The Dark Knight Returns (opinions)

[TMM Writes Lego]

I know its very old but The Dark Knight Returns (TDKR) had bad art work and some parts were kinda perverted (i said earlier and decided to make a thread about it) What did you think of TDKR? Just asking

[PamGrierOverdrive]

Not only is it my favorite comic of all time, but it's also one of my favorite books ever. It made me a life-long Batman fanatic, and inspired my Frank Miller-styled Bat symbol tattoo on my back.

[kello]

I know its very old but The Dark Knight Returns (TDKR) had bad art work and some parts were kinda perverted (i said earlier and decided to make a thread about it) What did you think of TDKR? Just asking

I actually just read it for the first time a few weeks ago. I always avoided it because it seemed too gritty, but it's pretty good. I think it really speaks to the core of who Batman is, and the drive that he has to pursue criminals. The only thing I didn't really like about it was the use of all the media/ talk show panels to tell the story. I understand how it gives the readers the story through that perspective (and it's some kind of commentary) but it gets kind of tedious. I liked the fact that Batman didn't kill the Joker, even though I really wanted him to, and watching him beat Superman once and for all is quite gratifying.

[Alan2099]

Not a bad story, but I realy didn't like Joker, Catwoman, and that bomb guy that worked for Joker.

[niall mc cann]

Perverted how?:confused:

And i thought the art was phenomonal. I'm not Miller's biggest fan these days, but back in the day he was phenomonal. He's actually still a fantastic artist.

[TMM Writes Lego]

Perverted how?:confused:

And i thought the art was phenomonal. I'm not Miller's biggest fan these days, but back in the day he was phenomonal. He's actually still a fantastic artist. The feeling of it as you read it. Bruce is nude through out the whole thing too!!!

[vazel]

I know its very old but The Dark Knight Returns (TDKR) had bad art work and some parts were kinda perverted (i said earlier and decided to make a thread about it) What did you think of TDKR? Just askingI at first thought you were talking about the sequel. TDKR however is pure concentrated awesome.

[niall mc cann]

The feeling of it as you read it. Bruce is nude through out the whole thing too!!!

:confused:

No he's not.

[TMM Writes Lego]

:confused:

No he's not.

yes as bruce.

[PamGrierOverdrive]

if this guy thinks DKR was crap, I'd hate to see his reaction after reading its sequel! :eek:

[niall mc cann]

yes as bruce.

Oh, right, I get you.

But again, no he's not.

[Punch]

I don't think Miller gets enough credit as an artist. In my opinion he's one of the best ever.

[TMM Writes Lego]

Oh, right, I get you.

But again, no he's not.
are you blind! Guys isnt he, i am looking right at it, its blocked out!

[Punch]

Bruce Wayne is naked twice. Not the whole book. There is nothing inherently perverted about a man being naked in his own house... or his own cave.

[TMM Writes Lego]

Bruce Wayne is naked twice. Not the whole book. There is nothing inherently perverted about a man being naked in his own house... or his own cave.
Yeah but why would he be naked in the first place? And when he is with the girl robin it looks so wrong! Look at it

[TMM Writes Lego]

if this guy thinks DKR was crap, I'd hate to see his reaction after reading its sequel! :eek:
i did, it was very bad I really hate the writer and artist

[Mia]

Actually, I'm reading it right now. I tried to read this book in past when I first got into Batman but it just never took. I think I just couldn't cotton on to an older Batman and I found the art work ugly so I just dropped it.

However having read Millers' work on Daredevil. I decided to give DKR a go again and find that I am really enjoying it.

I find it a real shame that a bunch of not-so-good/talentless hacks decided to try and immitate Miller's DKR Batman and thereby just ruining the character. They just didn't have Miller's style or finesse and certainly did not seem to understand what he was doing.


Also I never understood why people refered to the Authority's Midnighter as the 'gay Batman'--until I read DKR.

[niall mc cann]

Yeah but why would he be naked in the first place? And when he is with the girl robin it looks so wrong! Look at it

On one of those occasions he's just been literally cut out of his clothes to have life-saving medical procedures performed.

[Shadow ES]

It was one of the first Batman stories I read when I got back into comics 2 years ago. I thought it was great.

[Choppa]

If you didn't notice, Miller's Batman is pretty obsessed with his mission so it's not all that disturbing to imagine that when he is in his "Batman" persona he wouldn't want to wear "normal" clothes.

It's clearly more mental instability than perversion.

[carabas]

The only thing that could conceivably be what the OP is refering to is this page:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/Batporn.jpg
Hardly seems like Bruce is indulging in blatant nudism, is it?

