Batman-Online.com

It's been revealed that Peter Weller is voicing Batman.

http://collider.com/dark-knight-returns-animated-voice-cast/168151/

I think he's potentially a good choice.

I think it's an inspired choice!

Yeah, this is great news. And in two parts? They'll do the story justice

http://www.batman-online.com/news/2012/5/23/dark-knight-returns-animated-adapation-announced

Perfection!!! He's got a nice 'age grizzle' on an otherwise youthful voice that could at one been a early career Batman.

Robocop always reminded me of Dark Knight Returns. Good casting choice.

MTV has the trailer for Part One.

http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/820585/exclusive-batman-the-dark-knight-returns-part-1-trailer.jhtml#id=1690758

Looking good, save for the obvious typo in the title at the end of the trailer.  I'm curious who will be voicing Joker and Superman in Part Two.

Hope it turns out better than Year One.  I'm already liking Peter Weller better than Ben McKenzie.

While I think it looks quite good, in particular the inspired casting, I have a small gripe with the aesthetic.  It looks very clean computer/anime.  One of the selling points (for me) was the sort of sketchy overly-detailed drawing style in the original comics.  In a sense, I would almost prefer if Bakshi's company took it on.  Still, will definitely check it out.  :)

Here's a new clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Th4GGesOQ&feature=player_embedded

It looks fun, but I can see what greggbray means about it looking a little too slick. It doesn't have the rough, grimy quality of Miller's artwork. And that makes it seem less edgy.

I understand the criticism but just figured the animators went as close to Miller's (imho overrated) style as they could while keeping it all animation-friendly.

The cop's delivery of that last line is, sadly, lacking compared to the actor who said a similar line in The Dark Knight Rises (though at least in the context of this movie, the line makes sense).

In other news, casting has been revealed for The Dark Knight Returns Part 2, with Human Target's Mark Valley as Superman and Michael Emerson as the Joker!
http://www.tvguide.com/News/Michael-Emerson-Joker-The-Dark-Knight-Returns-1052594.aspx

I love Emerson and I can't wait to hear his interpretation!

Emerson as the Joker! Now that's an inspired piece of casting.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue,  4 Sep  2012, 21:11
Emerson as the Joker! Now that's an inspired piece of casting.

This is a casting decision I am genuinely excited about.

I find it kind of funny that in the last month the RoboCop world has intertwined with the Batman world with the casting of Keaton in the new RoboCop film and Weller as the new Batman voice.

I really wanted Michael Keaton to be the voice of Batman in this feature.  I mean seriously,  why couldn't they get him?  Michael has done some animated voice work before (The Simpsons, Cars, Toy Story 3).   At the very least he should have been auditioned for the role. 

Quote from: THE BAT-MAN on Sat,  8 Sep  2012, 03:38
I really wanted Michael Keaton to be the voice of Batman in this feature.  I mean seriously,  why couldn't they get him?  Michael has done some animated voice work before (The Simpsons, Cars, Toy Story 3).   At the very least he should have been auditioned for the role.

Can you imagine the publicity!

Quote from: THE BAT-MAN on Sat,  8 Sep  2012, 03:38
I really wanted Michael Keaton to be the voice of Batman in this feature.  I mean seriously,  why couldn't they get him?  Michael has done some animated voice work before (The Simpsons, Cars, Toy Story 3).   At the very least he should have been auditioned for the role.

With these kind of things it like they purposefully avoid it. Looking around for everybody other than the fairytale fan choice who just happens to be sitting around getting older, has history with the character and would no doubt take up the opportunity if asked.

^ I think at least some of that owes back to ego running everything in Hollywood. If someone were to recruit Keaton for this, Burton ultimately will get the credit for it. The supposition is that all the casting director will be remembered for in this project is heating up Burton's leftovers. So out with a fan favorite and in with... well, admittedly another fan favorite.

I also think that Keaton still commands a certain level of salary that is probably beyond the budget of this animated flick.

I can't see Peter Weller having the same pull...even if it is a bit of inspired casting!

My review

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2012/9/10/review-batman-the-dark-knight-returns-part-1

Sounds like a good adaption overall. I'm looking forward to this more than I was for 'Year One'.

Added new images to the review

Nice...

It is not often I say this about anything current (that is, anything with a post-2000 release date) but... can't wait for Part II. I loved the modern-retro 80s vibe.

Is this worth purchasing ?

