Batman-Online.com

Saw there wasn't a thread for this and thought I'd open one.

I don't always agree with self-proclaimed "Batmanologist" Chris Sims of Comics Alliance, but I thought this article was quite insightful on how The Dark Knight Returns is meant to serve as a "darker future" of the 1960s Adam West-type Batman, whose new, brutal tactics contrast his past, lighter days:
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/07/23/ask-chris-114-the-dark-knight-returns/

QuoteYear One and The Dark Knight Returns are bookends, but not to each other. They're in the other order: DKR is the ending of everything that came before it, and Year One is the start of something new, the version of Batman that we have today.

It's almost exactly the same setup that you get from Alan Moore and Curt Swan's Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow clearing away the Silver Age so that John Byrne can start fresh with Man of Steel, except that Miller orchestrated it all himself. The publication dates even match up, with DKR being released first, kicking off during Crisis in early 1986, with Year One debuting in Batman the following year. That's part of the key to really understanding DKR.

To me, this makes a lot of sense, especially if you put it together with the timeline presented in the comic:
1940: Bruce is 8 years old when his parents are killed (according to the last volume, he was 6 when he fell into the cave and his parents died "two years later).  Tyrone Power's The Mark of Zorro, which was released in 1940, is specified as the version the Waynes saw before their deaths.  Now this could've just been a theater screening a classic movie, but let's keep going and you'll see how this matches up.

1941: Jim Gordon is implied to be a WWII veteran, when talking about Pearl Harbor, which happened in 1941.  Let's say Jim is in his thirties at the time.

1957-1977: Bruce Wayne starts actively fighting crime as the Batman in his mid-twenties and we're in the Pre-Crisis era.  Gordon is the police commissioner.  Batman and the Dick Grayson Robin fight off the classic villains- Joker, Catwoman, and Two-Face.  Batman joins the Justice League, with Superman and Green Arrow.  Dick Grayson later becomes Nightwing and Jason Todd takes over the mantle of Robin.

1977-1980s: Jason Todd is killed.  The government outlaws superheroes and puts Superman in their employ.  Bruce hangs up the cowl as Batman, feeling responsible over Jason's death.  Green Arrow attempts to keep fighting, prompting the government to send Superman after him and Oliver loses his arm.

1987: Bruce is now 55, as specified in TDKR.  Gordon's in his seventies.  Ronald Reagan is President.  We're in the Cold War.  The Dark Knight Returns happens.

There's also a couple of things that make sense in this context:

- Miller illustrates Bruce Wayne as huge and barrel-chested.  While the first splash page of Batman (in the blue and gray) is reminiscent of Neal Adams, I personally think he looks like an aged, darker version of the Dick Sprang Batman for the rest of the story, particularly in the later volumes when Batman emerges from the Batmobile to fight the Mutant Leader, etc.  Frank Miller even lists Dick Sprang among the creators in his acknowledgements section at the end (at least in the Tenth Anniversary edition).

- Look closely at the phone that Alfred picks up in the "Wayne Infirmary."  It's the red Bat-Phone from the 1960s show.

Of course, this would later get contradicted by Miller's later work, with All-Star Batman and Robin, but...let's not get into that.

The theory about the TDK Batman following on from the Pre-Crisis version – specifically the Earth-One Batman from the Silver and Bronze Ages – seems fairly sound to me. It couldn't be the Golden Age Batman, because we already know what happened to him: he got married, had a daughter, was widowed, became DA, became police commissioner, got cancer, and finally got killed at the age of 64. And it wouldn't really work as the Modern Age Batman either because far too many things have happened since TDK was published that aren't referenced in the book (Damian Wayne, Tim Drake, etc). But it could work as a hypothetical continuation of the Earth-One Batman. A kind of 'what if Crisis on Infinite Earths had never happened?' scenario.

QuoteOf course, this would later get contradicted by Miller's later work, with All-Star Batman and Robin, but...let's not get into that.

I've never bought into Miller's assertion that all his Batman stories take place in the same universe. That would mean acknowledging The Dark Knight Strikes Again as part of the canon. And who wants to do that?

Indeed.  The Earth-Two Batman had his send-off, so I see TDKR as the Earth-One Batman's send-off.  Heck, you could even say that the Jason Todd who died in TDKR continuity was the red-haired acrobat whose parents were killed by Killer Croc.

Not only does it make sense to think of it this way in the context of its publication (the Earth-One Batman WAS Batman for most of the years leading up to TDKR), but I also find the story far more dramatic this way, too.  Batman's brutal tactics are more shocking if you think of his younger self as the Adam West Batman of the 60s.  His big fight with Superman has a ton more impact if you think of their younger selves as the ones from Superfriends.  If Batman's this brutal from his first night out and his relationship with Superman has been this contemptuous since their first meeting, then this is a rather boring way to end things.

Not to mention, it just wouldn't make sense in the timeline.  If the Modern Era and/or New52 Batman is leading up to TDKR, then does that mean we're going to have ANOTHER Cold War with the Soviets (and a Reagan lookalike as President) in the future?

And while it's true that there are connections between Year One and TDKR, with Sarah Essen, Merkel, Bruce only pretending to drink while putting on his act for Gordon, etc., I agree with Sims that Year One is not meant to be a prequel to the other.

If it was, this would mean that Year One is set in 1957!  (Bruce is eight years old when seeing The Mark of Zorro (1940) and twenty-five when he returns to Gotham.)  From the East End sequence alone, I doubt this is true.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 28 Apr  2013, 23:11Indeed.  The Earth-Two Batman had his send-off, so I see TDKR as the Earth-One Batman's send-off.  Heck, you could even say that the Jason Todd who died in TDKR continuity was the red-haired acrobat whose parents were killed by Killer Croc.

That's more logical as the Post-Crisis Jason couldn't be said to have been a good soldier (he probably killed a man) or honored Bruce (nonstop back-talk).

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 28 Apr  2013, 23:11Not only does it make sense to think of it this way in the context of its publication (the Earth-One Batman WAS Batman for most of the years leading up to TDKR), but I also find the story far more dramatic this way, too.  Batman's brutal tactics are more shocking if you think of his younger self as the Adam West Batman of the 60s.  His big fight with Superman has a ton more impact if you think of their younger selves as the ones from Superfriends.  If Batman's this brutal from his first night out and his relationship with Superman has been this contemptuous since their first meeting, then this is a rather boring way to end things.

Here here.

QuoteThat's more logical as the Post-Crisis Jason couldn't be said to have been a good soldier (he probably killed a man) or honored Bruce (nonstop back-talk).

Fantastic point and even more proof to the argument.

I think a lot of people forget the fact that The Dark Knight Returns was written and published a year before Year One and two years before A Death in the Family.  The Diplomat's Son story that you referred to was published two years after TDKR as well.  I can see how readers these days can get confused without looking at the publication dates since Miller carried over TDKR's aspects into Year One and eerily predicted the death of Jason Todd years before DC did it.  But to me, it's very clearly an ending to the Silver Age/Bronze Age Batman.

And yet, we constantly see writers trying to line up the current continuity to it, whether it's bringing The Mutants in or, more recently, incorporating the Carrie Kelley Robin.  (Understandably, the Robin costume in the glass case was too good a visual to pass up when it came to Jason's death in Post-Crisis)  We also see writers, including Miller himself, trying to duplicate moments under different contexts, most notably the Batman vs. Superman fight. 

But these aspects just don't have the same impact that they did in this comic. 

For example, the whole point of the Mutants was to see the type of criminal who'd rise up and thrive when Batman wasn't around.  They also serve as a contrast to the more harmless Silver Age/William Dozier-style villains that Batman was fighting in his prime.  So having them actually show up during Bruce's career, and in our already-violent Modern Era, completely misses the point, in my opinion.  In this new context, they're just another gang.

In another example, Carrie Kelley Robin was a Batman fan who became Robin.  She didn't need to become an orphan in order to don a costume.  She wanted to make a difference and help out The Dark Knight, who was mourning over the loss of the past Robin. 

If that description sounds familiar, it's because this all got incorporated into Tim Drake in A Lonely Place of Dying in 1989.  I know that Tim's origin has changed in the New 52, but still, bringing Carrie in now feels repetitive to me.

And then, there's the Batman vs. Superman fight.  These days, it seems like Batman fighting Superman happens all the time.  It usually starts when Superman gets possessed or corrupted by the real villain and the fight just comes across as trying to show how much "cooler and smarter" Bruce is over Clark.  Sure, there's an element of this in the original comic, but there's also a level of tragedy to Miller's version that you don't feel in the other fights. 

In TDKR, Superman goes into the fight with a clear conscience.  He's not possessed or under a villain's control.  These are two friends having to fight to the death due to their opposing views on authority.

That's a ton more emotional and meaningful to me than, say, Hush where Batman punches a Poison Ivy-possessed Superman with a Kryptonite ring.  Or, worse, The Dark Knight Strikes Again that spends pages and pages of Batman and other DC superheroes beating on Clark and calling him an idiot.

Hey, from your mouth to God's ear. Elevating/praising a character shouldn't require editorially lambasting another one. Like, back in the 90's after Ollie died and DC was trying like hell to convince us Connor Hawke was Green Arrow, they put him up against Lady Shiva and he either won the fight or else fought her to a standstill or something... not because it made any motherfvcking sense and not because anybody should be able to survive a fight with her but because they have set up Hawke's badass cred. You could argue that if it ever truly came down to it, Shiva could probably take Batman himself out... so I'm supposed to believe this little upstart would last two minutes with her? Please. If you need to establish how tough someone is, throw him against King Snake. He's tough stuff but still gets beat around fairly regularly. You could make it work, Mr. Hack Writer.

Or here's another one, turning Darkseid into a brawler (rather than the conspirator and shadow operator he'd always been) so that any jerk looking to make a name for himself can beat the snot out of Darkseid to show how tough they are (because I guess Mongul has something better to do). Oy, I've got a million of 'em.

Anyway. Batman is a cool character. He shouldn't need to beat up on Superman every other month to prove that. I realize the biz is different these days but if I was the Superman editor and some punk from the Batman office told me he wanted a Superman guest appearance so that Batman can beat the hell out of him yet again, I'd tell him to go piss up a rope... and if he felt all bothered about that, he can meet me and my broken beer bottle in the parking lot after work.

I get the appeal. The height of human potential vs the height of alien power. But the 'Batman beats Superman' thing has become a cliche. An overused one. And I'm over it. Batman and Superman have differing views - sure. But these can definitely be exaggerated. Superman isn't entirely this dumb, reactive and unsubtle bowling ball do-gooder. Which makes me dislike Superman more than I should, because those things aren't exactly attractive to me.

I'm not saying it's time Superman handed out a flogging that leaves Batman on life support. I'd just rather they not go there. Call me whatever you want, but the two are heroes (well, Batman is a crimefighter) and I prefer to see them interact as such. An uneasy alliance that manages to work when the time comes. The fights are gimmicks and fan service. They're not proof one is better than the other. A writer can plot any story he wants to.

Here's an excellent post somebody else wrote on another message board. This basically sums up my views on the matter.

QuoteWhen people say: "Batman can kick Superman's ass" they really mean one of three things:

1. I like Batman more and think he can do anything.
2. I think Batman can win a one-sided battle where he's prepared and Superman isn't; and I've read comics like that.
3. I think Batman can beat Superman under specific circumstances, but all things being equal, Superman will almost always win.

With Case 1, there's no arguing with them. With Case 3, I think the individual is reasonable enough and there's no need to force them to say Superman will ALWAYS win unless we're suffering from a bit of Case 1 ourselves, but with a Superman bent. I think a mixture of Case 2 and a little bit of 1 is the predominant viewpoint of people who say it.

The thing is, they typically don't acknowledge the inequality in preparation or technology... it's almost always a contrived circumstance to bring about a Bat-victory by the skin of Bruce's teeth. Even if they do, they put their faith in Batman's preparation and planning (and sometimes technology) to rule the day. The following addresses that (reposted):

Despite the incredibly presistant and wide-spread belief that Batman has a dozen plans up his sleeve to take out Superman, historically it's been proven otherwise again and again. Let's take some examples:

DKR - Bats, after 20 years of planning, gets his ribs broke, his fancy suit torn to shreds, suffers a heart attack, and ends up in the ground. His entire plan relies on Superman holding back and NOT simply unplugging Bruce from his lamp-post or disabling him from space (if Supes really just wanted Bruce to turn himself in, rather than getting into a dangerous fist fight)... in other words, poor writing for Supes (out of character motivation, out of character intellect/tactics), who could have undid the Bat's plan easily.

Hush - Bats breaks his hand & resorts to thug-level hostage tactics, while admiting he doesn't stand a chance. Honestly, he just gets in one good punch (that breaks his hand) shortly after, Supes smashes through the street and effortlessly lifts a car in each hand, no worse for wear. His plan needlessly puts himself at risk and relied entirely on Clark holding back/being good, which he had no logical grounds on which the make that assumption... having a "gut feeling" that Clark can resist mind control does not constitute a good plan.

Red Son - Dies. Despite all his prep, he didn't account for Superman's allies, which he has in spades and certainly on a different power-level than- say- the Bat Family. If anything is true of Supes, it's that he has many friends that would readily risk life and limb for his sake- heck, in the regular universe, Batman considers himself one of that number... any plan meant to take Supes out has to take into account his allies, friends, family, robots, pets, etc.