[Congo Jack]

I read both Dark Night Returns and Dark Night Strikes Again yesterday (couldn't sleep). I liked 'em - yeah, that's right - plural.

Here's something I didn't quite understand though, hopefully someone will help me out... what exactly was Miller doing thematically with Dick Grayson? Surely Dick is too inherently good to become that *thing* because (for lack of a better term) he's jealous? Have a missed something?

Thanks.

[Volume11]

The only thing that could conceivably be what the OP is refering to is this page:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/Batporn.jpg
Hardly seems like Bruce is indulging in blatant nudism, is it?

Is the OP trying to purposely rile all of us? So Bruce Wayne with no shirt in bandages post getting his arse kicked and post having surgery is somehow complete nudism and/or perverted?

I don't recall seeing Master Bruce's lil' Wayne once. The OP is really stretching it.

[the goddamn batman]

No, there is that scene where Bruce and Carrie hug... and Bruce is naked.

There is absolutely nothing sexual about it.

Anyone who thinks so, is clearly too young to seperate naked from sex. Simple.

[Nefarius]

I love it.Batman was dark but not as dark as we'll see him later(when dark and gritty was in every comics,even without a clear reason).This,Year One and Miller's Daredevil run are his best work.

[mattx110]

I read both Dark Night Returns and Dark Night Strikes Again yesterday (couldn't sleep). I liked 'em - yeah, that's right - plural.

Here's something I didn't quite understand though, hopefully someone will help me out... what exactly was Miller doing thematically with Dick Grayson? Surely Dick is too inherently good to become that *thing* because (for lack of a better term) he's jealous? Have a missed something?

Thanks.
Batman was a shitty father who fired his adopted son from being a superhero after he got shot, instead of being there for him. Then he finds some new girl years later, and seems to have a real affection for her, and she's more than just a part of his war on crime.

So... he's a jealous creep who in this world, instead of becoming nightwing and leading a team, he changed sides and got experimented on.

That's kinda one of the things people don't like. The mystery badguy either not being a character they like, or at least having a more fleshed out reason to go supervillian serial killer. Something more tragic, with some retribution maybe. Not just "you never loved me, die!" Although, seeing as how the whole thing is pretty much told from Bruce's point of view, things just might be that simple for him.

[Congo Jack]

Thanks, mattx110. I didn't get that the DKR timeline diverged from the mainstream DCU before the point that Dick became Nightwing.

[TMM Writes Lego]

The only thing that could conceivably be what the OP is refering to is this page:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a288/Gugenheimer/Batporn.jpg
Hardly seems like Bruce is indulging in blatant nudism, is it?

It was the next page I think, with robin aiding him. But it is still perverted with a young girl helping a nude guy thats rich.

[carabas]

Only to those with very naughty minds who choose to interpret it in that way.

Also,
Bruce is nude through out the whole thing too!!!
Throughout the whole book = a single image now?

[filthysize]

Nudity =/ Perversion.

[mattx110]

Only to those with very naughty minds who choose to interpret it in that way.

Also,

Throughout the whole book = a single image now?
He gets naked twice...

And he showers!

[carabas]

BURN THE BOOK!!! BuRN THE BOOK!!! BURN THE BOOK!!!

[vazel]

BURN THE BOOK!!! BuRN THE BOOK!!! BURN THE BOOK!!!BUT I ALREADY SAW IT!!! HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO PRAY TO CLEANSE MYSELF!!!!

[Chiroptera]

Miller's Batman work is a hit or a miss. And I don't mean just the quality. I mean the appeal.

It's either or a hit or a miss for the audience. People either love it or they don't like it at all. I've met very few people who take a middle ground with Miller's batman works.

Personally, I hated DKR, and I've hated everything else Miller's ever done involving Batman. To me Miller's take on Batman is the very anti-thesis of what the character should be. The gritty hyper-violent savage barbarian of a vigilante just doesn't click with Batman to me at all. 300 is an impressive work. Sin City is an impressive work. Anything Miller's done involving Batman always leaves me wishing I could kick him in the yoohoos.


BUT, that's just my personal opinion. It's one shared by many it seems, while there are just as many who absolutely adore what Frank did with the character.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

i did, it was very bad I really hate the writer and artist

Have you read Year One?

I read Dark Knight Returns YEARS ago (Late 80's). I remember not liking it at all, and because of that I stayed away from Miller's other works.

In only the past couple years did I finally check out Year One, and I thought it was excellent.........I also liked a few issues from his Daredevil run. One in particular you should check out is Daredevil #181.