Definitely

I finally sat down and watched  " year 1 " , " under the red hood " and " the dark knight returns part 1 "   the other night and  I was very impressed with all 3 but this 1 was very very enjoyable 

I just watched it tonight and was very impressed.

Thought you might like to know that the director of The Dark Knight Returns, Jay Oliva, has been on the site!

He read funzi159's review of Part 2 and left a nice comment at the bottom of the page.

Check it out! http://www.batman-online.com/features/2013/1/23/review-batman-the-dark-knight-returns-part-2

Wow, that's awesome! Congratulations to funzi159!

We should start keeping a list of all the people in the comic book and movie industries who visit the site.

Yeah, way to go.

I wonder, will the soundtrack become available? I loved the score, especially the cue when Batman and the Joker have their fateful meeting in the fairground. Don't care about whatever anyone says, the way they brought this scene to life was one of the best final confrontations in any screen version of Batman.

It will and I can't wait to get ahold of it either when it comes out:
https://twitter.com/DrakeFilmscore/status/320267437272612864
Drake should get props for being the only composer who's had to compose multiple Batman themes, since the DC movies he works on aren't connected to each other in continuity.  I love his work from In Darkness Dwells in Gotham Knight as well as Under the Red Hood and I know he's done others, too.

Back to TDKR:
Finally saw both parts.  Definitely up there with Mask of the Phantasm and Under the Red Hood in my book.  For those who have seen it, check out Kevin Smith and Marc Bernardin's commentary on the Fatman on Batman podcast.  Very entertaining take from two megafans of the source material.

I thought Weller was perfect for the TDKR Batman and the action sequences were even better than the comic.  Loved their version of "This isn't a mudhole.  It's an operating table" in Part I and the Tunnel of Love sequence in Part II gets well-deserved praise (where Michael Emerson nails the Joker's final moments).   I thought some of the additions and changes were the right calls, such as Carrie and Batman exchanging looks after he saves her, the Two-Face sequence being Harvey's suicide attempt, Joker taking a more active role in killing Wolper, and Gordon & Clark's final exchange.  I had reread the comic before watching it, but the movie made me want to reread it again just to re-experience it and pick up on moments that were cut and moments that the movie expanded upon.

So, I finally got around to seeing both parts. This is a worthy adaption. Like BatmAngelus, I was compelled to re-read it straight after. The movie has made me a bigger fan of the story.

Weller's voice was excellent. Firm and authoritative. Emerson was spot on too. His calm voice suited Joker's vegetative type state. Very cold, detached and a matter of fact. I can't praise these two enough.

I preferred Part 1, but Part 2 has it's fair share of highlights. Especially the tunnel of love. Definitely my favourite part. That's what a final confrontation is all about. Joker knowing this is the end, and as a result killing more indiscriminately than ever. We all know this, but seeing the panels play out gave everything more life. It was fun to watch.

I liked the animation style, and the music suited just fine. Especially the main theme. I approve - and will be seeking the Blu-rays.

Due in October is a Deluxe edition of The Dark Knight Returns, collecting both parts and featuring a director (Jay Oliva) commentary track.

Actually, it's supposed to be a commentary by Frank Miller himself if the Warner Bros. ad is anything to go by!  ???

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdactive.com%2Fimages%2Fnews%2Fscreenshot%2F2013%2F6%2Fwbt_133393c_copy1.jpg&hash=83aa839013665593ec8b0cb7349a07e7fc6c631c)

That definitely interests me. I hope he'll say that without most of the narration, it's not as good!

And furthermore, there are other new features, but also it's edited into one film. I knew they were gonna do that, but I bought both anyhow. Oh well. Time to gift the existing copies of mine and double (triple?) dip for this new release!

I haven't got around to buying the Blu-rays. I'm glad I didn't, because I'll be going for this deluxe edition.

Random trivia of the day- according to the movie's composer, Christopher Drake, Michael Keaton actually passed on doing the voice...of the Joker:
https://twitter.com/DrakeFilmscore/status/358699310566748161

**SPOILERS** - Just attempting to do a review.  ;)

QuoteI read TDKR five years ago, and I must admit that my reaction wasn't exactly positive. At first I thought it had a great first chapter, but then I thought everything went downhill from there. My problems with it at the time was I thought there were too many subplots that didn't contribute to the story (e.g. the lunatic who is about to kill an entire theatre audience, the woman's last few moments before being killed at the subway station), too many political themes that not only felt dated for a younger audience - but became hard to understand if you're not from America like me, and I just didn't care for the bleak tone. Last but not least, the quality of the illustration worsened as the plot progressed; making the plot even hard to follow towards the third and fourth chapters too. Nonetheless, I began to slowly appreciate TDKR overtime, and I was eager to see TDKR as a cartoon adaptation and judge it for myself.  I have to say, I thought TDKR was not only a very good adaptation, but I thought that it expressed Frank Miller's plot better as a film.