Babel - Years of planning on how to stop a rogue Superman... result: an expensive synthetic rock that makes Superman MORE powerful (and doesn't even prevent him from using his powers with surgical precision). Wow. Brilliant.

Superman/Batman #2 - Owned. This is in Batman's home turf, the ideal situation to combat Superman and to enact all the theoretical plans his fans have long believed he has against a rogue Superman... but the result? Bruce isn't even Future Supes's target yet he's a breath away from death if not for a save from present-day Supes.

Lex Luthor:Man of Steel - Batman with kryptonite and prep, defeated handily by Superman. Arguably one of the most realistic portrayals of how Supes could still defeat Batman without instantly killing him regardless of Bat-prep.

Superman: King of The World - Batman with prep and kryptonite fails to stop Superman from being able to crush his throat... only with the intervention of Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter is Supes stopped. Here we see danger of Superman with limited prep, the legions of his similarly powered Superman robots.

Sacrifice - Again, Batman, king of protocols, the man entrusted with the Kryptonite ring as a symbol of trust and the express responsibility of stopping Superman should he go rogue by Superman himself... finds himself in said situation and instead of pulling out "always prepared anti-Supes plan" finds himself beaten to near death saved only by the Plot Gods.

Infinite Crisis - After the last beating, you'd think Batman would create more comprehensive plans for taking out Superman and/or Superman-class enemies. Granted Kal-L is probably levels above them, but in terms of Anti-SuperBrick Planning, once again, Bruce fails... his entire defense the Kryptonite ring. Even if it were Kal-El and not Kal-L, it's highly questionable whether the ring alone would have been able to stop a motivated rogue Superman considering Supes has wielded the ring himself when fighting other Super-persons. If Batman were truly the master of planning and prep, this certainly should have been taken into consideration.

Final score: Bat Plans Zip; Supes nine of nine.

The only cases where Batman has been able to possibly get a leg up on Supes are when he has acted like a villain and held hostages or lead an assault against an unsuspecting Supes- hardly a feat (consider: who amongst us, with Batman's fortune and training, intimate knowledge of Superman as an ally, and even express consent from said target, WOULDN'T be able to come up with an attack plan against an unsuspecting Supes?). In any case where Supes has had the opportunity to fight back he has either won or been defeated by bad writing.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?135727-The-end-of-the-quot-Batman-could-beat-Superman-quot-debate


Gotta love the blood on Superman's fist in the lower picture there ^.

Let's face it, Batman wouldn't beat Superman. Superman is literally Superman and beats practically everyone and everything. And really, the fact Batman wouldn't is part of the appeal. Batman is human and defeating a God isn't easy. It's impossible.

He is constantly trying to find a way, but it keeps coming back to Kryptonite. If Batman is the last stand against a rogue Superman, really, there aren't many options apart from that. And I'm sure it troubles an already dark, strategic mind.

Knowing Batman would lose, but when the time comes, he simply has to win, is quite thrilling. Like the last scene of Dead End, with those Predators lining up to take on a wounded Batman.

This God ruling the skies, and this low level grit avenger clinging to the shadows, surviving, and hoping to take him down one day.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 30 Apr  2013, 01:37
Knowing Batman would lose, but when the time comes, he simply has to win, is quite thrilling. Like the last scene of Dead End, with those Predators lining up to take on a wounded Batman.

Oh man i loved that fan film it was well made & just awesome.  :D

A quote which probably goes through Batman's mind regarding any future Super problem:

"We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations." –Charles R. Swindoll.

That poster from Comic Book Resources has a lot of great points, Silver Nemesis, and it just goes to show how overused the trope's become since TDKR, not to mention that I think both The Batman and The Brave and the Bold shows did the same thing.  (I also noticed that the poster didn't even bother with the TDKSA one where Batman had Kryptonite boxing gloves).

Moving on from the Batman/Superman fights, a couple other things:

- Was this series initially just titled "The Dark Knight" but then altered to The Dark Knight Returns when published in TPB form?  I've heard this mentioned before, but since the individual covers I've seen only have the titles of the volumes (i.e. The Dark Knight Falls), I haven't found evidence of this.  What do you guys remember?

- Jason Todd is mentioned to have been killed on duty, but it's not stated how.  Even though the Joker would do it years later in A Death in the Family, there's no confirmation of this in the story and you would think Batman would have brought it up in his internal monologue if Joker had been the culprit.  Still, I've heard rumors that Frank Miller did actually plan to have the Joker as the one who killed Jason.  Anyone know if this was true?

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 30 Apr  2013, 05:42That poster from Comic Book Resources has a lot of great points, Silver Nemesis, and it just goes to show how overused the trope's become since TDKR, not to mention that I think both The Batman and The Brave and the Bold shows did the same thing.  (I also noticed that the poster didn't even bother with the TDKSA one where Batman had Kryptonite boxing gloves).

I'd give TBATB a bit of a pass because it clearly sets up that Batman was on borrowed time and only Superman returning to his senses prevented Batman from taking a trip to the sun via the Kryptonian Express.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 30 Apr  2013, 05:42- Was this series initially just titled "The Dark Knight" but then altered to The Dark Knight Returns when published in TPB form?  I've heard this mentioned before, but since the individual covers I've seen only have the titles of the volumes (i.e. The Dark Knight Falls), I haven't found evidence of this.  What do you guys remember?

Wikipedia says it was originally titled "Batman: The Dark Knight". I've heard that from a few sources myself.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 30 Apr  2013, 05:42- Jason Todd is mentioned to have been killed on duty, but it's not stated how.  Even though the Joker would do it years later in A Death in the Family, there's no confirmation of this in the story and you would think Batman would have brought it up in his internal monologue if Joker had been the culprit.  Still, I've heard rumors that Frank Miller did actually plan to have the Joker as the one who killed Jason.  Anyone know if this was true?

Hadn't heard that but as a kid I always read it was the Joker who'd killed him... based exclusively on A Death in the Family and nothing else. These days, I like that it's ambiguous. You can believe that the Joker did it if you want or if you like the idea of an alternate history to go along with this alternate "future", it can be something else.

 

QuoteWikipedia says it was originally titled "Batman: The Dark Knight". I've heard that from a few sources myself.

That's what I've heard. The Dark Knight Returns was only the title of the first book. But all four books had the phrase The Dark Knight in their titles, so that was used to refer to the series as a whole.

Here's a moderately interesting titbit some people might not be aware of: Carrie Kelly was allegedly inspired by Jill St John's character, Molly, from the sixties TV show episodes 'Hi Diddle Riddle' and 'Smack in the Middle'. Molly was the Riddler's moll. She disguised herself as Robin to infiltrate the Batcave.


She was notable for being one of the few characters to actually die in the sixties TV show. The poor deluded girl... :(

There's an oft overlooked Easter egg in the first issue of this book where one of the criminals mentions someone called Turk who claims to have killed Batman.


Long time Frank Miller fans will know Turk as a lowlife crook and sometime-informant from the Daredevil comics. He appeared frequently throughout Miller and Janson's run in the early eighties and has been known to make similar BS claims about having taken out Daredevil. Note the Batman 89 reference in the following example (from Kevin Smith's Daredevil Vol 2 #6).

Interesting. I didn't know that.

TDK Returns is basically my Batman bible.

I like it so much because:

Gotham is a hellhole with little hope.
Batman's age amplifies his wisdom and experience.
Batman is also more aggressive and talks smack like a boss.
Bruce really is a tortured loner with many years worth of mental burden.
The Batman persona never, ever leaves Bruce's psyche, regardless of age.
Age doesn't change the fact Bruce will always be a trauma effected child.
Bruce's obsession borders on the psychotic.
Batman may lose battles, but he always wins the war - eg. the mutant leader.
Batman and Joker are kindred spirits at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Batman doesn't need the Joker, but the Joker needs Batman.
Batman is an outsider and often fights the system despite his crusade for good.
Batman is equally inspirational as Superman to the masses but in a different way.
Under the right circumstances, Batman can achieve the impossible.
Batman always has a back up plan.

It just ticks a lot of boxes for me. I love the fact he's a pissed off Clint Eastwood type.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F2iawi84.jpg&hash=fcf345f21f4eba5d4b6ae8a5989f57f612e4e584)

My relationship with The Dark Knight Returns has been polarizing. I remember when I first read it, I really enjoyed the first half the story, but hating everything after Batman's triumph over the Mutant Leader. I used to believe Batman had become too dark to the point he had become a total jerk, specifically his treatment of Carrie and distaste for Superman.

But over the years I slowly reached a new found appreciation and a better understanding of Batman's journey. Batman was never mistreating Carrie, he served more a Drill Sargeant role to keep her mind focused, which makes sense because of the fact that crimefighting is a matter of life and death. As much as Gotham City needs a Batman, it needs Robin too. Batman's distaste for Superman wasn't born out of nothing, he was frustrated that Clark submitted to the US government and stood between Bruce and his style of maintaining order while Gotham City suffered a city wide blackout, which was indirectly caused by Superman. For all the complaints about Batman inspiring psychopaths, it was his brand of justice that kept the city safe. There are still a few things about TDKR I don't care for, the way Alfred dies, but all in all I've come to terms with the whole story with a greater appreciation. I should mention that the two-part animated film did wonders for my change of heart too.

Which makes it even more ironic that as I began to fully appreciate DKR, I see more and more people online criticising it nowadays, and as many did with The Killing Joke, a lot of them are calling it overrated too. It appears that so many people are suddenly tired of the bleak, hardened Batman. Why is that?

Yes, the story continued, and poorly, but I like the dramatic finality of TDK Returns.

I still think of it as a one-shot with monumental plot beats.

Most of the classic villains were replaced by the next generation.
Gordon finally retired as police commissioner.
Batman and Joker had their last ever confrontation.
Alfred died.
Wayne Manor and the batcave were destroyed.
Bruce was thought dead by the world.

I also love that TDK Returns is full of social commentary with the talking heads segments. Seeing this play out during the Day of the Dead montage in Dawn of Justice was great. It adds realism to fantastical scenarios in a way that I can enjoy.

In TDK Returns Batman is an alpha male who doesn't back down for anybody. He's willing to go into a mudhole just to prove a point and make a statement. During the mutant leader fight he took his cape off. This wasn't about looking cool or heroic. This was about making you respect and fear him, even though you hate him. In my opinion, that fight is everything the second Bane fight in TDK Rises should've been.

I first read TDK Returns as a young kid. I'm guessing as an eight year old. I literally walked into a comic store with my father and asked for this specific book because I'd heard it was a classic. I didn't know anything of its dark tone. I didn't really comprehend the book's greatness until I grew older.

I've always maintained there are two kinds of Batman fan: those who like the invincible/faultless incarnation who never loses, and those who like the more flawed human version who sometimes gets hurt and makes mistakes. I like the perfect/flawless version of Batman when it comes to comedic interpretations, but I prefer the more flawed, vulnerable incarnation for dark/serious interpretations.

TDKR is one of the best examples of the flawed Batman functioning in a serious context. This Batman retains strength, intellect and weaponry from his youth, but no longer has his speed, agility or stamina. Part of the appeal of this book for me is seeing how Bruce uses his strengths to compensate for his limitations. And at the end of the day, isn't that what Batman's all about: a flawed human with no superpowers who uses his skills and intellect to level the playing field against impossible odds?

TDKR always reminds me of those old movies Charles Bronson made in the seventies and eighties. Even when he was aged in his fifties and sixties, Bronson was still jacked and capable of dismantling young punks half his age. He had that same veteran badass quality as the TDKR Batman.


Death Wish III (1985) in particular always reminds me of TDKR. You've got the cult-like street gang with its psychotic leader terrorising the city. Then the aging vigilante returns to protect the innocent and punish the scum polluting the streets.


I can't help thinking Miller was inspired by films like this, as well as Eastwood's later Dirty Harry movies, when he wrote TDKR. Miller definitely cited Sudden Impact (1983) as an influence.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 18:29
I've always maintained there are two kinds of Batman fan: those who like the invincible/faultless incarnation who never loses, and those who like the more flawed human version who sometimes gets hurt and makes mistakes. I like the perfect/flawless version of Batman when it comes to comedic interpretations, but I prefer the more flawed, vulnerable incarnation for dark/serious interpretations.

Same. I do like both styles. It just depends on the mood I'm in at the particular time. BTAS/JL/Beyond is my number one animated Batman saga and probably always will be. But after that I have the Brave and the Bold in second place, no question. They captured the lighter portrayal of Batman how just I like it. He's the wise genius/know it all of the Adam West series. He's played straight and has sincerity. That's something I feel didn't click with Clooney's version. I felt like he was too smug and lacked presence. That's the thing with Batman - light or dark, he still needs to be believably portrayed. What Adam West did wasn't easy (he made it look easy) and I think people undersell his contribution at times.

Light or dark, I love this character.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 13:01Yes, the story continued, and poorly, but I like the dramatic finality of TDK Returns.

Au contraire, the story ended with TDKR. ;)

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 13:01Most of the classic villains were replaced by the next generation.
Gordon finally retired as police commissioner.

I'm not the first to suggest that "The future belongs to the Mutants" (and the gang's name itself) plus their occasional resemblance to Cyclops were shots across the bow at the X-Men. And at that time, the X-Men had to be hilariously outselling Batman. The idea of Batman firing back at them appeals to me.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 13:01Batman and Joker had their last ever confrontation.