As for Miller's artwork, I don't get how people can see it as being beautiful.....I think he's great with his panel-work, the way his artwork helps the story flow. But, to me, his art is not aesthetically pleasing.

I think of Gary Frank this way as well. For example, with Gary Frank's recent work on Action Comics, all the characters look ugly. But, he knows how to draw in sequence to help tell a good story.

Whereas with someone like Jim Lee, some of his artwork looks beautiful, but when reading a book with his art it's almost painful because at times it looks like a bunch of unconnected splash pages.

I prefer to read comics with artists who excel with panel-work, rather than artists who make everything look nice (Those guys are better served for posters).

Everyone has their own opinion on artwork, of course, so it's all subjective.

[niall mc cann]

Miller's Batman work is a hit or a miss. And I don't mean just the quality. I mean the appeal.

It's either or a hit or a miss for the audience. People either love it or they don't like it at all. I've met very few people who take a middle ground with Miller's batman works.

Personally, I hated DKR, and I've hated everything else Miller's ever done involving Batman. To me Miller's take on Batman is the very anti-thesis of what the character should be. The gritty hyper-violent savage barbarian of a vigilante just doesn't click with Batman to me at all. 300 is an impressive work. Sin City is an impressive work. Anything Miller's done involving Batman always leaves me wishing I could kick him in the yoohoos.


BUT, that's just my personal opinion. It's one shared by many it seems, while there are just as many who absolutely adore what Frank did with the character.

Yeah, I can understand that.

Ultimately, Miller's Batman walked a very difficult line... things like Alfred's opinion on Carrie in Carabas's posts are difficult to argue with... the places Bruce took Carrie in that book were often no place for a child to be. His attitude seemed to be "it's a crazy world... this is a sane response to that". He'd had an intense, pressure cooker of a life, and he turned out all right (in fact, he was the only one who turned out all right). All he was doing was affording Carrie the same privilege.

Ultimately you can agree with him or not, but when push comes to shove, by the end of the book, the "sane" society around him tries to consume itself in nuclear fire and tear itself apart. There's millions of people in Gotham, billions in world, and the list of people who actually do anything constructive is small. Jim Gordon, Superman... and Bats. So in the end, everyone who was criticising him was as guilty of buying into something self destructive, violent and insane as Bats was. Much moreso, in fact. And Bats didn't, at any point.

It's a huge, thorny question. And whether or not he was naked through the whole book (he wasn't) isn't even the smallest factor to be considered.

[the goddamn batman]

I adore Frank Miller as an artist. I think DKR is a beautiful book, granted most of it really has to do with Janson (inker) and Varley (colors). Miller did pencils, but Janson is totally evident in the art. Look at the Batman Black and White short he did. You'll see.

I think the rest of Miller's work is great.... even DKSA. I mean, he did it on purpose. That's something specific he went after there. I like it. Would LOVE to see just the ink work. Not a big fan of most of the coloring in that book, though.

[DC906270-BIL]

i like FM's art style on Daredevil, but DKR is done in the 'ugly' stylised FM way, like Sin City and 300. I agree with the person who said FM's panel work is simple and easy to follow, this is what i like about his work on DD. After this he developed his trademark 'different' look, with ugly characters, but i think this is intentional to portray ugly stories and worlds.

[ZT4]

i did, it was very bad I really hate the writer and artist

Who was the exact same guy

TDKSA is also quite underrated.

[niall mc cann]

i like FM's art style on Daredevil, but DKR is done in the 'ugly' stylised FM way, like Sin City and 300.

In my opinion, there are parts of Sin City that are some of the most aesthetically beautiful comics work I've ever read, ever.

There is such a thing as a beautiful drawing of an ugly person.

[InAdia]

Its strange, all of the artists that I know that are non-comic fans seem to really love Miller's work where as many comic fan artists I know hate him. Perhaps its just the expectations of the readers. I find that many comic fans seem to shun any type of art that isn't hyper-detailed, most super hero comic books are loaded with it. Artists like Wood, McKeever, Mignola, and Miller are dirty words in some comic forums. Ah well, to each their own.

The Real Inadia

[Alex Dragon]

Its strange, all of the artists that I know that are non-comic fans seem to really love Miller's work where as many comic fan artists I know hate him. Perhaps its just the expectations of the readers. I find that many comic fans seem to shun any type of art that isn't hyper-detailed, most super hero comic books are loaded with it. Artists like Wood, McKeever, Mignola, and Miller are dirty words in some comic forums. Ah well, to each their own.

