Dark Knight Returns

[history79]

Comments

[zapbiffpow]

No? Wow, okay, I'll start:

Heh, heh. Chuck Brick. The stalwart line between giggly name and manly name.

[grumman]

One of the local TV channels showed a bunch of the DC animated movies a few months back, so I had the chance to watch the movie adaptation of this comic. The part that stood out the most for me was what it did with the Joker. I read the first volume of IDW's Regeneration One comic earlier this month, and their mishandling of Megatron immediately brought The Dark Knight Returns' Joker to mind.

[q99]

What was Megatron like in Reg1?

[grumman]

Ranting and raving, committing atrocities to goad Optimus Prime into killing him out of some idiotic belief that that would bring him down to his level. This relationship works somewhat for Batman and the Joker, since Batman's just a random guy for whom handing criminals to the authorities on a silver platter /should/ be enough, but even then comics like The Dark Knight Returns take it way too far. It doesn't work for two soldiers on opposite sides of a four million year war. Optimus Prime might wish the war could end peacefully, but if an enemy combatant wants to go down fighting, you shoot him.

IDW G1 Megatron

[sir_razorback]

I think there's a reason for it, but it's been a long time since I read his last appearances in the Marvel run to be sure I'm remembering it right. He has some kind of accident, and winds up fusing body and mind with Ratchet. I'll see if I can dig up some of the relevant books later, but it would provide a genuine reason why he's so scrambled in the brainpan.

Re: IDW G1 Megatron

[grumman]

I was vaguely aware of that, and it was brought up in Regeneration One itself. But to be frank, I don't care. I hated the story and even if you told me what lead up to that point, I'd still hate where they took it from there.

Re: IDW G1 Megatron

[q99]

Yea, this is at the tail end of a long continuity, and Megatron had gotten to an odd place. Plus there's all the Galvatron stuff...

I mean, same writer did the IDW non-regenesis Megatron, who... isn't like that.

[starwolf_oakley]

The Red Skull did some stuff like that in CAPTAIN AMERICA #300. That Cap killing him in a rage would give him victory. Or something.

[obsidianwolf]

This is one of those stories that I remember the impact it had and acknowledge it's contributions but frankly I kind of hate it. I'm never completely sure though if my dislike would be as strong if it wasn't for hindsight and knowing what Miller's idea of Batman would eventually evolve into.

I mean the seeds of all Miller's later millerness shall we say are present in this story but for the most part is no where near as horrible as the later stuff he wrote but there's still enough of it that I just really dislike this story.

[halloweenjack]

I totally get that. Miller didn't have to go from this to DK2, ASBAR and Holy Terror,Batman!, but you can see it as the first step onto that path. It doesn't age well; it's basically a series of Iconic Poses (like the one at the top), over a bunch of bits that, while intermittently funny and/or clever (I'm thinking of Bruce being sore all over the morning after crimefighting for the first time in years), aren't quite as clever as Miller seems to think they are, strapped onto your basic 70s Death Wish/Dirty Harry exploitation plot.

[icon_uk]

I enjoyed it as an isolated "Elseworlds tale of the future" sort of a thing, but was more annoyed when it seemed to hang around and influence the actual present day stories..

[citygod]

Totally agree. i read it - and loved it - when it was published, and never thought it was canon. Very disappointed when the "real" character started to line-up with DKR.

[filthysize]

I'm the opposite. I think it's a pretty incredible piece of work but I really kind of dislike its impact on Batman.

[obsidianwolf]

I was referring more to the comic industry in general. I agree its impact on Batman has been terrible.

[burkeonthesly]

Batman opens a door all spooky-like to distract some criminals? Sure, I believe that. He comes through a wall, where they least expect it? Sounds like classic Batman to me. He turns a machine gun on a punk who's holding a kid hostage? Nope, sorry, you lost me.

[halloweenjack]

I'm reminded of the bit from later in the book where he takes away the kid's shotgun. I guess he should have said, "This is the enemy's weapon and we don't use it--unless it's, you know, really convenient." Plus, holding an M60 like it's a pistol? Please.

[pwiggins]

I'm reminded of the bit from later in the book where he takes away the kid's shotgun. I guess he should have said, "This is the enemy's weapon and we don't use it--unless it's, you know, really convenient."

Heh.

Plus, holding an M60 like it's a pistol? Please.

Well, TDKR Batman is friggin' HUGE. Seriously, he's a craggy mountain of muscle. His hands must be the size of dustbin lids. A normal pistol would look like a child's toy in his hand, and given the sheer amount of raw strength he would need to break the Joker's neck whilst being STABBED REPEATEDLY IN THE STOMACH at the same time, on top of the earlier gutshot he'd taken, I'd imagine he could ignore recoil far more than you or I could, but then I have no idea what the recoil of a M60 is, so it could be just a case of creative licence that we're meant to ignore.