TDKR is one reason why I think I'm good when it comes to Joker stories. It's hard to get much more personal than their conflict in TDKR. When you come right down to it, most Joker stories are forgettable. They mostly trade on past glories. TDKR is one of the few which break the mold in a way that doesn't go too far. It's just about how their relationship would logically end.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 13:01I also love that TDK Returns is full of social commentary with the talking heads segments. Seeing this play out during the Day of the Dead montage in Dawn of Justice was great. It adds realism to fantastical scenarios in a way that I can enjoy.

I like the commentary too. It's not as biting today as it was back then but it's still fairly true.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 13:01In TDK Returns Batman is an alpha male who doesn't back down for anybody. He's willing to go into a mudhole just to prove a point and make a statement.

Exactly that. But he's an aged alpha male. If he'd still been 30 years old, he would've brought down the Mutant leader in the dump. But Batman underestimated the leader and overestimated himself. It was a mistake that nearly cost him his life. But he learned from his mistake. What I enjoy about TDKR is that it didn't go overboard with depicting Batman as a fragile old man. But it did emphasize that his strongest, most ferocious days are well behind him so he has to find other ways to win. He can still beat wholesale ass but he's not the scrappy energetic prize-fighter that he used to be. I love that!

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 13:01In my opinion, that fight is everything the second Bane fight in TDK Rises should've been.

*sigh*

You are right, of course. The fights with the Mutant leader were so visceral. The reader hurts with Batman, he bleeds with Batman he suffers with Batman. The drama is real on the page... even if Miller's art leaves me cold.

That dig down deep element is missing from TDKRises. Batman got the snot beaten out of him so he did some a few pushups and then he  beat the snot out of Bane. No real stakes, no real visceral investment, no personal investment.

I think it would be fair to say that Nolan was more interested in Bruce's emotional journey than his physical struggles (and physical triumphs). And whatever, that's his prerogative. I'm just saying I wanted something from the Bane/Batman fights in TDKRises that I didn't get while the leader/Batman fights in TDKR gave it to me in spades, that's all.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 13:01I first read TDK Returns as a young kid. I'm guessing as an eight year old. I literally walked into a comic store with my father and asked for this specific book because I'd heard it was a classic. I didn't know anything of its dark tone. I didn't really comprehend the book's greatness until I grew older.

My mom bought me the leatherbound Complete Frank Miller Batman (because back then all of Miller's Batman work could fit inside one volume) and TDKR was mesmerizing.

I didn't like the art, even back then. But the journey Batman undergoes in TDKR is remarkable. I understand that core Batman fans might be a little sick of TDKR's rep. And I can't argue against that. But TDKR was part of how I was introduced to Batman (along with Adam West, B89 and The Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told). And it taught me that while there's room for everything, there's a lot to be said for Batman as a hard-boiled figure in gritty, more crime fiction'ish types of stories.

Superman is at his best when he triumphs. It's not just about winning a fight. Superman also needs to win the argument.

With Batman though, you can get a lot of mojo out of the concept of him getting beaten down and then coming back victorious. Batman's victories resonate for me when he triumphs through sheer force of will. And that's what happens in TDKR.

And even if the art bugs the hell out of me, that's why I'll always hold TDKR in high esteem.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 23 Mar  2017, 22:04
I like the commentary too.

I love the whole theme that Batman fights back against a world that is overrun with crime with people suffering in silence. Things get so bad that Batman simply has no choice but to emerge and make people feel empowered again. He gives people a voice. We have the likes of Doctor Wolper who say Batman is a fascist and the rights of criminals who rape and murder need to be considered. We have the likes of the Mayor of Gotham who denounce Batman and say he needs to stop his one man crusade. The types of people who support the criminal's rights but openly admit they'd never live in the city.

The know it all Mayor tries to negotiate with the Mutant Leader and instead becomes a corpse. Batman's way was the only way for the problem Gotham faced and that was confirmed time and time again (Gotham became the safest City in the United States), yet the opposition to Batman from these types of people remained. Batman simply ignored all the noise from the TV personalities, The Council of Mothers (Batman went on to save a two year old), The Victims Rights Task Force and countless other petitions....and simply did what needed to be done.

Those elements with Wolper, "fascism" and all that is one of the more intriguing parts of the book and it's shocking that Miller didn't take more flak for that.

Caveat: "Fascism" means everything now... which basically is saying it means nothing.

But if we abide by the strictest definition of what "fascism" is (eg, a strong central authority acting to protect and guide society by whatever means are necessary) then I guess Batman qualifies as a "fascist" -- although he's arguably also a "libertarian" as well but I digress.

Batman is the only effectual authority in the whole city. Batman. A fascist.

Wolper complicates the issue in that a lot of the stuff he says ends up coming to pass. That passage where he compares the social consciousness to a "moist membrane" is what I mean. "Crime is shrinking... but there will be blowback from Batman's actions." Well, Batman came back and crime dropped off... but then the Joker came back and murdered hundreds of people.

Wolper was a celebrity-obsessed media whore and blowhard. We're not meant to like or sympathize with him. But still, what was he wrong about? It looks like Batman really was exacerbating the problem. In the end, the reader can't help but conclude that Reagan, Superman and the Army should've acted to put the Mutants down to prevent Batman from coming back and turning a problem into a full blown crisis.

Considering how often Reagan was called a "fascist' in his own day, it again raises the question of if Miller is condemning fascism (oooh, what a brave stance to take!) or if he's actually championing it (which would, in fact, take a lot of balls).

Separately, I never realized it but I'd always "heard" a voice like McKean's when I read Wolper in TDKR. That was pitch-perfect casting. His voice, his phrasing of the lines, seriously I wouldn't change a thing.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 Mar  2017, 23:45
Wolper complicates the issue in that a lot of the stuff he says ends up coming to pass. That passage where he compares the social consciousness to a "moist membrane" is what I mean. "Crime is shrinking... but there will be blowback from Batman's actions." Well, Batman came back and crime dropped off... but then the Joker came back and murdered hundreds of people.

Every action has a reaction. That is true. A storm erupted because of Batman's methods, but it's better than the alternative of doing nothing. Batman brought the situation to a head. Joker came back and did his damage for the last time, but he's now dead. The Mutants were a violent mob killing indiscriminately. Now they're aligned with Batman and fighting against criminality. Batman made a big problem (roaming gangs) part of the solution. It's a big improvement to where the story began in my eyes. The moral of the story as I see it, is that the likes of Two-Face and the Joker cannot be rehabilitated. They will always act out and go back to their old ways. Bottom line, if you don't fight back the situation remains the same. I choose fight back every time. I honestly don't think it's a matter of Batman making the problem worse, but the outcry over how he's going about the problem. Gotham became the safest city in the country. The results speak for themselves.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 29 Mar  2017, 01:48

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 Mar  2017, 23:45
Wolper complicates the issue in that a lot of the stuff he says ends up coming to pass. That passage where he compares the social consciousness to a "moist membrane" is what I mean. "Crime is shrinking... but there will be blowback from Batman's actions." Well, Batman came back and crime dropped off... but then the Joker came back and murdered hundreds of people.

Every action has a reaction. That is true. A storm erupted because of Batman's methods, but it's better than the alternative of doing nothing. Batman brought the situation to a head. Joker came back and did his damage for the last time, but he's now dead. The Mutants were a violent mob killing indiscriminately. Now they're aligned with Batman and fighting against criminality. Batman made a big problem (roaming gangs) part of the solution. It's a big improvement to where the story began in my eyes. The moral of the story as I see it, is that the likes of Two-Face and the Joker cannot be rehabilitated. They will always act out and go back to their old ways. Bottom line, if you don't fight back the situation remains the same. I choose fight back every time. I honestly don't think it's a matter of Batman making the problem worse, but the outcry over how he's going about the problem. Gotham became the safest city in the country. The results speak for themselves.

I agree. The issue, as I see it, is that Batman didn't do anything that anybody else wasn't capable of doing. In theory, the Gotham police, the federal government, Superman or any number of other agencies could've shut the Mutants down, taken the Joker out, restored order after the blackout, etc.

Batman simply had the will to do it while the others didn't (for whatever reason).

The older I get, the more my appreciation for TDKR as a sophisticated literature gets because there are nuances and gradations to TDKR that a lot of TDKR-influenced Batman stories simply lack. They copied the window dressing of TDKR but without all the little shades of gray that make TDKR the triumph that it is.

I also like the tagline for TDKR Part One - heroes never die, they just get darker. I think that is best represented by the fact Batman started out in the original blue and gray costume that is associated with the lighter incarnations of the character. Also what's interesting is that we actually get the red bat phone from the 60s TV show in the comic and the movie. I think the movie actually has the same bat phone noise from the 60s show. So this is pretty much the same guy who has evolved with the times. As the world became harder he did too.

As I said before, I think one of the messages is Two-Face and Joker can't be rehabilitated. And equally so Batman can't be rehabilitated. The way I read the scene between Two-Face and Batman when he says he sees a reflection which is a full bat face, is pretty much saying Batman has become consumed by his persona just as much as the villains. In that sense he does share traits with his foes.

In terms of Batman being an effective crime fighter with Gotham becoming the safest city in there US, it's also the embarrassment factor. They had denounced Batman's methods and they were working. The government had lost the narrative there that Batman was a bad thing for Gotham. Even Yindel gives up trying to take Batman down because he's 'too big'.

In terms of Reagan, he's my second favorite president and I think he was a good old boy. I differ with him in a couple areas but I digress. I think Miller was probably going for the generic government commentary with him.

Batman had to be the ultimate outsider. Reagan loved military might and the fact he utilised Superman fits that vibe.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 11:45
But over the years I slowly reached a new found appreciation and a better understanding of Batman's journey. Batman was never mistreating Carrie, he served more a Drill Sargeant role to keep her mind focused, which makes sense because of the fact that crimefighting is a matter of life and death. As much as Gotham City needs a Batman, it needs Robin too.

Building on from what I said in my own quote last year, it strikes how Batman has become very militaristic in his approach. Not only he is a strict disciplinarian of Carrie, he even goes further by using the Sons of Batman, and encouraging the escaped Mutants, to stop the chaos throughout Gotham City's blackout.

Despite all the bloodthirsty violence these impressionable yet psychotic kids got themselves into, Batman encourages them to engage in community spirit to maintain order during such a difficult time. Commanding them as a general to use safer tactics instead of using unnecessary lethal force and to protect the wider community's welfare, instead of engaging in impulsive destruction for cheap thrills. Which shows that, despite how brutal, tough and cynical how Batman has become, his can still believe people can be redeemed to keep up the peace.

The only downside is it reminds me how people can easily fall into the wrong path if they look up to a bad influence. Which we've seen this happen many times in real life.

TDK Returns can be distilled to one question: what choice did Batman have?

Bruce could've done nothing, which would've been easy and cowardly. He was retired and living a decent life, besides the mental trauma and aching loneliness of course. But he loved Gotham too much. His comeback caused one hell of a stink, but without his presence the city would have fallen. If his tactics were a failure Gotham wouldn't have become the safest city in the US.

Abolitionist Frederick Douglass spoke about the right of self defense. Douglas strongly supported the right of fugitive slaves to have and use weapons to resist kidnapping.

When government fails to protect the just right of any individual man, that man rests on his original right of self-defense, even if it means shooting down his pursuers. "Slavery is a system of brute force. It must be met with its own weapons."

Gotham officials and the Federal Government let the city go to the dogs. The mutants had the run of the city and the status quo wasn't working. Regular people were crying out for leadership and Batman provided it.

Law enforcement failed their citizens, plain and simple. There was a leadership vacuum and Batman filled it. Batman literally had to saddle up and ride into war on a stallion to sort things out - fighting a pigheaded and incompetent police force in the process.

The mutants were after leadership, a sense of direction and belonging in a dystopian world. The Mutant Leader was a violent criminal, but nonetheless, he served that function for them. Many of these mutants were young kids – likely from broken homes or with no homes at all. They were eager to please.

When the Mutant Leader's arms and legs are snapped in the mud, the law of the jungle dictates Batman is once again king. Men of the street only really understand strength and pain. And so the herd gets in line with Batman as their new role model. And that proved to be a positive outcome for all involved. It was a re-education for these kids.

Sure, they perhaps can't be rehabilitated as men of the cloth. But their existence can be honed into an asset and not a liability, even if just for the short term. If heads are to be kicked, it's better to kick criminal skulls and not innocent members of the public. That works for me. The concept of Robin but on a grander scale.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  2 Jul  2018, 08:04
The mutants were after leadership, a sense of direction and belonging in a dystopian world. The Mutant Leader was a violent criminal, but nonetheless, he served that function for them. Many of these mutants were young kids – likely from broken homes or with no homes at all. They were eager to please.

When the Mutant Leader's arms and legs are snapped in the mud, the law of the jungle dictates Batman is once again king. Men of the street only really understand strength and pain. And so the herd gets in line with Batman as their new role model. And that proved to be a positive outcome for all involved. It was a re-education for these kids.

Sure, they perhaps can't be rehabilitated as men of the cloth. But their existence can be honed into an asset and not a liability, even if just for the short term. If heads are to be kicked, it's better to kick criminal skulls and not innocent members of the public. That works for me. The concept of Robin but on a grander scale.