The Real Inadia

I think that part ofthe problem is that many comic fans (myself included sometimes) are just so used to seeing these characters portrayed as pretty/beautiful people. When an artist like Miller or whoever draws them in an unflattering way it's quite jarring.

I personally don't like the way Miller draws these days on a stylistic level but I have to admit he's a great storyteller and comes up with powerful images. I'm quite tired of the grotesque looking people and the hard black shadows that every character always seems to be in, in every panel in every book no matter what time of day or enviornment they're in. "Yeah Frank, I know you can do the heavy black, stark lighting thing but do we have to see it in every panel?", "Does everyone needs to look deformed?"

But at the same time, I have to admit those images give the story that extra jolt. It doesn't bother me nearly as much when Miller does it on his own creations because they didn't already have an established look. It's very strange having a handsome Bruce Wayne/Batman or a beautiful Catwoman then Miller hits you over the head with an almost monsterous Batman and a harsh looking Catwoman.

So there will probably always be two camps on Miller's art when it comes to that. The ones who look past the rendering of the characters who appreicate the boldness and powerful images Miller comes up with...and the fans who like pretty characters and can get past the "rough", "ugly" style that Miller uses.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

I prefer to read comics with artists who excel with panel-work, rather than artists who make everything look nice (Those guys are better served for posters).

Everyone has their own opinion on artwork, of course, so it's all subjective.

I have to respond to my own post......What I tend to like even more than the Frank Miller or Gary Frank types are the artists who draw aesthetically pleasing (To my eye) artwork, but also excel in panel-work. Alan Davis is a prime example of this.....A newer person who fits this mold, to me, is Tony Daniel. I wasn't too into his first issue or two of Batman, but after the first couple issues he has really excelled.

[Punch]

I think Miller is his best when he inks himself. There are several panels in DKR that he did himself which look great, not to mention things like 300, Elektra Lives Again and his Lonewolf and Cub covers.
His work on DKSA was also for the most part beautifully done. It looks greats in the Absolute edition and it's also interesting to see how Miller simplified the art from sketch to finished product.

[jesse_custer]

The artwork of DKR is distinct, gritty, and offbeat. I can see why people might not like the art, but I certainly don't agree with them.

One thing I really like about this book is its satirical look at the media. I also can't forget the unusual and funny moments (like a beaten and tied up Selina Kyle dressed like Wonder Woman) as well as the disturbingly dark (the lunatic killer who listened to "Stairway to Heaven" backward too many times).

[Baron Banter]

BUT I ALREADY SAW IT!!! HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO PRAY TO CLEANSE MYSELF!!!!Did you dip your hands in acid to burn away the dirtiness of the pages? If not, then you haven't done enough.

[englishw]

I know its very old but The Dark Knight Returns (TDKR) had bad art work and some parts were kinda perverted (i said earlier and decided to make a thread about it) What did you think of TDKR? Just asking

Did you read a different book? Did you mistake something for TDKR? It is arguably the best Batman story of all time. It is also arguably the best comic of all time. I don't personally agree with the latter, but this book is in my top 5 comics of all time list.

I love Miller's portrayal of Batman as an old man. The inner dialog is priceless. Batman saying things to himself like, "Lucky old man" as he dodges bullets from young punks. Just wonderful reading. Not like anything else out there.

This book is excellent. I think you must have the wrong label on some other book...

[TMM Writes Lego]

BURN THE BOOK!!! BuRN THE BOOK!!! BURN THE BOOK!!!
thats right lol:rolleyes:

[TMM Writes Lego]

Did you read a different book? Did you mistake something for TDKR? It is arguably the best Batman story of all time. It is also arguably the best comic of all time. I don't personally agree with the latter, but this book is in my top 5 comics of all time list.


I love Miller's portrayal of Batman as an old man. The inner dialog is priceless. Batman saying things to himself like, "Lucky old man" as he dodges bullets from young punks. Just wonderful reading. Not like anything else out there.

This book is excellent. I think you must have the wrong label on some other book...
I like the story, but Batman doesn't kill and in this he does. And the idea of basicly having some random girl become Robin doesn't make much sences (i spelled it wrong) I just dont really like the artist and this book could sell and get the same replies if Bruce was never nude in it. And Robin should be Batgirl 2 and it would be fun if they came out with a third book and had her as robin and jason todd would be in it and like another justice league team up it would just turn everything around.

[jesse_custer]

Batman may kill in Dark Knight Returns, but it seems perfectly reasonable given the situation and timeline.