I'll talk about Part I first. Like the first chapter in the comic, I enjoyed this film a lot. The animation does resemble a lot like the comic's illustration, but it gave it a clear, polished look about it. It mostly stays true to what goes in the first two chapters, but gone are those two subplots I mentioned and replacing them with moments that contributed the story better - e.g. Batman facing off the military official who was responsible for giving the Mutants ammunition in exchange for funding his dying wife's medical treatment. That particular scene gave dramatic tension as opposed to Batman finding the General's dead body draped in the American flag in the comic (or at least that's how I remembered). Furthermore, the film fleshed out Bruce's recovery in the cave as he remembers being at his parents' funeral, making that moment nuanced and defining of Batman's personality. That part, with Bruce saying "you are never finished with me" as the bat approaches is the best scene that defines Batman like I thought he was supposed to be - always dedicated to rid crime of Gotham until the end. I've noticed also that Batman was gentler towards his treatment with Carrie Kelley, unlike how he came across as a Drill Sargeant-like disciplinarian in the comic. The whole film has excellent pacing, perfectly animated action, and contains the comic's realistic public debate about whether Batman is protecting Gotham from crime or if he's actually dangerous as the criminals he defeats. This is something that no live-action Batman film has bothered doing despite the writers were supposedly inspired by comics like these.

Now for Part II. My reaction towards is somewhat similar to the second half of the comic, though I have a rather mixed-to-positive feeling about the animated version. This is not only even more violent than Part I, but I think it's the most violent Batman film, both animated and live-action, ever made. Not even Under the Red Hood was this unsettling. The violence in the comic was graphic, but I felt the violence in this film made everything a little more extreme. The scenes where Joker gasses the TV audience to death, and gunning down every bystander at the theme park while he was being chased after by Batman was by far the worst sort of violence the character ever committed in a non-comic medium, in my opinion. I'm observing this rather than criticizing it, but I'd be lying if I were to say that this isn't unsettling.

The battle between Batman and Superman in the end was a highlight, and up there with the abandoned warehouse and mud fight scenes. Despite some reservations, I still thought Part II was decent, if not quite as satisfying as Part I. So why didn't I like the second half of the plot in TDKR? I simply thought the animated film version fleshed out the plot, whereas the in comic I thought some parts dragged on, mostly because of some subplots I felt did nothing for me and I even misunderstood what was going on because I couldn't get through the poor quality of the illustration. I used to also not like how Superman was being pawn of the government and thought he was being manipulated, but afterwards I realized that he was only doing his best to keep the peace and coming to terms with the world needing to move on from superheroes. From a more simpler point of view, I felt the final confrontation between Batman and Joker was anti-climactic. I understand why it ended the way it did, so the story could end with Batman faking his death to get the US government of his back after fighting Superman, but I still can't help but feel it was slightly anti-climactic. That's just my preference though.

Nothing needs to be said about the voice acting - I believed everybody did their jobs well.

In short, I enjoyed this adaptation of TDKR more than the comic itself. If I had to rate both out of five, I'd give Part I 4.5/5 and Part II 3/5.

By the way, did anyone catch the Burton Batmobile and Reeve Superman poster easter eggs during Part II? :)

Guess I never posted my thoughts about the movie. So. On with the show, this is it.

Baggage and Disclaimers- I'm a Superman guy and I don't like how he's presented in TDKR. But whining and complaining about that seems out of place here so we'll simply note that stuff and move on.

Honestly I enjoyed both parts. The break between Parts I and II were done masterfully and the structural change to the story so that Part I ends with the Joker "coming back to life" was absolutely the right call. See, this is how you adapt a story. You structure it in a way that makes sense for your movie without arbitrarily deleting stuff just because.

The line style doesn't bother me. It looks sufficiently like vintage Miller while remaining animation-friendly. All the lines and detail and style he brings doesn't easily lend itself to animation. They cut corners with his style but kept the essential flavor of it. No complaints.