[halloweenjack]

I totally get that it's comic books and it requires a heavy suspension of disbelief WRT not only superpowers but also mundane physics and biology. (Not too long ago, someone published an analysis of the physical stress put on Batman's body and concluded that he'd be totally and permanently disabled within a couple of years; no matter how much you train, there are hard limits to the damage and stress that flesh can take.) It was just a reflection on how a lot of TDKR is just aping action movie cliches, in this case the Rambo movies pretending that Stallone could fire an M60 as if it were an M16 because he's really swole.

[pwiggins]

Fair enough. On that note, the point could also be made that after the injuries Batman took in the Joker fight, plus his escape from the GCPD, there's no way he would've been out of bed riding around Gotham on horseback mere days afterward, or taking on Superman, even if Superman was weakened after taking a nuke to the face and even if Bruce was in power armour. Going even further, it kind of strains credulity that if Bruce had power armour that he wouldn't break it out more often (as we saw in Batman Beyond, in that universe he even went to the point of creating the Batsuit that Terry McGinnis later wore and used it exclusively in his later years, and even THAT couldn't compensate for decades of accumulative damage that eventually led to a heart attack in the middle of a hostage rescue). If we really wanted to deconstruct Batman to be more "down-to-Earth", he might use a "Batman Beyond"-type suit or something like the "Iron Man"-type armour he uses in TDKR or the suit he breaks out in "Batman vs Predator" rather than the Batsuits he wears now, even if it's established that they are armour rather than the spandex he was wearing up until the 80's or thereabouts; also he would probably do his best to AVOID fights as much as possible as compared to the action-scene requirements of superhero comics, particularly with multiple/armed opponents and superhumans - although of course he'd still be well-versed in hand-to-hand combat and athletics just in case (similar to Tim Burton's Batman, who relied more heavily on gadgets and who, although highly athletic and a solid and dangerous fighter certainly wasn't anywhere near the levels that "Bat-God" is portrayed as being at) . But, as you quite rightly say, it's all about suspension of disbelief. I hope you don't mind me waffling like this but part of the fun of being on this board is bouncing ideas off each other. :)

Not too long ago, someone published an analysis of the physical stress put on Batman's body and concluded that he'd be totally and permanently disabled within a couple of years; no matter how much you train, there are hard limits to the damage and stress that flesh can take.

So he'd have ended up like Kingdom Come Batman before he even hit 30, let alone 60? Ouch, man. BTW, you wouldn't have a link to that particular article, would you? I'd be interested to read it.

[halloweenjack]

Yeppers!

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/12/04/bumps-and-bruises-from-bruce-to-batman-and-beyond/

[pwiggins]

Danke, danke! :-)

[aravis]

Though remember, this was before Batman was retconned into 1) hating guns and 2) being completely against killing. To many it might be hard to grasp, but these are *very* late changes to Batman as a character. When Dark Knight Returns was published, they were not yet in place, especially not the "no guns" thing. That's a retcon from the 90s.

Though yeah, I really don't like this comic for a variety of reasons. The maybe biggest one is that Miller does not get Superman. At all. Which he showed more and more in everything he did after. Dark Knight Strikes Again... ASBAR... Hate those.

[icon_uk]

Ummm, not even remotely the case. Batman's dislike of guns goes back to the Golden Age, and there's even a 1940's story where he almost breaks the fourth wall to explain why he's going to let Robin beat up a bunch of gun weidling thugs because "guns are the weapons of a coward".

[aravis]

Hmmm. I've seen Silver Age stories with Batman using guns, but I admit I don't know as much about Batman in the Golden Age. The idea that Batman can kill (using guns) is even a plot point in at least one Superman/Batman team up. Superman can't kill, simple as that, Batman can, and I've seen several Silver Age stories with Batman wielding a gun.

But Yeah, I don't know as much about Golden Age Batman as Silver Age+ (even then, my main area of knowledge is the Super side of DC). So I am willing to concede that Batman using guns might've been taboo in the golden age. I did not know that. Though the "no killing" was never as strong with Batman as with Superman, from everything I've seen. But as I said, I am not as knowledgable about Golden Age Batman as I am with Superman overall.

If the "no guns" thing is a return to the Golden Age, that's pretty interesting to me. Do you know which issues etc? I always want to increase my DC knowledge. I just assumed that Golden Age Batman would've been even "tougher" than Silver/Bronze age with regards to violence/guns (with regards to using them).