[TMM Writes Lego]

Batman may kill in Dark Knight Returns, but it seems perfectly reasonable given the situation and timeline.
Yeah but it destroys the whole plot, Batman can always kill, its too easy for him too and in this its not like he looks back at his parents death and tell himself hey that moment destroyed my life and that thug who killed them is the reason for me becoming batman mainly and if Batman kills his whole identidy is destroyed, you get what I am saying?

[dancj]

I like the story, but Batman doesn't kill and in this he does.
Batman doesn't kill anyone in The Dark Knight Returns as far as I'm aware (though he does in TDKSA and I don't have a problem with that)

this book could sell and get the same replies if Bruce was never nude in it.
And your point is?

You could just as easily have said that it would have got the same reviews and sales if Merkel was called 'Johnson'.

[niall mc cann]

I like the story, but Batman doesn't kill and in this he does.

I really don't mean do keep doing this... but, no, he doesn't.

[filthysize]

And Robin should be Batgirl 2 and it would be fun if they came out with a third book and had her as robin and jason todd would be in it and like another justice league team up it would just turn everything around.


I'm sorry, what?

[jesse_custer]

I really don't mean do keep doing this... but, no, he doesn't.

Actually, this is correct. He strongly considers killing Joker, and that is perfectly reasonable given the situation and timeline.

[the goddamn batman]

Are you guys still paying attention to this troll?:confused:

[Godlike]

That DKR is so good, probably the best comic of all time IMO, is proven in the way its themes and set-pieces have been played and replayed over and over in different combinations over the years since its release. I mean, Batman has handed Supes his rear end lots of times since. The Joker of DKR is the one Morrison writes currently, in terms of style and character. Everything about that novel was perfect. It's pure mythology, with a timeless quality to it.

Now, DKSA is another story...as a sequel, it was adequate, but that is all.

[mattx110]

Batman doesn't kill anyone in The Dark Knight Returns as far as I'm aware (though he does in TDKSA and I don't have a problem with that)

this book could sell and get the same replies if Bruce was never nude in it.
And your point is?

You could just as easily have said that it would have got the same reviews and sales if Merkel was called 'Johnson'.
Actually, Merk is my favorite part of the book.

Sorry. I mean, it wouldn't affect the reviews or sales but I would have enjoyed it slightly less.

[nepenthes]

I think there should be special re-education camps for people who don't like Dark Knight Returns or any single aspect of Dark Knight Returns*. It's far and away the best Batman story ever and it's quality never diminishes. Of all the books I own it's the one I enjoy re-reading most, you pick up on details of the craft you've never noticed before. It's ABSOLUTELY the best example of the comic book medium ever published in terms of the way panels and layouts and word balloons and seperate lines of naration are employed. It's better than Watchmen in terms of technical craft, even if Watchmen has it beat in terms of pure story.

*perhaps the only single aspect of Dark Knight Returns that can be faulted is the treatment of Selina Kyle. Absurd and disgraceful. Miller even said so himself he wished he hadn't made her a fat pink-haired whore mistress. Don't have the link but I definitly remember that interview. anyone else?

[Maestro]

I'll never forget the image of Superman trying to stop that missile. It got me into comics.

[HaroldAllnut]

I guess it'd be considered sacrilege to say that, in terms of art, I liked Batman: Year One better? Storywise, I think DKR and Year One are the only good Batman things Miller has created. DKSA? Not so friggin' much.

[carabas]

I guess it'd be considered sacrilege to say that, in terms of art, I liked Batman: Year One better?I don't think so. Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli are both excellent artists with very different styles. I don't think you could say that one is better than the other. It comes down to personal preference, really.

The Dark Knight Returns and Year One are more famous for the writing than for the art anyway.

[niall mc cann]

I'll never forget the image of Superman trying to stop that missile. It got me into comics.

That whole sequence is still pure unadulterated magic to me...

"Your adopted son will honor you..."

Sends a chill up my spine to this day. And there's so, so many of those kinds of moments in that book...

I suppose i was reading comics before I read DKR, but it certainly cemented my love of them, too.

[JayC]

I agree regarding the art, I hated it - but I still enjoyed the story quite a bit.

[Damiean Dark]

I only DC had this kind of writing consistently.:frown:

[the goddamn batman]

*perhaps the only single aspect of Dark Knight Returns that can be faulted is the treatment of Selina Kyle. Absurd and disgraceful. Miller even said so himself he wished he hadn't made her a fat pink-haired whore mistress. Don't have the link but I definitly remember that interview. anyone else?