Maybe I'm misremembering TDKR's coloring but I've always hated it. It's just looked BAD to me. I've never been able to relate to the hype about TDKR's color palette. I totally see it with Watchmen's color design because that's awesome but TDKR's coloring? Completely overrated, if you ask me. I don't know what it is that other people are seeing which I'm not but TDKR has always looked like it was colored by a 1st grader to me. I'm glad that the movie version didn't try to replicate the terrible crayony look of TDKR as a comic and instead went with what has become a more traditional route. In fact, it looked like a good bit of the color design in both TDKR I and II could've come from BTAS.

Do I seriously need to mention the voice cast? Weller did a phenomenal job. A lot of times with these sorts of DTV movies, the voice actors sound like they're reading from a card. Maybe they actually are or maybe they're really giving it their best shot but I'm usually completely underwhelmed by the voice acting in a lot of these DC animated movie. But here, the entire cast usually deliver the goods. True, some line readings just sound off and under-rehearsed  but those are the exceptions which prove the rule.

A lot of people have griped about the lack of narration. Yes, it's crucial to TDKR as a comic book. And in this respect, the filmmakers were caught between a rock and a hard place. If they deleted the internal monologues, purists would complain. But if they kept them, you're left with a situation where Batman has a 1/4 of a page of dialogue while someone "sneaks up" on him from less than three feet away and so Batman cripples him. You can't do the full extent of the text justice in the four or five seconds that moment is given on film. Slow-mo would look out of place in this movie, if you ask me, so the filmmakers wisely decided it's best to skip that stuff. Sure, we lose stuff like "this would be a good death... but not good enough", "I think about Sarah and the rest is easy" and "my timing wasn't quite precise enough etc". But this was always going to be a tricky thing; the filmmakers did the best they could. No complaints.

The Joker's river of love escapade was every bit as chaotic, random and bloody as it should've been. This is the moment where the Joker came the closest he ever has to winning. Not just killing Batman but, ultimately, in making Batman a killer. That's what the Joker sees as victory. Killing Batman is one thing; making him kill... ooh, now there is a challenge! And the Joker damned near succeeds. The Joker kills himself as a consolation prize, knowing Batman will be blamed for it but still the Joker had to go to whatever hell waits for him with the full knowledge that when the chips were done, Batman truly was incorruptible. He lost.

Of all DC movies so far, this is the one with the clearest identity and mission statement. To this point, it's like WB has wanted to make movies that do everything and so accomplish nothing. The movies are marketed to kids but include a lot of inappropriate sexual innuendo. The movies are marketed to adults but include a lot of cutesy kid crap. The movies are marketed to women but include lots of violence. The movies are marketed to men but include lots of romantic/relationship crap. The "all things to all people" bull$#!+ annoys me because nothing can be everything to everyone and you only shortchange everyone when you try it.

Superman vs. The Elite, I'm looking right at you.

But that's all less problematic with TDKR because it's tough (maybe impossible) to make this film anything other than what it is while doing Miller's story justice. The same is true to a lesser degree of BY1. In fact, it looks like Miller's Batman work has so far benefited the most from being adapted both in terms of tonal consistency, story fidelity and entertainment value. These weren't really kid stories to begin with so the movies are naturally not kid stories and don't really seem like they were intended for them. That works for me.

I can't imagine any of you haven't seen these things yet but if you haven't, give 'em a shot. They're well worth it.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 23 Jul  2013, 06:20
Random trivia of the day- according to the movie's composer, Christopher Drake, Michael Keaton actually passed on doing the voice...of the Joker:
https://twitter.com/DrakeFilmscore/status/358699310566748161

Maybe they should have approached him about playing Batman? Then again, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference. Though it would have been cool if he'd been the first actor to play both Batman and the Joker.

I reckon this is a fairly strong indicator that Keaton isn't interested in returning to the franchise. At this stage he probably sees it as a backwards step in his career.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 29 Jul  2013, 17:46Maybe they should have approached him about playing Batman? Then again, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference. Though it would have been cool if he'd been the first actor to play both Batman and the Joker.

Seriously. Val Kilmer is auspicious for having played both Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp. So what's Keaton's excuse?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 29 Jul  2013, 17:46I reckon this is a fairly strong indicator that Keaton isn't interested in returning to the franchise. At this stage he probably sees it as a backwards step in his career.

All due respect to Keaton... but what career?

QuoteThough it would have been cool if he'd been the first actor to play both Batman and the Joker.