Good analysis TDK, particularly this passage. It was a logical tactical move on Batman's part to persuade the Mutant outcasts to help him take Gotham City back from the chaos and panic. And it was a tactical move that actually succeeded. It would've been foolish and suicidal of Batman if he had tried to tackle the Mutants all at once while the rest of the city is tearing itself apart.

Meanwhile, while speaking at a Q&A session with other famous comics artists at this year's London Comic Con, Frank Miller revealed he had originally considered ending TDKR with Batman dying in a hail of bullets during a final showdown with the police, and Superman wasn't part of the story at all. He speaks around 11:00. He's also revealed to be working on a Superman: Year One story, including how he first meets Batman, as you can hear around 38:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zf0wrwG3R4

I imagine Batman getting killed for real was an idea that Miller was imagining before he had conceived the whole story properly. I'm glad he chose not to pursue with this ending, because it wouldn't have boded well once Gotham City became a safe place thanks to his heroics during the blackout. Government interference causing Batman to fake his demise and work secretly underground was the best way to go in comparison.

Superman's addition made the comic feel more definitive because it provided a direct contrast in philosophy and methods. Batman became a darker, angrier personality over time, whereas Superman was not really hardened by the passage of time. He wanted to maintain a shaky peace (via force only if absolutely necessary) by complying with authority, whereas Batman refused to do so. He was labelled a troublemaker because he wouldn't accept his city as a violent hellhole.

I used to hate how Superman allowed himself to be a pawn to the government. But nowadays, I'm beginning to think he may have made the right decision. You only need to take a look at the Earth One comics as an example of Superman rebelling against governments and how those actions can impact negatively on the rest of the world. By overthrowing that dictatorship in Borada, Superman may have believed he was doing was what was best for an oppressed population, but the concerns and doubts over his intentions within the political community intensified even further. The consequences led to world leaders considering contingency plans to stop Superman, even kill him. The fear and uncertainty over his intentions led to some disastrous decisions, specifically getting tricked by Zod.

As the country in The Dark Knight Returns had already outlawed costumed heroes, can you imagine how the situation would've been much worse if Superman didn't comply with the Reagan administration? It could've made him vulnerable to a BvS situation, where somebody like Lex can use his own power and resources to smear Superman to manipulate the wide consensus. Worse, maybe the Reagan regime would've done the job to smear his name by themselves, and conspire to do something to destroy him altogether. Instead, Superman's compliance allowed him to carry out his duty and mitigate the tense circumstances over the Cold War.

It's unfortunate scenario, but if surrendering to become an agent to the government is necessary to keep the peace in a troubled country and world, Superman's decision to do so is reasonable.

I found this video of Grant Morrison talking about The Dark Knight Returns.

https://youtu.be/5hcfhWIIkG0

I find myself agreeing, and disagreeing with him at the same time. Yes, you could argue Batman is a somewhat inspirational figure who puts his life on the line to make things better, but that still doesn't negate the fact he is quite a tortured character. It can be said that he relishes the dangerous challenge; whether it's fighting the Mutant Leader or he has that hallucination with the bat pledging he's not finished might mean he is a bit of masochistic. Don't mistake me for criticising it. Far from it. I'm only observing it as a legitimate character flaw that makes Batman fascinating.

Morrison is right to say TDKR isn't exactly a "realistic" approach to the character, but it does have its moments. And they're not quite positive. Batman's return inspires copycat behaviour, whether it's the departed Mutants who become the Sons of Batman, cosplayers who get themselves killed, or the crazed gunman who shot the entire theater. I remember that being one of my biggest criticisms when I first read the comic, because it reminded me if a guy like Batman existed in the real world, there would be people inspired by him in the wrong way. This is one of the reasons why I prefer the animated adaptation as the better take on the story. It scraps most of those negative influences and focuses on the positive, such as the moment where a shopkeeper on the news talked about how he found the urge to fight back at his assailants, implying Batman was a good inspiration to people. Because of that, I finally began to appreciate Batman adopting the Sons of Batman and fighting together to take Gotham City back from the chaos during the blackout.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  9 Jan  2019, 12:50
I used to hate how Superman allowed himself to be a pawn to the government. But nowadays, I'm beginning to think he may have made the right decision. You only need to take a look at the Earth One comics as an example of Superman rebelling against governments and how those actions can impact negatively on the rest of the world. By overthrowing that dictatorship in Borada, Superman may have believed he was doing was what was best for an oppressed population, but the concerns and doubts over his intentions within the political community intensified even further. The consequences led to world leaders considering contingency plans to stop Superman, even kill him. The fear and uncertainty over his intentions led to some disastrous decisions, specifically getting tricked by Zod.

As the country in The Dark Knight Returns had already outlawed costumed heroes, can you imagine how the situation would've been much worse if Superman didn't comply with the Reagan administration? It could've made him vulnerable to a BvS situation, where somebody like Lex can use his own power and resources to smear Superman to manipulate the wide consensus. Worse, maybe the Reagan regime would've done the job to smear his name by themselves, and conspire to do something to destroy him altogether. Instead, Superman's compliance allowed him to carry out his duty and mitigate the tense circumstances over the Cold War.

It's unfortunate scenario, but if surrendering to become an agent to the government is necessary to keep the peace in a troubled country and world, Superman's decision to do so is reasonable.

What needs to be realized is that Superman represents more than just himself. He's going to be safe and can hold his own just fine 99% of the time. But that's not the problem. The issue is that he shoulders the burden of humanity and he can't be everywhere at once. If the world leaders decide nuclear war is happening he can't do much to stop it. If the populations of the world are all angry, depressed and fighting in civil wars he can't stop that. He's a strong individual, but he's one man and it's not his world. His actions have great flow on effects. When you consider these things it makes sense for why Superman sides with the Government. Once things reach a tipping point it's all over. He either becomes a dictatorial alien warlord or he sits back to watch humanity suicide itself. It's a wrestle to keep the equilibrium of peace and Superman knows that.

I agree. It goes to show Superman is a far more compelling character than most people give him credit for. It's such a shame a lot of people can't make up their minds about they want from him. To them, he is either a "boring lame character" if he doesn't face much challenges, or he is too "miserable and depressing" if he does experience some turmoil. Trying to find a middle ground with the general consensus is close to impossible.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 21 Jan  2019, 21:05
Trying to find a middle ground with the general consensus is close to impossible.

Indeed. Honestly, Superman fans are the worst about that.

But the end result is that Superman is in very serious danger of becoming WB's Mickey Mouse. Disney faced a similar challenge for a lot of years in that there was virtually nothing they could do with the character that wouldn't "tarnish" him in some way or another.

The consequence of that was Mickey becoming a corporate mascot while other Disney characters found audiences (or new audiences) and their popularity grew while Mickey's stagnated or even decreased.

Anybody who thinks that can't happen to Superman has been in a coma for fifteen years now.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 21 Jan  2019, 21:11
But the end result is that Superman is in very serious danger of becoming WB's Mickey Mouse. Disney faced a similar challenge for a lot of years in that there was virtually nothing they could do with the character that wouldn't "tarnish" him in some way or another.

The consequence of that was Mickey becoming a corporate mascot while other Disney characters found audiences (or new audiences) and their popularity grew while Mickey's stagnated or even decreased.

Anybody who thinks that can't happen to Superman has been in a coma for fifteen years now.

I think that has already happened. I don't even think he's the DC mascot these days. The company may say that as a feelgood gesture, but reality tells a different story. I'd say Wonder Woman, Aquaman and of course Batman have that mantle now.

Cinematically they don't know what to do. Justice League reverted the character back to a one-dimensional cartoon with the old Williams theme and awful mouth CGI. I'm confident Cavill will be sitting on the sidelines doing nothing but aging from now on. I think they're making a Supergirl movie instead - on top of the Krypton and Supergirl TV shows that already exist. Superman is either a supporting act or nowhere to be seen.

Superman only really exists via the comics and the movies we already have. Apart from that the brand is stagnant, and to be completely honest, it's hard to maintain a fandom in that kind of environment. We have the animated movies but the focus is once again the death arc. That seems to be all he's good for.

Sadly, Superman has become an idea/plot device and not much of an active character.

My biggest problem with the overreaction towards Superman on film in the last couple of years is the criticism stems from this bizarre obsession of Superman being this happy go lucky caricature, to the point they don't want to see him face any challenges.

Don't believe me? I've seen people wishing the scripts in the Snyder movies had set up a deus ex machina where he doesn't have to take certain course of actions. That, to me, is an audience that WANTS to be cheated. It's utterly idiotic, but that's the sort of people we're dealing with. I've no doubt wider audiences would've taken issue with Superman's personal dilemma in TDKR if that was a live action film. The worst part is, you've got comic personalities like John Ostrander saying a Superman who struggles is just a brooding Batman clone, which is so myopic I can't even fathom that it's coming from a creative.

Source: http://www.comicmix.com/2016/10/16/john-ostrander-making-a-better-superman/

I have no hesitation to acknowledge the DCEU Superman is far from perfect, but this whole fuss about the lack of smiles and so forth is incredibly petty and superficial. This is yet another example of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to certain DC Comics characters.

The Ostrander thing is especially disappointing because he should know better. But I'll circle back to that.

Look, fans are good at telling you what they want. I'm as guilty of that as anybody else. More guilty than some others, I might add. I love watching Batman beat people up. That hits the fanboy itch in just the right way for me. I cherish Batman's other attributes. But if you want my money, you'll show Batman kick the snot out of five or six bad guys in each issue. That's what I love seeing in Batman stories.

But fans need to recognize that these are characters and they need to meet the dramatic requirements of the story. And in Snyder's story, Superman is initially greeted with a slightly furtive reception by the world in MOS, he saves the day and he's quickly embraced as a pseudo-mythical god of a sort, then the desert incident from BVS is faked by Lex and the world starts wondering if Superman is somebody they can trust before Superman sacrifices his life to stop Doomsday.

That's as much of the story as Snyder was able to tell and, frankly, you're not being honest with the audience if you tell that story in such a way that Superman is unaffected by those things. If you tell Snyder's story without Superman earnestly hoping to prove his noble intentions in MOS and then being uncomfortable with his pseudo-god image at the start of BVS and then hurt over the fact that he's being rejected by the very people he saved so many times over in the middle of BVS, it's creative bankruptcy.

And frankly, Ostrander of all people should understand that.

Ostrander took over on Firestorm after Gerry Conway left. Conway set up Firestorm as a slightly conflicted but still freewheeling fun superhero. He was intentionally created by Conway to be a Marvel character in the DC universe and the juxtaposition served Firestorm very well. The Conway run on Firestorm is cherished by fans to this day because of how Conway integrated a Marvel archetype so successfully into the DC universe. A thousand writers could try the same trick a thousand different ways for a thousand years and never even come close to what Conway was able to do.

Now, I don't think it's fair to Ostrander to say that he came on to Firestorm and then shat all over the Conway stuff. But it is nevertheless true that a lot of the core elements that Conway created to define Firestorm as well as his place in the DCU were things Ostrander apparently didn't think twice about upending.

He essentially recreated Firestorm into something very different from (some would say diametrically opposed to) what Conway had originally intended the character(s) to be.

Ostrander changed a lot of foundational properties of what Firestorm was intended to be to such an extent that a lot of fans (a LOT, trust me) wondered if Ostrander ever understood wtf Firestorm was all about in the first place.

So for Ostrander to come back and say that Superman shouldn't X, Y or Z is simply insane to me. Of all people, he really has no right to take potshots at other creators for creative actions that, let's face it, were far less egregious than a lot of his creative decisions have been.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  9 Jun  2019, 15:57
Look, fans are good at telling you what they want. I'm as guilty of that as anybody else. More guilty than some others, I might add. I love watching Batman beat people up. That hits the fanboy itch in just the right way for me. I cherish Batman's other attributes. But if you want my money, you'll show Batman kick the snot out of five or six bad guys in each issue. That's what I love seeing in Batman stories.

The character is a detective (and hopefully Reeves does push this angle a lot) but he's also a ninja. And being a ninja means cool action. I specifically like it when Batman has the odds stacked against him, and through sheer grit, he muscles his way to victory even if it means sustaining his own fair share of punishment. Case in point the B89 Cathedral sequence and the Court of Owls labyrinth. The whole 'I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with ME' mindset. A huge thrill of Batman is a peak human achieving the impossible and being cool about it.

I read Frank Miller's Daredevil: The Man Without Fear awhile ago, and while I was reading the final chapter where Matt Murdock fights off those child traffickers to rescue Mickey, I noticed him making a jumping pose similar to Batman in TDKR.

(https://i.imgur.com/wgWP7KI.jpg)

Nice little homage there. (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/Themes/default/images/post/thumbup.gif)

I have a confession: I really enjoyed Miller's five part Daredevil origin story more than his take on Batman. You can definitely see where the Netflix show got the inspiration from. Brilliant.

Building on the To Hell's Kitchen and Back feature I wrote in 2016, I'd like to highlight some parallels between 'Last Hand' (Daredevil Vol 1 #181, April 1982) and 'Hunt the Dark Knight' (Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Vol 1 #3, August 1986), and this thread seems like as good a place as any to do it. The most obvious point to start with is the fact that both of these issues were produced by the same creative team: Frank Miller and Klaus Janson, with Denny O'Neil serving as editor. These two issues rank amongst the most acclaimed eighties stories produced by their respective publishers, and to an extent I see one as a reworking of the other.