It might be in the comics journals interviews (collection).

[PLEDGE]

I actually just read it for the first time a few weeks ago. I always avoided it because it seemed too gritty, but it's pretty good. I think it really speaks to the core of who Batman is, and the drive that he has to pursue criminals. The only thing I didn't really like about it was the use of all the media/ talk show panels to tell the story. I understand how it gives the readers the story through that perspective (and it's some kind of commentary) but it gets kind of tedious. I liked the fact that Batman didn't kill the Joker, even though I really wanted him to, and watching him beat Superman once and for all is quite gratifying.


co-sign. this really got on my nerves. it took away from the flow of the story and it was like trying to fit too many things on one page.

as for the story/art, let me just say that i think it was decent, but very overrated. you probably can only really appreciate TDKR if you read it when it came out. it did a lot of new things for the character of batman. but these days, its not anything special imo. dont get me wrong, it was a good read, but the hype it gets should be killed off for this era. it was great for its time.

[jesse_custer]

Wrong. I didn't read DKR when it came out. I read it around the late 1990s or early 2000s, and I thought it was a masterpiece, better than a lot of the crap I had been reading from the present. The novel is still estranged from regular canon.

[PLEDGE]

did anyone else find it annoying the way those mutants and robin talk? i cant understand half the things they say. what the hell is shiv?????

[the goddamn batman]

No, I liked it.

[filthysize]

did anyone else find it annoying the way those mutants and robin talk? i cant understand half the things they say. what the hell is shiv?????

It's a makeshift knife. To shiv someone is to stab them with one.

I don't find it annoying. To the contrary, I find it hilarious because it's supposed to be the future and they're using dated slangs.

[nepenthes]

I didn't think the mutants in DKR used the word "shiv" as we would understand it They say "he don't shiv" as in "he don't back down". Don't have my copy handy but that what I seem to remember.

Slang is supposed to be partly impenetrable. That's the point. It made Batman look that much older, a man out of time.

[filthysize]

I didn't think the mutants in DKR used the word "shiv" as we would understand it They say "he don't shiv" as in "he don't back down". Don't have my copy handy but that what I seem to remember.

Slang is supposed to be partly impenetrable. That's the point. It made Batman look that much older, a man out of time.

Oh, really? I need to re-read it again too, then.

I guess I don't remember them well because it never registered as unusual to me whenever I read it. Seemed like something those mutants would say, and you're right, it barely matters whether or not their slang is understandable.

[dancj]

I don't find it annoying. To the contrary, I find it hilarious because it's supposed to be the future and they're using dated slangs.
As I understand it, it's not set in the future. It's actually set in the 80's, following on from the 60's/70's Batman having retired.

It explains Ronald Reagan, David Letterman and Dr Ruth appearing in it.

[Choppa]

Well it's the future for Batman, hence him being out of place.

[filthysize]

As I understand it, it's not set in the future. It's actually set in the 80's, following on from the 60's/70's Batman having retired.

It explains Ronald Reagan, David Letterman and Dr Ruth appearing in it.

Yes, but the perception is that it's supposed to be a future scenario for Batman readers who are reading Batman now. If we are reading it today, the language is amusingly dated, yet the given premise is that it's Batman's future. The slight discrepancy there makes it somewhat funny. At least to me, anyway.

Same thing that happens with many futuristic sci-fi movies, really. You watch these films from the 70s portraying the 2000s and they're overusing the latest teen slangs from the 70s because they're predicting those are the terms that's going to be used frequently in the future, when in fact no one uses them anymore.

[Slackjaws_ate_my_brain]

The Dark Knight Returns is probably my favorite comic book/story arc of all time. Great writing, perfectly stylized artwork, beautiful colorwork (loved the washed out watercolor work), and, over-all, it's just enjoyable.

I have a question for you guys out there. I love Frank Miller, and, arguably, think that he can write Batman like few others have. DKR, Year 1, ect ect ect. He just always seems to "get" the character, IMO, and writes him as a complex entity, which is alwats appreciated.

Ok, now, with that being noted, i recentlty re-read the Spawn/Batman crossover (the image release, that was written by Miller and drawn by Macfarlance) for the first time since it was first released. the question i have is this :

When did Miller forget how to write Batman? Seriously, the version of "batman" that we get in that patcular story is almost completely devoid of character, and basically resorts to being "grumbly", insulting Spawn in an immature way entirely too often, and even makes quips ("don't touch my cape" being the worst). The ONLY remnent of the classic Miller Batman is the line about why he doesn't take his costume off in the batcave ("Sometimes I Feel more Comfortable with it On"). Aside from that one, brief glimmer of the character, the rest of batman's characterization is just bland and, in a word, generic.

