I like it, and I think it's one of the finer examples of comic-art in the medium as we know it.

[The Foreigner]

Overall great book although the fight between Batman nad Superman from the first one is a great scene.

Agreed; although one of my complaints about DKSA is the fact that it's first issue ends with a battle against Superman-- So when both DKR and DKSA are read back-to-back, you get two big fights against Supes within a fairly small ammount of pages. Throws the pacing off a bit.

[The Batman]

I always thought that the reasoning for having the Batman/Superman rematch so early on was to play with fan's expectations and take what they all knew was going to happen and get it out of the way right away.