Technically, this title's been taken by two others.  Michael Dobson did the voice of both Batman and Joker in the Night after Night segment of the Batman: Black and White motion comics (he also voiced Alfred).  Kevin Michael Richardson also did the same, voicing Joker in The Batman and Batman in the Plastic Man TV show.

As for Keaton, I suspect that since Joker wasn't really needed until Part II (aside from the closing line of Part I), Peter Weller already may have been cast (and maybe even had recorded all his lines) by the time they were casting Joker.

Honestly, as much as I love Keaton- he's my favorite live action Batman- I personally don't think he fits the Dark Knight Returns Batman, either in live action or vocally for animation. 

Keaton's Batman voice was a light, gravelly whisper which worked well for the Burton films, but I can't really hear him delivering the TDKR lines that way and having the same impact that Weller (or Michael Ironside in the Legends of the Dark Knight episode) did.  Just imagine him doing the "This isn't a mudhole" part or "I want you to remember the one man who beat you."  It doesn't hit as hard, in my opinion.  Sure, he could've changed his voice and deepened it to fit, but personally, if it were down between the two actors, I would've picked Weller, too.

QuoteTechnically, this title's been taken by two others.  Michael Dobson did the voice of both Batman and Joker in the Night after Night segment of the Batman: Black and White motion comics (he also voiced Alfred).  Kevin Michael Richardson also did the same, voicing Joker in The Batman and Batman in the Plastic Man TV show.

I stand corrected... W-wait a minute, there's a Plastic Man TV show?! Why have I not heard about this?

QuoteKeaton's Batman voice was a light, gravelly whisper which worked well for the Burton films, but I can't really hear him delivering the TDKR lines that way and having the same impact that Weller (or Michael Ironside in the Legends of the Dark Knight episode) did.  Just imagine him doing the "This isn't a mudhole" part or "I want you to remember the one man who beat you."  It doesn't hit as hard, in my opinion.  Sure, he could've changed his voice and deepened it to fit, but personally, if it were down between the two actors, I would've picked Weller, too.

I have to disagree there. I can easily imagine Keaton saying those lines. He'd have been perfect for the TDKR films. Check out his vocal performances in the Studio Ghibli film Porco Rosso (1992) or when he guest appeared on The Simpsons. He can easily pitch his voice much lower than he did when he played Batman. And his voice has only gotten deeper with age.

Having a former Batman reprise the role would have added extra resonance to the production. Like how they included the Furstmobile in the background in one scene; it could just as easily have been any other generic-looking Batmobile and it wouldn't have affected the plot, but having a recognisable design from a previous era added historical weight to its presence in the cave. Likewise having Keaton voice Batman would have appealed to the fans' collective memories of a previous era in the franchise.

Weller was fine, but his involvement in the films had no greater significance. Sure, he played RoboCop. But RoboCop's not Batman. And the strength of Weller's voice is that he speaks in a mechanical monotone. When it comes to Batman, I prefer more emotion and tonal diversity. Even with a portrayal as one-note as the one in TDKR.

What really irks me is the fact Keaton's appearing in the new RoboCop film. Instead of some lame watered-down CGI-filled PG-13 remake, they should be producing RoboCop Returns, a proper hardcore R-rated sequel to the original film. And it should star Peter Weller. These guys should have switched movies.

QuoteI stand corrected... W-wait a minute, there's a Plastic Man TV show?! Why have I not heard about this?

I wouldn't have heard about it either, but I found voice samples at Behind the Voice Actor.com.  Richardson's here is from New Teen Titans and IMDB lists that he also did it for the Plastic Man show:
http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/voice-compare/Batman/Batman/

Another name to add to the list- Troy Baker, who voices Batman in LEGO Batman and Joker in the upcoming Arkham Origins.

QuoteI have to disagree there. I can easily imagine Keaton saying those lines. He'd have been perfect for the TDKR films. Check out his vocal performances in the Studio Ghibli film Porco Rosso (1992) or when he guest appeared on The Simpsons. He can easily pitch his voice much lower than he did when he played Batman. And his voice has only gotten deeper with age.

Having a former Batman reprise the role would have added extra resonance to the production. Like how they included the Furstmobile in the background in one scene; it could just as easily have been any other generic-looking Batmobile and it wouldn't have affected the plot, but having a recognisable design from a previous era added historical weight to its presence in the cave. Likewise having Keaton voice Batman would have appealed to the fans' collective memories of a previous era in the franchise.