That being said, I actually did enjoy that Batman/Spawn crossover, in spite of its misuse of Batman. But i digress....

A quick note about artwork in comics : Some of my favorite artists are guys who have a style and take chances. Guys like Miller, Tex, Mignola, Sam Kieth, Alex Ross,and Simon Bisley all spring to mind. It's arguable that not all of their work can be described as "pretty", but I find it all to be "eye pleasing".

Sure, I have a love for the George Perez/Neal Adams/John Romita schools of "Comic Book Art" (and I really do, as those 3 artists would also make my "top artists list"), but sometimes I really like for an artist to "step outside the box" and take a chance.

[BatWing]

Same thing that happens with many futuristic sci-fi movies, really. You watch these films from the 70s portraying the 2000s and they're overusing the latest teen slangs from the 70s because they're predicting those are the terms that's going to be used frequently in the future, when in fact no one uses them anymore.

A Clockwork Orange comes to mind.

I just read DKR for the first time. I thought it was excellent. Don't think it is the best comic book ever, but it's definetely one of the most influential ones. Miller's drawings need some time getting used to, but it's a bit more appealing than his Sin City novels. He knows how to adapt a certain style for every different thing he does.

[Dorsai]

I have long been a fan of The Dark Knight Returns and credit it for keeping me interested in comics for my almost 20 year hiatus (yes, I re-read it often).

Looking back from 2008 to the book, I can easily see why some may feel it doesn't quite deserve its kudos. But that is much like viewing the original Star Wars through the prism of movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings and then claiming Star Wars really wasn't all that great. Many of my opinions towards the Dark Knight Returns (like Star Wars) contain a lot of context.

Prior to Miller, most non-comic readers thought of Batman as the Adam West type (remember, the first Tim Burton Batman movie was AFTER TDKR). Miller approaching Batman as being slightly mentally unbalanced was new for many people. Furthermore, pushing him into the realm of paranoid paramilitary opened up a whole new universe to Batman. All of the sudden, his tactics, tools, and methods took on more of a military and predatory approach. The bat on the chest was a target for a bulletproof vest...the "Batmobile" is really a tank...his partners are "soldiers"...and his crime fighting was a "mission". Batman was no longer on a heroic adventure but was instead a General in a war. I liked that shift.

In the Batman comics I had read previously, Batman and Superman were just as friendly as any other duo. However, Frank Miller introduced a real and believable level of antagonism between the two. It also highlighted what I believe are the fundamental differences of the characters going forward. Superman -- a god-like being that can survive without making compromises. Batman -- an all too human being that cannot survive without shades of gray. When I saw the spiked boot of Bruce Wayne on the neck of a battered and beaten Superman, I thought that was an amazing moment. Superman then keeping Bruce's "secret" at the grave and giving grudging respect was done very well.

I was initially impressed with the storytelling. A previous poster mentioned a dislike of the TV talking heads being used for exposition but that in itself was a shot at how the public consumed information at that time. Long before blogging, podcasts, and RSS feeds there was Ted Koppell, David Letterman, and Maury Povitch. Miller uses them all and in my opinion, to great effect.

I was also very impressed with the artwork at the time. Until then, there wasn't a lot of stylistic license taken with many of the artists in the big houses. Granted, you could still recognize styles such as Byrne or Claremont but for me, TDKR was quite unique.

The Dark Knight Returns will always be a Star Wars of sorts for me. In terms of quality, there have been books that have come since then that may have more interesting stories and a better technical execution. But in terms of impact on me as a reader, not many things can hold a candle to The Dark Knight returns.

In my opinion, whether or not a reader enjoys the book, The Dark Knight Returns did for comics related media (books, movies, TV, etc.) what The Real World did for reality TV.

[TMM Writes Lego]

I agree regarding the art, I hated it - but I still enjoyed the story quite a bit.
-----------Same here-----------------

[drmcnutt]

I have long been a fan of The Dark Knight Returns and credit it for keeping me interested in comics for my almost 20 year hiatus (yes, I re-read it often).

Looking back from 2008 to the book, I can easily see why some may feel it doesn't quite deserve its kudos. But that is much like viewing the original Star Wars through the prism of movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings and then claiming Star Wars really wasn't all that great. Many of my opinions towards the Dark Knight Returns (like Star Wars) contain a lot of context.