Obviously there are as many differences as there are similarities between these two stories. 'Last Hand' fits into the broader 'Elektra Saga' and features subplots concerning the Punisher being sent to Ryker's Island, Bullseye figuring out Daredevil's secret identity and Matt dealing with the death of Elektra. 'Hunt the Dark Knight' fits into the broader TDKR narrative and contains subplots about Yindel assuming command of the GCPD, Superman's activities and the escalating conflict in Corto Maltese. However the central hero/villain narrative is structurally similar in both tales.

Both stories begin with the hero's incarcerated nemesis (Bullseye/Joker) restlessly obsessing over him in a place of solitary confinement.


This mass murdering criminal in granted a live television interview, during which he is permitted to don his familiar guise for the cameras.


The villain initially plays along with the interview and dispassionately answers a question concerning the suffering he's caused.


He soon reverts to form and massacres everyone present at the interview before making his escape. Bullseye spares the interviewer so he can use him as a hostage, but the Joker kills Dave Endocrine.


In both stories we're privy to the villain's thoughts as he channels them towards his nemesis. Note how he addresses his internal musings towards "you" – meaning Daredevil/Batman.


The villain in both stories is shown to smoke cigarettes.


The villain targets a former love interest of his arch enemy soon after his escape from custody. Bullseye hunts Elektra, while Joker goes after Selina Kyle.


Bullseye beats Elektra, slashes her throat and stabs her through the chest with her own sai, while Joker exploits and humiliates Selina using his mind-controlling lipstick.


The hero is enraged when he finds what the villain has done to his one-time love. In both stories the hero realises his enemy's recent actions have crossed a line and Matt/Bruce feels the weight of his opponent's victims bearing down on his conscience.


The story climaxes with the hero and villain engaging in an intense drawnout battle. The hero's tolerance towards the villain is exhausted and he now plans to end his foe's reign of terror once and for all. Midway through their fight, the villain wounds the hero in the abdomen. Bullseye stabs Daredevil with a sai, while Joker shoots and stabs Batman.


Both issues include a gory image of the hero being shot by the villain. 'Last Hand' begins with the image of Bullseye scoring a headshot on Daredevil as the former fantasises about murdering him, though Poindexter never actually accomplishes this feat in real life. Meanwhile Joker shoots Batman in the ribs during the hall of mirrors sequence in 'Hunt the Dark Knight'.


The fight ends with the hero pushing the boundaries of his moral code by breaking the villain's spine. Daredevil drops Bullseye from a cable suspended between two buildings, while Batman snaps the Joker's neck with his hands.


The villain miraculously survives but is now paralysed.


Bullseye remained paralysed until 1983, when his broken bones were mended with Adamantium and he came back stronger than ever. In TDKR Joker twists his broken neck in order to end his life and make it appear as though Batman has murdered him. Although the hero defeats the villain in both stories, there is nevertheless a melancholy note of failure for Matt/Bruce. 'Hunt the Dark Knight' ends with Batman being hunted by the police and reflecting that the world is "growing dark... and cold", while 'Last Hand' ends with Matt in a dark and cold place, both literally and figuratively, as he stands in mourning over Elektra's grave while snow falls around him.


Both of these stories are now regarded as classics and both proved very influential on later writers. Both issues also arguably changed the relationship between the hero and his arch enemy. Matt never forgave Bullseye for killing Elektra, nor did Poindexter forgive Daredevil for breaking his spine, and their future battles were forever shadowed by the trauma of these events. Joker would spend the next three decades trying to provoke Batman into breaking his 'Golden Rule', just as he did in TDKR, and Batman would consistently struggle against the powerful urge to do so. Before TDKR, Batman was typically portrayed as being at peace with letting the Joker live. There were one or two Bronze Age stories where his patience was tested, but it wasn't a prominent recurring theme like it is today. It was TDKR that widely popularised this particular trope, and the Batman comics arguably inherited it from the Daredevil comics via Frank Miller.

Amazing analysis. And it deepens my suspicion that, like Bullseye with Daredevil, the Joker knew (or at least suspected) Batman was Bruce. I like that because if the Joker is imitating/distorting Batman then it follows that if Bruce goes into retirement, the Joker will imitate that.

Miller's work is fine wine. And it ages like fine wine.

I remember a time when comic fans used to debate who was the better writer: Frank Miller or Alan Moore? Nowadays many would scoff at those comparisons, since Miller's creative output for the past 20-25 years has bordered on self-parody. But back in his prime – from the late seventies through to the early nineties – Miller was a legend. His finest works from that period, such as Daredevil: Born Again and The Dark Knight Returns, rank alongside Moore's best writing IMO. But I would argue Miller had a more important impact on the comic industry during the eighties than Moore did.

When comic historians discuss the darkening tone of the super hero genre, they often highlight Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns as the turning point. But the more I've thought about this over the years, the more convinced I've become that it was the Miller/Janson Daredevil run that forever changed things. I've already noted in this thread how Miller's work on Daredevil influenced his approach to TDKR, but I have a theory that his DD run also influenced another seminal comic of the eighties: Watchmen.

Bear with me on this.

We know for a fact that Alan Moore was familiar with Miller's DD run. Throughout 1983, Marvel UK reprinted those stories in a British comic titled Daredevils, along with original backup stories featuring Captain Britain. And who wrote the Captain Britain comics that supplemented the reprints of Miller's DD run? Alan Moore. Moore even wrote a four-page parody of Miller's DD titled 'Dourdevil, the Man Without a Sense of Humour' which was printed in Daredevils Vol 1 #8 (August 1983). We've got a thread about that here: https://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3597.0

So Moore was definitely familiar with Miller's DD run. But how is its influence – if indeed it had any – reflected in Watchmen? Primarily in the depiction of masked heroes as flawed vigilantes whose violent actions and disregard for civil rights are driven by underlying hang-ups of a moral, psychological or sexual nature. Just look at Rorschach. There's a scene in 'Fearful Symmetry' (Watchmen Vol 1 #5, January 1987) where Rorschach sneaks into Edgar Jacobi's house and appears behind the old man as he is rummaging through his fridge. There's a very similar scene in Born Again where Daredevil sneaks into Nick Manolis' house at night and surprises him in his kitchen as he's going through his fridge.


Nowadays scenes like this are fairly common in superhero comics, but they weren't in the early eighties. Daredevil was using violence and intimidation to get answers out of criminals back when most superheroes were still relatively straight laced. Here's an example from 1971.


The idea of Daredevil trashing a bar full of criminals to procure information is a longstanding trope in the DD comics. Moore had Rorschach work the underworld bars in a similar manner in Watchmen.


Both Miller and Moore exploited this cliché to humorous effect.


The relationship between Daredevil and Elektra was by no means the first costumed love affair in comics, but it was one of the first mainstream romances in the genre to intentionally invoke a fetishistic interpretation; an idea that Moore would subsequently explore in Watchmen with the relationship between Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Juspeczyk. In 'Elektra' (Daredevil Vol 1 #168, January 1981) Miller shows Daredevil and Elektra kissing immediately after fighting off Eric Slaughter and his goons, suggesting their violent impulses have somehow transformed into sexual energy. In 'The Judge of All the Earth' (Watchmen Vol 1 #3, November 1986) there's a memorable scene where Dan and Laurie fight off a group of criminals in an alleyway. This is followed by an awkward moment in which their heavy breathing and averted gazes hint at a repressed sexual tension.


Miller revisited the correlation between violence and sex in more explicit terms in The Man Without Fear (1993-94) in which he showed Elektra becoming sexually aroused while massacring a gang of rapists in an alleyway. This scene has clear parallels with the alley fight in Watchmen, though in this instance Moore's comic predates Miller's. However the correlation between sex and violence was already present in Miller's earliest Elektra stories, so once again I'd say this is an idea that Miller explored before Moore did.

Miller always intended for Bullseye's penetration of Elektra with her sai in 'Last Hand' (Daredevil Vol 1 #181, April 1982) to have sexual connotations. The notion of Bullseye being a rapist was later confirmed during Anne Nocenti's run, but even in the early eighties Miller was already suggesting a connection between the sexuality and violent impulses of masked heroes and their costumed adversaries. In 'Spiked!' (Daredevil Vol 1 #179, February 1982) Miller uses what he describes as "some pretty vicious symbolism" during a scene where Elektra immobilises Daredevil by snaring his foot in a bear trap. Miller once described this fight as "what superhero sex would be like." So again, the Freudian subtext is apparently intentional.

The same is true of Watchmen, in which Moore uses some less-than-subtle symbolism to highlight the aphrodisiacal role costumes and violence play in the protagonists' sex lives. Dan and Laurie try consummating their relationship in 'A Brother to Dragons' (Watchmen Vol 1 #7, March 1987) but are unable to do so. It's only later in that issue, after they've donned their costumes and braved a tenement fire, that Dan is finally able to perform. The excitement of the costumes and near-death adventure are what gets him going. While Matt Murdock is torn between the fantasy of Elektra and the everywoman that is Heather Glenn, Laurie ultimately chooses the everyman that is Dan over the superman that is Doctor Manhattan. However it is only when Dan resumes his role of superhero that consummation becomes possible.


Miller and Moore both present the less glamorous love lives of ordinary supporting characters to contrast against the more exciting liaisons of their costumed heroes. Compare the scenes of Ben Urich and his wife Doris in Daredevil Vol 1 #179 with the scenes between Dr. Malcolm Long and his wife Gloria in 'The Abyss Gazes Also' (Watchmen Vol 1 #6, February 1987). Both depict the dysfunctional relationships of peripheral characters whose work life is negatively impacting their marriage.


Also compare the relationship between Foggy Nelson and Glorianna O'Breen in Born Again with Dan and Laurie's situation in Watchmen. In both stories the love interest of a superhero goes to stay with a male friend and quickly becomes romantically involved with him after her costumed beau neglects her needs. The point in highlighting these similarities is to show that while Miller was writing fantasy relationships between his costumed protagonists, he was also exploring more grounded relationships amongst the supporting cast, much as Moore would later do in Watchmen.

Miller was also the first comic writer (as far as I'm aware) to advance the viewpoint that Bruce Wayne's activities as Batman represented a sublimation of his sex drive. Note the infamous line in All-Star Batman & Robin, The Boy Wonder Vol 1 #7 (November 2007) where Batman says, "We keep our masks on. It's better that way" as he engages in costumed coitus with Black Canary. Moore explored the connections between sex, violence and costumed personas in greater depth in Watchmen. But Miller did it first in the Daredevil comics. There's even a hint of it in The Dark Knight Returns where Batman finds Selina Kyle trussed up in a Wonder Woman costume. In this scene, the WW costume takes on an explicitly sexual function. Miller, or rather the Joker, is immersing one costumed character (Catwoman) in the iconography of another (Wonder Woman) for role-playing purposes. Moore does something similar during Dan's dream sequence in Watchmen Vol 1 #7 where Nite Owl II fantasises about Twilight Lady before removing her costume to reveal Silk Spectre II underneath. Seldom have the outfits in mainstream comics been more overtly fetishistic than in these scenes.


It's no secret that Moore originally intended to use Charlton Comics characters in Watchmen, while many people have drawn parallels between the new characters he created and pre-existing players in the DC Universe: for example, Doctor Manhattan being analogous to Superman, or Nite Owl II resembling Batman. But if we're looking at Watchmen as a deconstruction of a genre, as well as a reflection of the cynical direction that genre was aligned with at the time, then I think it's important to acknowledge the influence of Miller's DD run. The Minutemen may superficially resemble the Charlton Comics characters, but when it comes to their morality, psychology and sexuality – which is where they really come to life – far more fruitful comparisons can be drawn with the likes of Daredevil, Elektra, Punisher, Bullseye and Kingpin.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to take anything away from Watchmen or claim that it's unduly derivative. I'm just pointing out that Moore's mature and sophisticated approach to the genre was an extension of what Frank Miller had already started doing during his Daredevil run. That's why, in my opinion, Miller's DD run – and especially Born Again – deserve to be revered on the same level as TDKR and Watchmen.

Excellent analysis. And I remember those Moore vs. Miller debates. It seems odd now but I consider stuff like that to be a bit of a testament of how important both writers were in their respective primes. Something people tend to forget is that Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?, TDKR #04 and Watchmen #01 all hit the stands in the same month. I have wished many times to have been a fly on the wall in comic book stores across the county for the next year or so as hardcore comic book fans had opportunities to absorb and debate those stories in their LCS. I have long assumed that some of the debates would have been fascinating.

Still, I have usually preferred Miller's heyday over Moore's heyday. And I think the big reason for that is because Miller's work, oddly enough, lends itself to superficial enjoyment, textual enjoyment and subtextual enjoyment. His Daredevil stuff can be entertaining (though superior) adventure stories, sophomoric "grim and gritty" fun or else relatively complex and realistic analysis of adults who would engage in such extreme, anti-social behavior as adopting secret identities, bizarre costumes, etc. It works as fantasy adventure fare or grounded, rather dark commentary. The Daredevil stuff can be read for pleasure but that's not the only way of looking at it.

And the thing is, I don't get that as much with Watchmen. The story of Watchmen is inseparable from how that story is told. The deeper meaning is inescapable. The story and characters demand to be analyzed because otherwise the comic book has to be dismissed as neurotic and incomprehensible. Watchmen does not function on the superficial level or even the juvenile level. Only on the adult level. In other words, you don't read Watchmen for pleasure. You read it to be amazed or to think.