[icon_uk]

Hmmm. I've seen Silver Age stories with Batman using guns

Have you? I can't think of one to be honest, but I'm prepared to be corrected on that one if you can remember the issue.

Batman being viewed as someone who was able to kill is also not something I'm familiar with. Batman's devotion to preserving life is pretty much an absolute, aside from the odd instance of faking it to con a villain, or mind control.

I concede that Batman did carry a gun in his very very first appearances, but that lasted less than a year and vanished as soon as Robin joined him, and was later retconned as being something ONLY the Earth-2 Batman had done, Earth-1 Batman never carried a gun.

[obsidianwolf]

I can't think of any either though I was always more of a silver age flash fan.

The only story with Batman carrying a gun that I remember in detail is Year two which IMO is vastly underrated and is probably the best of the Four Year stories.

[zapbiffpow]

Well, Batman did use guns several times. Here are all the stories where Batman uses firearms:

http://sacomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/batman-and-guns.html

The way I see it, he and his clan are wicked proficient at guns, and are willing to fire them under these non-sequential guidelines...

1) ...if all possible options have been exhausted;
2) ...only if the aim is to incapacitate, not kill.
3) ...if there is sufficient knowledge that the person will survive the direct/indirect results of the shooting.
3) ...but not without extreme psychological stress.

Of course, the "varying writer, varying opinion" clause is in effect, and respected for each of those guidelines. Also, about Silver Age: check Batman 97 on that blog post.

The exception to these guidelines is of course, Red Hood, who follows a different set of rulings. I...I don't even know where to begin with him.

[starwolf_oakley]

Batman's "I don't like guns" thing can get weird from time to time. Commissioner Gordon carries a gun. When Dick Grayson was going to join the Bludhaven police, Bruce noted "You'll have to carry a gun."

[skemono]

If the "no guns" thing is a return to the Golden Age, that's pretty interesting to me. Do you know which issues etc?

According to Chris Sims:

By 1940's Batman #4, in a story by co-creators Bill Finger and Bob Kane — which is about as definitive as you can get — Batman reminds Robin that "we never kill with weapons of any kind."

[starwolf_oakley]

BATMAN #1 had that in the "Cat" story. Batman broke the 4th Wall in the story to say "Criminals are cowards without their guns."

[pwiggins]

Though remember, this was before Batman was retconned into 1) hating guns and 2) being completely against killing. To many it might be hard to grasp, but these are *very* late changes to Batman as a character. When Dark Knight Returns was published, they were not yet in place, especially not the "no guns" thing. That's a retcon from the 90s.

Well, considering the majority of us on here grew up in the 80's/90's, then yes it is is hard to grasp that these haven't always been a part of the character.

Miller does not get Superman. At all.

As we see in his interior narratives in TDKR, Clark is portrayed as being worn down and tired inside as Bruce -- he's just as chronologically old as Bruce, and in that time has likely seen a great deal of evil and horror, has lost many friends and allies to death or simply drifting apart, and witnessed the society he sought to protect and uphold turn on him and the other heroes despite everything they've done to safeguard the world. He outright SAYS he doesn't like the compromise he made with the US govt but that he feels it's the only way to keep doing SOME good, even though it's clearly something that gnaws at him. As much as people point to the Batman-Superman fight as an example of "Batman can beat Superman with both hands tied with prep time", they conveniently ignore that even though Clark was severely weakened, he would still be MORE than able to nip into Gotham and rip Bruce's head off his shoulders before anybody registered it, and that he clearly DIDN'T want to fight Bruce or even have to arrest him. He was holding back the whole fight even when Batman inflicted enough pain on him to make him angry, which is why the fight even lasted long enough for Green Arrow to shoot that Kryptonite arrow at him (another point -- Batman needed SOMEONE ELSE'S help as an integral part of the plan). He's still portrayed as heroic -- he goes out to intercept the Soviet nuke in the knowledge of how many people will die if he doesn't stop it, strains himself past breaking point to redirect it, and very nearly pays with his life when it does go off. I get that Superman is supposed to be (as I understand it) the representation of what humanity aspires to be like at its best, but I find the TDKR version to be pretty compelling, whether or not Miller intended him to be, and find myself sympathising with how he's come to where he is and his rationalizing and attempts to justify his choices to himself and to Batman. I liked the DCAU version of Supes for the same reason -- he was far less than perfect and became noticeably more jaded and even close to arrogant in his conviction that he knew best as time went on, but he came to realise his mistakes and learn from them. I agree with you on ASBAR and DKSA for sure, though -- those are utterly terrible.