Prior to Miller, most non-comic readers thought of Batman as the Adam West type (remember, the first Tim Burton Batman movie was AFTER TDKR). Miller approaching Batman as being slightly mentally unbalanced was new for many people. Furthermore, pushing him into the realm of paranoid paramilitary opened up a whole new universe to Batman. All of the sudden, his tactics, tools, and methods took on more of a military and predatory approach. The bat on the chest was a target for a bulletproof vest...the "Batmobile" is really a tank...his partners are "soldiers"...and his crime fighting was a "mission". Batman was no longer on a heroic adventure but was instead a General in a war. I liked that shift.

In the Batman comics I had read previously, Batman and Superman were just as friendly as any other duo. However, Frank Miller introduced a real and believable level of antagonism between the two. It also highlighted what I believe are the fundamental differences of the characters going forward. Superman -- a god-like being that can survive without making compromises. Batman -- an all too human being that cannot survive without shades of gray. When I saw the spiked boot of Bruce Wayne on the neck of a battered and beaten Superman, I thought that was an amazing moment. Superman then keeping Bruce's "secret" at the grave and giving grudging respect was done very well.

I was initially impressed with the storytelling. A previous poster mentioned a dislike of the TV talking heads being used for exposition but that in itself was a shot at how the public consumed information at that time. Long before blogging, podcasts, and RSS feeds there was Ted Koppell, David Letterman, and Maury Povitch. Miller uses them all and in my opinion, to great effect.

I was also very impressed with the artwork at the time. Until then, there wasn't a lot of stylistic license taken with many of the artists in the big houses. Granted, you could still recognize styles such as Byrne or Claremont but for me, TDKR was quite unique.

The Dark Knight Returns will always be a Star Wars of sorts for me. In terms of quality, there have been books that have come since then that may have more interesting stories and a better technical execution. But in terms of impact on me as a reader, not many things can hold a candle to The Dark Knight returns.

In my opinion, whether or not a reader enjoys the book, The Dark Knight Returns did for comics related media (books, movies, TV, etc.) what The Real World did for reality TV.

I agree with this completely. When we look to the past sometimes things hold up over time and sometimes they don't. Dark Knight Returns was one of the first examples of the genre using more adult themes and darker tones. It may seem more prevalent today, but it was revolutionary at the time. I loved the first series though I am convinced Miller had a bet with Bob Wayne and said I'll release this piece of crap called TDK2 and it will sell like hotcakes (I believe the bet was for 1 dollar).

I think the level of writing in comics has improved over the years and that may make TDKR look a little less unique (heck Batman as grim and gritty for the past two decades is nothing new). It was unique and will stand out as an example of what the medium can aspire to.

[HouseSolo]

For one reason or another I always see people throwing this in league with Watchmen, which I find truly disgusting. Watchmen is the best comic, and one of the best novels of all time, where as DKR is a fairly well written story for a comic, but is illustrated awfully.

The art in DKR is pailfully bad, everytime I read it I find myself having trouble even noticing what's happening. Much of the story is told from newscasters which gets old extremely quickly, and the gang of rebellious kids ("The Mutants") look absolutely ridiculous. Pointy teeth? It's just dumb.

As bad as the art is the story is still decent, especially the parts involving Green Arrow and Superman. The portion of the story involving those two really stole the show. The part with the Joker was decent, but could have been done much better.

All in all I'm not a huge Frank Miller fan and I don't know why he gets so much credit. I haven't really loved anything he's done since Daredevil.

[TMM Writes Lego]

For one reason or another I always see people throwing this in league with Watchmen, which I find truly disgusting. Watchmen is the best comic, and one of the best novels of all time, where as DKR is a fairly well written story for a comic, but is illustrated awfully.
The art in DKR is pailfully bad, everytime I read it I find myself having trouble even noticing what's happening. Much of the story is told from newscasters which gets old extremely quickly, and the gang of rebellious kids ("The Mutants") look absolutely ridiculous. Pointy teeth? It's just dumb.
As bad as the art is the story is still decent, especially the parts involving Green Arrow and Superman. The portion of the story involving those two really stole the show. The part with the Joker was decent, but could have been done much better.
All in all I'm not a huge Frank Miller fan and I don't know why he gets so much credit. I haven't really loved anything he's done since Daredevil.
Your right. I think they should have gotten Alex Ross for this, it would be so much better.

[filthysize]

I've always thought the art in DKR is much better than the story.

[drmcnutt]

Your right. I think they should have gotten Alex Ross for this, it would be so much better.

Alex Ross wasn't even doing comics then.