As you say, that's no swipe at Watchmen. Just an explanation about why Miller's Daredevil stuff ultimately does more for me than virtually anything Moore has ever written.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Mar  2020, 19:06Something people tend to forget is that Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?, TDKR #04 and Watchmen #01 all hit the stands in the same month.

I hadn't realised this myself until now. Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? is another good example of the mature storytelling sensibility I was trying to illustrate in my previous post. While the superpower action is occurring outside the Fortress of Solitude, Moore at one point narrows his focus to the relationship between Perry and Alice; drawing the reader's attention away from the fantastic and redirecting it towards a pedestrian human relationship. He's more interested in how his human characters are reacting to the crisis than he is in the spectacle of the crisis itself.

At the end of the book, in a scene that mirrors Dan and Laurie's final scene in Watchmen, we see Superman relinquish his superhuman status to live the life of an ordinary husband and father. This almost seems to imply that superheroism is an adolescent phase in his protagonists' development, and that the natural progression beyond that stage is for the heroes to hang up their costumes and take on the everyday responsibilities of grownups (i.e. real jobs, marriage, kids, etc). The Dark Knight Returns ends on a similar note, with Bruce faking his own death, hanging up the cowl and settling into his new role as father to Carrie and the juvenile delinquents comprising the Sons of Batman.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Mar  2020, 19:06Still, I have usually preferred Miller's heyday over Moore's heyday. And I think the big reason for that is because Miller's work, oddly enough, lends itself to superficial enjoyment, textual enjoyment and subtextual enjoyment. His Daredevil stuff can be entertaining (though superior) adventure stories, sophomoric "grim and gritty" fun or else relatively complex and realistic analysis of adults who would engage in such extreme, anti-social behavior as adopting secret identities, bizarre costumes, etc. It works as fantasy adventure fare or grounded, rather dark commentary. The Daredevil stuff can be read for pleasure but that's not the only way of looking at it.

And the thing is, I don't get that as much with Watchmen. The story of Watchmen is inseparable from how that story is told. The deeper meaning is inescapable. The story and characters demand to be analyzed because otherwise the comic book has to be dismissed as neurotic and incomprehensible. Watchmen does not function on the superficial level or even the juvenile level. Only on the adult level. In other words, you don't read Watchmen for pleasure. You read it to be amazed or to think.

I've been trying to figure out why Miller's work has proven more suitable to screen adaptation than Moore's, and I think you just nailed the reason. With Miller you can translate the surface level components without the subtext necessarily carrying over, and you still end up with an entertaining film. But Moore's content is less concerned with subtext than supertext – every detail, every double entendre, every visual motif or recurring line of dialogue, is conducive to the overall effect. The way he tells the story, playing to the strengths of the comic book medium, is as important as the story itself. Describe The Dark Knight Returns to someone who hasn't read it, and you'd probably begin with the plot. Describe The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and you'd be less likely to describe the plot than the central concept of mixing characters from classic literature.

That's not to say that Miller doesn't tell his stories with panache, because his best writing is stylistically top notch. But Moore's writing is like a house of cards, where if you remove just one piece of the structure the whole thing collapses. That's not the case with Miller. Batman Begins is essentially Batman: Year One, and even though it doesn't follow the comic to a T it nevertheless captures the essence of the story. The same is true of Born Again and Daredevil season 3. But unless adaptations of Moore's work stick extremely close to the source material – as in the case of Snyder's Watchmen movie – then they usually end up failing both dramatically and thematically. Hence why there are so many bad Alan Moore adaptations.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Mar  2020, 19:06As you say, that's no swipe at Watchmen. Just an explanation about why Miller's Daredevil stuff ultimately does more for me than virtually anything Moore has ever written.

Same here.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 31 Mar  2020, 14:23Batman Begins is essentially Batman: Year One, and even though it doesn't follow the comic to a T it nevertheless captures the essence of the story.

In a strange way, that's actually a testament to how good BY1 is. Because the name of the story is Batman- Year One. And yet, Batman himself has relatively few extended appearances in the story. And the longest of which is probably the bit in the tenement where he's pinned down and the cops have him on the ropes. From there, it's otherwise Gordon's story.

That recipe makes for a great comic book but I don't think it would make for a great film.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 31 Mar  2020, 14:23The same is true of Born Again and Daredevil season 3. But unless adaptations of Moore's work stick extremely close to the source material – as in the case of Snyder's Watchmen movie – then they usually end up failing both dramatically and thematically. Hence why there are so many bad Alan Moore adaptations.

Also true. For some reason, I thought of Steve Jobs as I read the bit about Moore. Jobs also created brilliant things that discouraged outsiders mucking around with his creations. Because doing so would've ruined the artistic aspect of what he was up to.

At the same time, the first Sin City film was rather slavishly devoted to the comics. And I think that works to the film's benefit. The narration, the stylization, it all fits together to create a bizarre non-reality which I, for one, can never get enough of. I find it interesting that Miller's work can be engrossing whether the adaptation is note-perfect or a bit more flexible. He's kind of unique in that regard.

I like the comic more than the film (which is brilliant) because it shows the positives and negatives of Batman's presence. Just having the positives is sugar-coating reality. Wins are rarely clean. Life is complex, people are dangerous, and real fights usually cause damage to both sides. Showing all aspects and not just a narrow view is always the best option. The negative aspects allow the talk show hosts to have more merit in their arguments as well, which makes things more interesting. TDK Returns is my Batman bible and always will be. It has everything I like in one package, but it's time to let it rest. That doesn't mean I stop watching the movie, reading the comic or listening to the soundtrack.

Cartoonist Kayfabe did a special about TDKR several months ago. Watching it now and digging it. They tend to have very analytical viewpoints but they're also capable of nerding out about the subject matter at hand. That approach works particularly well for TDKR, I'd say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubqW0qIG_Ck

The treatment of Selina Kyle is poor, so say some critics. I say they miss the point of the story and need to have the right perspective. One of the themes is that no one can escape mortality. Bruce comes close to dying, along with Superman. The Joker does die, as does Alfred. Therefore I like the way the comic depicts a sexpot of yesteryear becoming lonely and washed up. It's not glamorous but time does different things to different people. It's what I'm all about seeing: where things lead in the long term, whether that be BETTER OR WORSE. Bravo to Frank Miller for having the guts to go there.

I've seen people saying Batman would stand with "mostly peaceful" rioters who loot and burn their communities, which is the worst take ever. Batman is all about maintaining law and order.

In TDK Returns, the power goes out and the situation is exploited by those who seek to raze Gotham. Batman doesn't just throw his arms up in the air and let it happen - he rides in and sorts it out. "Thanks to Batman and his vigilante gang, Gotham's streets are safe, unless you try to commit a crime."

The lesson: if you don't assert control EARLY you lose control. Mob rule and lawlessness are unacceptable. 

In 2020, left wing extremists have taken over part of a major city and anointed a 'warlord' to run it. Arkham City is now a reality. A fear of the mainstream media and being called 'brutal fascists' allows this to happen.

If Police are not allowed to engage criminals they may as well not exist. Why would you be an officer if it means being a punching bag? They should resign. Which leaves things up to the decent common man.

"Like the Gestapo, they moved in on us – Batman and that brat army of his, you'd have thought we were criminals'.

Sitting back as the world burns is shameful. Don't fear a street war, fear passivity.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 12 Jun  2020, 03:00
I've seen people saying Batman would stand with "mostly peaceful" rioters who loot and burn their communities, which is the worst take ever. Batman is all about maintaining law and order.

In TDK Returns, the power goes out and the situation is exploited by those who seek to raze Gotham. Batman doesn't just throw his arms up in the air and let it happen - he rides in and sorts it out. "Thanks to Batman and his vigilante gang, Gotham's streets are safe, unless you try to commit a crime."

The lesson: if you don't assert control EARLY you lose control. Mob rule and lawlessness are unacceptable. 

In 2020, left wing extremists have taken over part of a major city and anointed a 'warlord' to run it. Arkham City is now a reality. A fear of the mainstream media and being called 'brutal fascists' allows this to happen.

If Police are not allowed to engage criminals they may as well not exist. Why would you be an officer if it means being a punching bag? They should resign. Which leaves things up to the decent common man.

"Like the Gestapo, they moved in on us – Batman and that brat army of his, you'd have thought we were criminals'.

Sitting back as the world burns is shameful. Don't fear a street war, fear passivity.

I posted some pages from TDKR where Batman and the Sons Of Batman restore order to Gotham after the blackout. Anybody who thinks Batman would bench himself and his team in the middle of something like this doesn't understand what the character is all about.

Another thing is the Punisher. Some writer whose name I'm intentionally forgetting wrote some real puffy, try-hard scene where the Punisher lashes out at the cops who look up to him and envy the freedom he's given himself. It's a scene so idiotic that it's truly beyond parody.

But in the final analysis, I think it's mistaken to look to fictional characters as moral guides in times like this. Precisely because they can be written to say whatever some hackjob writer wants them to say. I don't think Batman would tolerate random violence but I can't prove that. And it doesn't matter anyway. Decent people shouldn't tolerate random violence. And I think that's what should matter.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 12 Jun  2020, 03:18
Anybody who thinks Batman would bench himself and his team in the middle of something like this doesn't understand what the character is all about.

Agreed.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 12 Jun  2020, 03:18
But in the final analysis, I think it's mistaken to look to fictional characters as moral guides in times like this. Precisely because they can be written to say whatever some hackjob writer wants them to say. I don't think Batman would tolerate random violence but I can't prove that. And it doesn't matter anyway. Decent people shouldn't tolerate random violence. And I think that's what should matter.

Definitely. TDK Returns aligns my with own existing feeling with such situations. I don't need a comic or a movie to tell me what I myself feel. It's very important to hold on to that intuition in a changing world. Looting and burning is bad, and it needs to be shut down yesterday.

When cosplayers dress up as Batman and enter such an environment to lend their support, THEY are bringing the character to the forefront, and stating what they believe said characters stand for. Which goes to your 'it depends on who is writing the story' comment.

If the discussion is now to be had, these hellhole scenes are straight out of JOKER - I believe they have their characters mixed up. If writers had Batman and other characters supporting such anarchy it would be a distortion of their spirit FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. But given who writes this content, and the eagerness to push THEIR politics, I believe it's all on the table now, disappointingly.

I've been trying to imagine if a film adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns had been released at the same time as the book, or immediately afterwards, then who would have starred in it? Which actors would have been not only right for the roles, but also the appropriate age at the time? Here's the cast I came up with. The pictures I've chosen for each actor are all taken from films or TV episodes released in 1986 to show what they looked like around the time TDKR was published. I'll note the title of each film/TV show next to each actor's name along with their age in 1986.

Bruce Wayne – Clint Eastwood (Heartbreak Ridge) – 56 years old.


James Gordon – Charles Bronson (Murphy's Law) – 65 years old.


Carrie Kelley – Winona Ryder (Lucas) – 15 years old.


Alfred Pennyworth – Peter Cushing (Biggles) – 73 years old.


Ellen Yindel – Linda Hamilton (Black Moon Rising) – 30 years old.


Harvey Dent – John Saxon (Hands of Steel) – 50 years old.


Mutant Leader – Pete Koch (Heartbreak Ridge) – 24 years old.


Dr Bartholomew Wolper – Elliot Gould (The Twilight Zone: The Misfortune Cookie) – 48 years old. 


Joker – Jack Nicholson (Heartburn) – 49 years old


Bruno – Brigitte Nielsen (Cobra) – 23 years old.


The Mayor – Glenn Shadix – although he was acting before 1986, Shadix didn't have any screen credits that year, so this picture is from Beetlejuice (1988). He would have been 34 in 1986.


Superman – Christopher Reeve – Reeve also didn't have any screen credits in 1986, but here he is one year later in Superman IV, which was shot in '86. He would have been 34 in 1986.


David Endocrine – David Letterman (duh) – 36 years old


I'm drawing a blank on who could have played Selina Kyle back then, but I'm happy with the rest. For a director, I think perhaps Walter Hill or James Cameron would have been a good choice at the time.

As drawn in TDKR, Selina is a bit... yeah.

So I'd sidestep that by casting someone who seems right even if it means stabbing Miller's depiction of her right in the back.

For openers, literally the only reason I'm not suggesting Faye Dunaway is because she'd done Supergirl just a few years earlier and didn't exactly cover herself in glory in the process. I'm also eliminating Valerie Harper since she was more known as a comedic actress.

Also removed from consideration is Adrienne Barbeau. Because, no matter how perfect her voice obviously is, she always looked kind of manly if you ask me.

So I'll split the difference by nominating Lesley Ann Warren:


She also has no feature film credit in 1986, interestingly enough. TV film tho so hmm.

Now, Lesley Ann Warren did her fair share of comedy as well. But she also did more dramatic stuff than I suspect she'll ultimately be remembered for.

It is true that she skews significantly younger than Eastwood. By more than a decade and a half. But still, I can put that down to the fact that dammit, Catwoman should be hot. And she was quite the looker even getting into the 1990s. So I put forward Warren as a passable Catwoman in a 1986-era TDKR film.

But if Warren is too much to bear, well, there's always Raquel Welch.

I always thought Barbeau was quite attractive in a husky girl-next-door kind of way.