[pwiggins]

Yeah, that bit always seemed weird to me, especially since the art makes it unclear whether or nor not the mutant is supposed to be dead, and the shooting is never referred to again, either in Bruce's monologues or the "talking heads" segments, when you'd expect it to be a HUGE deal. At least in the cartoon adaptation they clearly showed it as Batman non-lethally shooting the female mutant's weapon out of her hand. However, what you may not have taken into account is that Batman (certainly TDKR Batman) is perfectly willing to viciously wound opponents, either with his bare hands or whatever weapons he has to hand. During TDKR he often viciously injures and maims people using just Batarangs (using by throwing multiple Batarangs into their hand/arms, or in the Joker's case, their freakin' EYE), or by using precisely applied brute force to incapacitate someone (like what he does to the Mutant Leader and the Joker). A large part of what makes Batman scary (at least in some interpretations and certainly in TDKR) is that he can and WILL inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage the human body can take on you with a combination of brute force and surgical precision ("You don't get it boy...this isn't a mudhole... it's an operating table... and I'M THE SURGEON") and leave you so physically (and in many cases, psychologically) broken that you might WISH for death -- and then let you live with the aftereffects, arguably a much crueler fate than outright killing you. I'd expect there are any number of unlucky petty criminals who've being traumatised for life or even committed/attempted suicide after being taking a particularly vicious mauling from Batman and being unable to cope from the trauma -- or the fear that he might come back for another round.

[althechi]

I have always interpreted it as Batman shooting the wall next to the Mutant's head, even from the first time I read it.

Although I can see why it might be ambiguous, as it's over in a single panel, and it's not too clear what happened in it.

[shadowpsykie]

i actually kinda loved this story... don't know why Selina had to become Madam (and be beaten)

but i loved Carrie. Bruce was.... i liked that he was this old Soldier (i like that they kinda took the good parts of this for Old Man Bruce in BB) and i actually kinda had some sympathy for him...


but this is an old Bruce that never really became friends with other Heroes (yeah he became allies with GA, MM, and a couple of others... but other than that... they were assets.)

DKSB... NO NO NO i HATED that.... HATED.... don't even get me started on THE GODDAMNED BATMAN.... and Alfreds Diaper.... asjhdkljflkih;

[night4345]

don't know why Selina had to become Madam (and be beaten
Because it's Frank Miller.

[shadowpsykie]

ah yes, foolish me... lol

[pwiggins]

w... wh... WH... WHORESWHORESWHORESWHORES --

[silverhammerman]

I always found the death(?) of the thug here to be weird in that it gets glossed over so quickly, that I've honestly never been entirely sure that they're supposed to be dead. And looking at the death of the Joker and the Superman versus Batman fight, it's clear that Miller had some strong opinions on how Batman is supposed to work, but this one incident just gets forgotten by the rest of the story.

[althechi]

As I said in response to another commenter, I've always interpreted it as Batman shooting the wall next to her head and her collapsing due to sheer fright or the shockwave of a high-caliber bullet.

[starwolf_oakley]

Dr. Wolper looks like F. Murray Abraham. Agree or disagree?

[zapbiffpow]

Agree. Afro F. Murray Abraham.

I can't believe I missed this gem.

[alicemacher]

I think DKR still holds up as a "possible future" Batman story. Miller's writing was at its peak here. Batman's inner monologues have a compelling rhythm and even poetry to them. The characterization of Carrie, Alfred and Jim stand out as particularly well crafted, and I liked the original spin on Dent's tragic condition. Although Miller's artwork has never been my favourite, he does throughout this story show a tight command of layout and pacing.

That said, I agree with those who see in this book some seeds of Miller's later downfall as a writer (of Batman and otherwise). The distortion of any political position left of centre is already rampant: Dr. Wolper representing psychiatrists who "coddle" and "excuse" criminals; the interviewee on the street who condemns Batman's methods but then admits "No, I'd never live in the city"--that sort of thing.

And while Superman does get a more rounded characterization than he would in DKSA and ASBaR, to this day I still find that panel of Batman face-kicking Superman, with an expression of vindictive glee on his face ("I want you to remember, Clark"), just...wrong. Portraying Bruce and Clark as contrasting, even clashing personalities and crimefighterers, fine. Having Bruce take bloodthirsty joy in kicking Clark's ass--no. That's not what the Batman mythos is all about.

[jaxjyls]

anyone else find this incredibly overrated and outdated?

[lego_joker]

That seems to be the majority opinion now, to be honest.

I'll give Miller this: the content might be ugly, but the structure is still some of the finest I've seen. Repugnant as the politics are, the layout and pacing are amazing. There's never a single dull moment in this thing - even all the talking-heads exposition feels organic.

And hell, Miller practically INVENTED Jim Gordon's and Alfred's modern characterizations in this comic. That's got to count for something.