I did consider her for the role of Selina, but since she was only 41 in 1986 I figured she was a bit too young. I also discounted Dunaway for the same reason, as she would have been 45 at the time. If Dunaway had been five years older, and if she hadn't already appeared in the Supergirl film, then she might have been a good pick. It so happens she played a character running an escort service in a 1986 movie titled Beverly Hills Madam, but I think Dunaway was a little too attractive for the TDKR version of Selina.


This particular Selina is meant to be bloated and well past her peak attractiveness. It's rather difficult to cast the part without being deliberately insulting towards the proposed actress.

I never considered Warren, but she might have been a good pick too were it not for her age. She would have been just 40 at the time.

I considered Julie Newmar, as she would have been 53 in 1986 and had already played a trashy hooker in the 1985 movie Streewalkin'.


My main problem with Newmar was simply that she'd already played Selina in an unrelated production. If it was West playing Batman, then she would have been perfect. But I think it would have been weird seeing her play Catwoman opposite Eastwood.

Kim Novak would also have been 53 in 1986, but I think she was too ladylike for this trashier take on Selina.


In her youth though, Novak would have made an incredible Selina Kyle. Vertigo (1958) ranks among my top ten favourite films of all time, and her pitch perfect performance is truly haunting. She'd have been my top pick for a 1950s Catwoman.


I thought about Diana Rigg, whose performance as Emma Peel in The Avengers was likely an influence on the sixties Catwoman. In 1986 she was 48, which would have been just about old enough.


But like Novak, I don't know if she could have portrayed the trashiness of the TDKR Selina. I'm not even sure if she could do a convincing American accent either.

Raquel Welch is a good suggestion though. I never thought of her. She would have been 46 in 1986, which is still a bit young but maybe just about old enough. She was still in great shape, but with some gaudy makeup and padding she just might have worked in the part. This is her in 1987.


TDKR Selina is a really tough role to cast. And we haven't even talked about plus-size Lana Lang yet...

Another name I would throw into the hat, is Angie Dickinson.

I think she would have been age appropriate for Eastwood in '86. The biggest issue is Angie wasn't as plump as Miller's TDKR Selina, but I think with the right makeup/hairstyle, she could pull off the unflattering over-the-hill Selina Kyle that Frank Miller was going for.

Here she is in 1985.

(https://d310t4ch0h19vs.cloudfront.net/1/6/7/1/6/16716_0006__20151015125618.jpg) (https://d3j49nttlqk634.cloudfront.net/1/6/7/1/6/16716_0012__20151015125628.jpg)


With Barbeau, I agree she would have been a bit too young at the time. Whenever her name is brought up, I tend to think of the early 1980s when she was in a few John Carpenter movies (The Fog, Escape from New York ... how prophetic), and Wes Craven's Swamp Thing. To me, she already had that Cougar/MILF look, thanks in part to her voluptuous figure, even when she was in her early-mid 30's.

Looks like I lost the bit about ignoring Miller's vision for, ahem, latter day Selina. Indeed, it is a tough role to cast.

Anne Bancroft was showing the miles and the years by the 80s. Plus, her Wiki page suggests that she was wide open to accept the role.

Lee Meriwether is another idea. Assuming I'm actually finding 1980s era pics of her, she looked pretty young even tho she was right at 60 when a TDKR movie would've gone into production. She is already associated with Catwoman. But I think a loophole might exist here in that Catwoman was not necessarily associated with her. A second bite at the apple for her might be excusable.

Debbie Reynolds? I don't think it would take much to bring her to Selina's excesses. If it's a bonus, she doesn't seem to have done much of anything in the 80s either.

Finding a hefty actress the right age is a serious pain in the pain.

Lana might be even harder. Shirley MacLaine is the best I've got.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  6 Aug  2020, 21:01
I've been trying to imagine if a film adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns had been released at the same time as the book, or immediately afterwards, then who would have starred in it? Which actors would have been not only right for the roles, but also the appropriate age at the time? Here's the cast I came up with. The pictures I've chosen for each actor are all taken from films or TV episodes released in 1986 to show what they looked like around the time TDKR was published. I'll note the title of each film/TV show next to each actor's name along with their age in 1986.

This is excellent. The juxtaposition of comic art to actors pics is spot on - especially Bronson, Cushing, Hamilton, Saxon. As much as Nicholson IS the Joker, maybe for a TDKR movie made in 1986, David Bowie too.

Selina.. Ursula Andress?

---

EDIT 2020-09-24 (Later than the replies to this post)

(Edit to avoid an unnecessary bump)

Adding pictures from a David Bowie photoshoot with clown outfit and make-up for Scary Monsters (1980).


Info about the shoot.

https://www.duffyarchive.com/shop/prints/david-bowie-prints/scary-monsters-clown/

The outfit was worn in the Ashes to Ashes music video.

Quote from: Azrael on Sat,  8 Aug  2020, 14:18
As much as Nicholson IS the Joker, maybe for a TDKR movie made in 1986, David Bowie too.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Nicholson is obviously better out of the two in terms of acting, but David Bowie did have a stronger resemblance to the Joker in DKR. Particularly in the panel where he is talking to his henchman Abner.

(https://themonstermaven.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/whatkindofbombs.jpg) 

(https://rockandrollgarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/David-Bowie-smoking.jpg)

Of course, Nicholson was always going to get the role in any film adaptation. I believe it was producer Michael Uslan who stated Nicholson was his only choice for the Joker ever since he saw The Shining. With that sort of star power, I don't think many other actors had a chance.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat,  8 Aug  2020, 00:50Another name I would throw into the hat, is Angie Dickinson.

I think she would have been age appropriate for Eastwood in '86. The biggest issue is Angie wasn't as plump as Miller's TDKR Selina, but I think with the right makeup/hairstyle, she could pull off the unflattering over-the-hill Selina Kyle that Frank Miller was going for.

Here she is in 1985.

(https://d310t4ch0h19vs.cloudfront.net/1/6/7/1/6/16716_0006__20151015125618.jpg) (https://d3j49nttlqk634.cloudfront.net/1/6/7/1/6/16716_0012__20151015125628.jpg)

Joker, that's perfect! Dickinson would have been 55 in 1986, and she definitely had the acting chops to pull it off. It would have been fairly soon after her critically acclaimed performance in Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill (1980), so she'd have been a marketable talent from the studio's perspective. I also like the fact that she had past ties to the western genre through movies like Man with the Gun (1955), Gun the Man Down (1956), Rio Bravo (1959) The Last Challenge (1967), Sam Whisky (1969), Young Billy Young (1969), etc. She had a history of playing tough chicks and would have been the perfect Selina Kyle for Eastwood's Bruce Wayne. Dickinson gets my vote.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  8 Aug  2020, 02:04
Anne Bancroft was showing the miles and the years by the 80s. Plus, her Wiki page suggests that she was wide open to accept the role.

Lee Meriwether is another idea. Assuming I'm actually finding 1980s era pics of her, she looked pretty young even tho she was right at 60 when a TDKR movie would've gone into production. She is already associated with Catwoman. But I think a loophole might exist here in that Catwoman was not necessarily associated with her. A second bite at the apple for her might be excusable.

Debbie Reynolds? I don't think it would take much to bring her to Selina's excesses. If it's a bonus, she doesn't seem to have done much of anything in the 80s either.

I thought about Bancroft but deemed her a bit too elegant for Miller's Selina. The same would apply to Meriwether. Debbie Reynolds is an interesting suggestion, and another one I'd not considered. I don't know if she could have portrayed such a sleazy take on the character, but she would have been an appropriate age at the time (54). This is her at the 1986 Academy Awards.


Would she have been perceived as too wholesome for the part? Perhaps. But she's up there with Dickinson as far as physical suitability goes.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  8 Aug  2020, 02:04Lana might be even harder. Shirley MacLaine is the best I've got.

MacLaine's not a bad suggestion for Lana. She'd have been 52 in 1986. This is her in 1987.


One alternative would be to use Annette O'Toole and try to make her up to look older, but I think MacLaine would have been more suitable. Right now I honestly can't think of anyone else who could have played Miller's Lana.

Quote from: Azrael on Sat,  8 Aug  2020, 14:18As much as Nicholson IS the Joker, maybe for a TDKR movie made in 1986, David Bowie too.

Bowie definitely looked a lot more like the androgynous TDKR Joker than Nicholson. My only reservation would be his age, since he'd have only been 39 at the time. But I guess with the makeup on, it wouldn't have mattered too much. 1986 was the year he made Labyrinth, but when I visualise him as the Joker the first thing that pops into my head is Fire Walk with Me (1992). Must be the white suit.

Another possible pick for the Joker would be Klaus Kinski, who would have been 60 in 1986. That was the year he made Crawlspace.


I doubt he'd have taken the role, but if he had the results would have been interesting.

Glad you liked the Angie Dickinson suggestion, Silver. I am personally not familiar with much of Angie's work to be perfectly honest, but know her best from "Dressed to Kill". Probably like a lot of other people.  ;D

Another suggestion I had thought about for TDKR ageing Selina, was Louise Fletcher. Yeah, Nurse Ratched herself. She's about 4 years younger than Clint, so the age appropriateness wouldn't have been a issue. And I believe she had the overall physical build of Selina from Miller's book as well. More importantly, I think she would have no problem evoking a sense of being a woman in charge in by portraying a version of Selina Kyle who is now a Escort Madame at this stage in her life.

In addition to all that, I think the scene of the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) confronting Fletcher's Selina in a unannounced visit would have added a very unique and perhaps powerful subtext to the entire scene itself (as well as how Batman finds Selina later on ...) considering their well known chemistry/rivalry from the classic film, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Imagine the scene of Jack's Joker surprising Fletcher's Selina as a uninvited guest, with her blurting out, "Oh, jesus!" in fear, upon seeing him standing nearby. I can't help but think that sort of scenario with those particular actors would add a little extra oomph for audiences. Especially those already familiar with Cuckoo's Nest.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-N5IxBG3c6Hk/T-fJ6etcVfI/AAAAAAAAAuk/kOKB486sP9w/s1600/catwoman2.jpg)

Just a thought among many.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  7 Aug  2020, 22:33
I considered Julie Newmar, as she would have been 53 in 1986 and had already played a trashy hooker in the 1985 movie Streewalkin'.

(https://i.postimg.cc/prZNbNBr/10.png)

My main problem with Newmar was simply that she'd already played Selina in an unrelated production. If it was West playing Batman, then she would have been perfect. But I think it would have been weird seeing her play Catwoman opposite Eastwood.

Casting Newmar as Selina Kyle in 1986, in my mind, would almost literally require Adam West as Batman in 1986. Making a 1986 live action adaptation of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, taking place within the '66 universe  20 years later.

Having said that, this would be seen as Warners taking a cue from Paramount with "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (and to which West himself appeared to have been hoping for considering his interviews around the time about his desire to return to the role along with, I'm sure, '66 cast members.). However, a TDKR undertaking within this frame work, would have, I would imagine, been seen as incredibly bold and possibly even more startling to the general public than even what we got with Burton in the 1989 modernization. Especially so in the notion of taking such a beloved version of Batman, and turning that literally on it's head. I'm sure the Mcdonalds Stans and Karens would have made the b*tching and moaning about Batman Returns in 1992 look like mere childs play with this one! I also believe, as a positive point, this would have REALLY driven home a theme of one of the things Miller was going for with his TDKR story. This being a older Silver Age/Bronze Age Batman coming out of a retirement in a, now, hellish Gotham City of the 1980s.

As a side note, the notion of just how much Batman's world had changed from the Silver Age to the late 1980's, was also something that was in the background with Moore/Bolland's "The Killing Joke" in 1988. As early on in the story, there is a featured photograph displaying a classic silver age pinup featuring the silver age versions of Batman, Robin, Bat-Woman, Bat-Girl, Bat-Mite, and Ace the Bat-Hound. Which, evidently, suggests the photograph was there to evoke a sense of a more simple, and carefree past in Batman's career. Juxtaposed with the more darker, harsh reality of the present.

(https://mlpnk72yciwc.i.optimole.com/cqhiHA-nC7z57zO/w:600/h:316/q:90/http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/BKJHC-015-e1457440861351.jpg)

Something like this, with a Adam West Bruce Wayne in his 50's, looking upon a portrait, could have been included in a scene somewhere.

I'm sure the logistics of this kind of undertaking with the '66 cast would have been a absolute nightmare. I guess it's possible there would have been some legal problems between Fox and Warners on this type of film? In addition to the '66 cast not being all that shy in 1989 about their dislike/distaste of Burton's darker edged version of Batman. Could all the players required be signed? Maybe. Maybe not. How would Two-Face be resolved in a adaptation of TDKR within the pre-established '66 universe? Include him anyways, or replace him with a villain who appeared in the original '66 series, and with whom?

It's interesting to think about, but if in some parallel universe there exist a 1986 "The Dark Knight Returns" movie as a followup to the '66 Batman series, starring Adam West as Batman, Julie Newmar as Catwoman, and Ceasar Romero as returning as well as The Joker, that's a movie I couldn't help but want to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ211GBe6e0

I suppose you could bend the rules of the adaptation by replacing Two-Face with False Face, thereby retconning some sort of backstory between Bruce and False Face's civilian identity. Of course, that ruins the reveal of Dent not being scarred after all. So hmm.

Yeah, it's such a great scene between Batman and Two-Face in TDKR, that such a adaptation would have to, unfortunately, change to some extent. Including such a scene, with Two-Face included, would work for comic book fans, but I fear his inclusion would feel a bit hollow for the general, as there would be no familiarity with him. False Face might work, but the only problem I have with him, is that I am not sure if people found him all that memorable like (outside of the big 4) King Tut, or Egghead? I like False Face, but I don't ever really recall anyone talking about him, or bringing him up all that much. He's kinda like the Archer, Sandman, or Shame in that respect. But with a more interesting look, and gimmick.

I suppose bringing back Eli Wallach as Mr. Freeze might work for the 'cured' scenario, with Freeze going back to a cryogenic suit (perhaps something invoking the George Sanders Freeze suit), implying his sub zero body temp condition returned, only for Batman to find out during their confrontation that isn't the case ...

In some ways, I would kinda prefer Gorshin's Riddler as the replacement for Two-Face, to be perfectly honest. Mainly because of the familiarity already being there, and because, well, it's Frank Gorshin. Perhaps in this scenario, the Riddler being considered 'cured' would have him reemerge as being graceful, rather well disposed, with a completely different hair style than we are used to seeing him with (more on that in a minute). The big problem with using the Riddler, is that there wouldn't be a Two-Face like swerve. However, I think the part where Batman internalizes, "The scars go deep. Too deep. I close my eyes, and listen. Not fooled by the sight I see. As he is. I can see him. I see ..." can work with Gorshin's Riddler. Standing before Batman, you would have a very debonair Riddler, but the change part is where Batman closes his eyes to "see" him, there Batman would have Gorshin's Riddler standing before him wearing his purple mask, in his green question mark suit, the familiar slicked back hair, and with that zany smile and giggle. Indicating the Riddler was never truly 'cured'. Much like Two-Face, the scars run too deep and he will forever be a mental prisoner to his severe megalomania/OCD. You can have this conclude like the book with the, "I see a reflection." line, and thus giving Gorshin's Riddler a 'ending/book end' of sorts. Kinda like Two-Face in the TDKR universe.

But yeah, the Two-Face thing/replacement is tricky.  ;D

I think the character from the sixties TV show that would prove least compatible with the tone of TDKR would be Neil Hamilton's Commissioner Gordon. The thought of him blowing some punk's brains out with a .44 Magnum is hilarious. But considering he passed away in 1984 the role would have needed to be recast anyway.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 18 Sep  2020, 23:32Another suggestion I had thought about for TDKR ageing Selina, was Louise Fletcher. Yeah, Nurse Ratched herself. She's about 4 years younger than Clint, so the age appropriateness wouldn't have been a issue. And I believe she had the overall physical build of Selina from Miller's book as well. More importantly, I think she would have no problem evoking a sense of being a woman in charge in by portraying a version of Selina Kyle who is now a Escort Madame at this stage in her life.

Fletcher would certainly be an interesting choice given her onscreen history with Nicholson. She'd have been the right age for it too. I must also confess that I'm one of those sick individuals who finds Nurse Ratched strangely attractive.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 23 Sep  2020, 13:10
I think the character from the sixties TV show that would prove least compatible with the tone of TDKR would be Neil Hamilton's Commissioner Gordon. The thought of him blowing some punk's brains out with a .44 Magnum is hilarious. But considering he passed away in 1984 the role would have needed to be recast anyway.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 18 Sep  2020, 23:32Another suggestion I had thought about for TDKR ageing Selina, was Louise Fletcher. Yeah, Nurse Ratched herself. She's about 4 years younger than Clint, so the age appropriateness wouldn't have been a issue. And I believe she had the overall physical build of Selina from Miller's book as well. More importantly, I think she would have no problem evoking a sense of being a woman in charge in by portraying a version of Selina Kyle who is now a Escort Madame at this stage in her life.

Fletcher would certainly be an interesting choice given her onscreen history with Nicholson. She'd have been the right age for it too. I must also confess that I'm one of those sick individuals who finds Nurse Ratched strangely attractive.

(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:500x350/59/77159-050-FE54D898/Louise-Fletcher-One-Flew-Cuckoos-Nest.jpg)

I've never actually seen One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest so everything I know about it (and Ratched) comes from pop cultural osmosis. Still, she is kind of attractive in a Glenn Close-meets-Cruella-DeVille kind of way.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 23 Sep  2020, 13:10
I think the character from the sixties TV show that would prove least compatible with the tone of TDKR would be Neil Hamilton's Commissioner Gordon. The thought of him blowing some punk's brains out with a .44 Magnum is hilarious.

It would be sad given it would be a commentary on that world's decline. B66 Gordon blowing off a thug's head doesn't work only if we pigeonhole him, and the other characters, as being exactly what they were in the show. People change throughout their lives, and we should expect them to. Context is everything, and that is mostly a journey of personal experiences which is rarely understood by others. All we get is "you're a hypocrite, you said this on [insert date here], you're a sellout and you have changed." The realists now know the rehabilitation programs didn't work, the sunshine was replaced by rain, and the world only became crazier. In the words of a former Sheriff I admire, "it's not what I'd prefer, but if you insist, then it's time to saddle up."

Legends of the Dark Knight #40

(https://i.ibb.co/RHRfYqN/Screen-Shot-2020-10-31-at-8-20-24-am.png)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  6 Aug  2020, 21:01For a director, I think perhaps Walter Hill or James Cameron would have been a good choice at the time.

That's another thing I've been contemplating. I think Ridley Scott deserves some thought.

When you go back to things like Thelma & Louise, GI Jane and Gladiator, you start realizing that Scott seems to have an affection for strong-willed individuals rising up against oppressive systems. Sometimes these rebels with wills of iron win and sometimes they lose. But he's touched on that theme a few too many times for me to believe that he doesn't find something captivating about it. I pulled those movies off the top of my head and Wikipedia says they came out in a nine year span. That's an awful lot of time hammering a generally similar theme, wouldn't you say? And TDKR is probably the gold standard of Batman rising up against an oppressive society/government as much as the criminal underworld. I think that element of TDKR would uniquely play to Scott's dramatic sensibilities. It's worth considering.

And we must mention Blade Runner, obviously. That film alone should qualify him for "visionary filmmaker" status. So, there's probably not very much in TDKR that would prove to be an insurmountable challenge for Scott.

But I warn you, it's not a perfect fit. Scott has a known and demonstrable affection for female protagonists. But there's no Ripley in TDKR. It's Batman's story. Everything flows from him, to him and revolves around him. Let's face it, some of Scott's most memorable work seems to include a more powerful central female figure than TDKR offers. I suppose the counter-argument could be that TDKR sacrifices quality for quantity. There's no central female character in TDKR but there are quite a few strong female supporting characters (Lana, Carrie, Selina). Still, it's a trade off he might not have been willing to make.

Availability might've been an issue too. Legend in 1985, Someone To Watch Over Me in 1987 and Black Rain in 1989. Not much free time, I'd imagine. But it's possible that he could've worked it in.

My final reluctance with Scott is that TDKR might've required an American viewpoint. Obviously, Scott isn't American. I wouldn't say that Miller presented a peculiarly American depiction of Ronald Reagan. But still, there is a nuance to TDKR's Reagan that, frankly, a non-American might not be completely aware of. Or sensitive to.

I ruled out Paul Verhoeven (with regrets) because I think he would emphasize the wrong elements of TDKR in the wrong way. He seems comfortable working with a cynical, jaundiced view of systems and institutions of power. At first blush, that makes him an intriguing candidate to direct TDKR. Where the wheels come off the wagon for me is that his fixation on the theme of Humans Being Dehumanized (by technology or lust or military power or whatever) could result in a kind of bizarre take on TDKR which, frankly, is not appropriate. The borderline misanthropic view of consumer culture and the unwashed masses is not necessarily foreign to TDKR but it's not really a perfect fit either.

Lacking everything else, it might've been worth it to call up Wolfgang Petersen to see what he's up to.

Regarding the animated movie, there are so many good tracks, but The Signal is one of my favorites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqm4P0LAaDE

I love the melancholic atmosphere. It brings to mind the weight of a long career and the sadness Batman has endured over the years. To me, it also communicates the weary responsibility on his shoulders in the present day, because he's STILL really the only man capable of rescuing the hellhole that is Gotham City. A short track but a work of art, as far as I am concerned. I'll have to read the graphic novel with this soundtrack on in the background.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 31 Oct  2020, 11:26
Regarding the animated movie, there are so many good tracks, but The Signal is one of my favorites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqm4P0LAaDE

I love the melancholic atmosphere. It brings to mind the weight of a long career and the sadness Batman has endured over the years. To me, it also communicates the weary responsibility on his shoulders in the present day, because he's STILL really the only man capable of rescuing the hellhole that is Gotham City. A short track but a work of art, as far as I am concerned. I'll have to read the graphic novel with this soundtrack on in the background.

That whole score is great. But yeah, that's one of the standout tracks. As you say, the weariness of the responsibility he bears really gives that track a lot of emotional heft. Great choice from a great score.

Time capsule 1996: Wizard Magazine casts "The Dark Knight Returns".

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPxwCMxVsAM-AhC?format=jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPxwCssVsCgfHeZ?format=jpg)

Something tells me I doubt Ronald Reagan would've portrayed himself had a DKR movie got made. He wasn't exactly portrayed in a very good light, from what I could tell.

I saw an artist doing a 3D render of how Batman could look like if a live-action adaptation ever got made. The mouth appears to resemble George Clooney.

(https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/578/642/large/kunal-chopra-dark-knight-returns-full-base.jpg?1572218308)

(https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/578/663/large/kunal-chopra-dark-knight-returns-batsuit.jpg?1572215591)

(https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/021/578/666/large/kunal-chopra-dark-knight-returns-blue-batsuit.jpg?1572215607)

Source: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/OylDgb

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  8 Apr  2022, 03:25
Something tells me I doubt Ronald Reagan would've portrayed himself had a DKR movie got made. He wasn't exactly portrayed in a very good light, from what I could tell.

Yeah, Wizard's dream casting was sometimes not remotely realistic, and even flat out laughable. The most amusing example that comes to mind, is Wizard fan casting Fabio, yes, Fabio as Thor!

Pretty much tells you right there that Wizard would fan cast someone based entirely on someone looking vaguely like a comic book character. "Well, Fabio's blonde. Has long hair. He'd make a fantastic Thor!"  :D

Apparently, whoever wasn't watching WWF in 1996. Otherwise, I'm sure Triple H would have been fan casted instead. I remember when that was sorta of a thing on the internet.  ::)

Wizard casting was sometimes a little tongue in cheek, esp when that column first got started. Casting the irl Dr. Ruth is a good example.

Iirc, it got a little more serious in subsequent columns.

Still, I remind all of you that Wizard magazine's bread and butter was in appealing to junior high boys in the Nineties. Speaking as one of them, you can all probably guess how sophisticated our sense of humor was back in those days.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri,  8 Apr  2022, 04:46

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  8 Apr  2022, 03:25
Something tells me I doubt Ronald Reagan would've portrayed himself had a DKR movie got made. He wasn't exactly portrayed in a very good light, from what I could tell.

Yeah, Wizard's dream casting was sometimes not remotely realistic, and even flat out laughable. The most amusing example that comes to mind, is Wizard fan casting Fabio, yes, Fabio as Thor!

Pretty much tells you right there that Wizard would fan cast someone based entirely on someone looking vaguely like a comic book character. "Well, Fabio's blonde. Has long hair. He'd make a fantastic Thor!"  :D

LOL. Well, if we're merely judging by looks and not acting talent then yes, Fabio would've been perfect as Thor.

I figured these magazine fan castings were mostly made in jest. I'd like to know what David Letterman thought of the idea that a satirical version of himself was killed off in DKR. I can't imagine the idea of playing himself in a movie with his sidekick Paul Shaffer dying of Joker venom would've made him comfortable, haha!

That might be another reason why Conan O'Brien voiced him in the animated movie, and why David Endocrine bore no resemblance to the comic. It wasn't the only time Conan played a talk show host who died in a cartoon, I remember he played a version of himself in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, where he committed suicide.

Watching the masterpiece that is the animated adaption, what struck me is how inherently good Batman is, even in one of his most alpha male, brooding incarnations. Sometimes I think people lose sight of this in the push towards always going darker.

At the start of TDK Returns, Bruce is haunted but he's still a man of standards and pride. There's something inside him that keeps him from being swallowed up by the abyss completely. Part of it is the desire to feel alive by skirting close to death, namely the racing car incident. But the real driver is knowing how far Gotham has fallen, and how things should and could be. Batman can retire but for that period of time he is likely to be restless.

When he puts on the suit again you feel he's at peace, and the mental worry of the past melts away. He's very much an assertive man of positive thinking and hope. The tragedy of Jason happened, but the war goes on. Setbacks don't matter and victory is just a matter of time. He functions as a role model to others and doesn't want kids to use bad language. The spirit of Adam West is definitely there and it's the heart and soul of the character.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  5 Mar  2020, 12:33I read Frank Miller's Daredevil: The Man Without Fear awhile ago, and while I was reading the final chapter where Matt Murdock fights off those child traffickers to rescue Mickey, I noticed him making a jumping pose similar to Batman in TDKR.

(https://i.imgur.com/wgWP7KI.jpg)

That jump from the TDKR was also replicated in one of the proposed movie posters made for B89, as drawn by John Alvin.

(https://i.redd.it/nl8g2ctb5egz.jpg)