Weller was fine, but his involvement in the films had no greater significance. Sure, he played RoboCop. But RoboCop's not Batman. And the strength of Weller's voice is that he speaks in a mechanical monotone. When it comes to Batman, I prefer more emotion and tonal diversity. Even with a portrayal as one-note as the one in TDKR.

What really irks me is the fact Keaton's appearing in the new RoboCop film. Instead of some lame watered-down CGI-filled PG-13 remake, they should be producing RoboCop Returns, a proper hardcore R-rated sequel to the original film. And it should star Peter Weller. These guys should have switched movies.

I haven't seen Porco Rosso and I don't think I've caught the Simpsons ep(s) before, so I'll check them out when I can.  I've mainly heard his voice acting in Cars and Toy Story 3, though he'd obviously use a different voice if he ever came back to the Batman role through animation.

I agree that Keaton's casting would have more resonance than Weller's, for the obvious reasons.  Ideally, a TDKR adaptation- either live action or animation- would be filled with older actors who've played these roles before- Batman, Alfred, Superman, Harvey/Two-Face, Gordon, Selina, Oliver, etc.  Failing that, I was happy with the cast we got.

The Dark Knight Returns score by Christopher Drake is set for release on October 8th.  You can hear samples on iTunes:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/batman-dark-knight-returns/id711828022

I think I've settled my mind. TDK Returns is my number one Batman graphic novel. It took the animated movie to cement this view. It has nearly everything I like about the character included in one package.

The soundtrack by Christopher Drake is also worthy of mention. It has a 1980s dance club vibe mixed with a dystopian Terminator influence. Which goes really well given the period the comic was released and the themes of the story.

I didn't really begin to appreciate The Dark Knight Returns until the animated movies. Like I said before in my review, the plot is better off as a movie. Some people might argue with this, but I reckon the comic had a few problems that ruined it for me i.e. the messy illustration, the frankly unnecessary subplots such as the schizo about to kill an entire audience at the cinema and so on. The movies made the plot flow better, and focused a little more on Batman in my opinion.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 22 Mar  2014, 06:06
I didn't really begin to appreciate The Dark Knight Returns until the animated movies. Like I said before in my review, the plot is better off as a movie. Some people might argue with this, but I reckon the comic had a few problems that ruined it for me i.e. the messy illustration, the frankly unnecessary subplots such as the schizo about to kill an entire audience at the cinema and so on. The movies made the plot flow better, and focused a little more on Batman in my opinion.

I think the crazed guy shooting up a few people in the cinema played well in the comic. It's the precursor to Joker's gassing of the television audience. The freaks are starting to come out of the woodwork again due to Batman's presence.

I also like the bit where Batman and Robin visit Abner's apartment, which is subsequently blown up by the robot. That gave Joker a little bit more of a presence and influence from inside Arkham, even if he's vegetative.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Mon, 29 Jul  2013, 20:34

QuoteThough it would have been cool if he'd been the first actor to play both Batman and the Joker.

Technically, this title's been taken by two others.  Michael Dobson did the voice of both Batman and Joker in the Night after Night segment of the Batman: Black and White motion comics (he also voiced Alfred).  Kevin Michael Richardson also did the same, voicing Joker in The Batman and Batman in the Plastic Man TV show.

As for Keaton, I suspect that since Joker wasn't really needed until Part II (aside from the closing line of Part I), Peter Weller already may have been cast (and maybe even had recorded all his lines) by the time they were casting Joker.

Honestly, as much as I love Keaton- he's my favorite live action Batman- I personally don't think he fits the Dark Knight Returns Batman, either in live action or vocally for animation. 

Keaton's Batman voice was a light, gravelly whisper which worked well for the Burton films, but I can't really hear him delivering the TDKR lines that way and having the same impact that Weller (or Michael Ironside in the Legends of the Dark Knight episode) did.  Just imagine him doing the "This isn't a mudhole" part or "I want you to remember the one man who beat you."  It doesn't hit as hard, in my opinion.  Sure, he could've changed his voice and deepened it to fit, but personally, if it were down between the two actors, I would've picked Weller, too.

Requoting the above as I completely take back what I said.

After hearing Keaton in the Birdman trailer, I think he totally could've done the voice of Batman in this movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIxMMv_LD5Q

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 12 Jun  2014, 17:25After hearing Keaton in the Birdman trailer, I think he totally could've done the voice of Batman in this movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIxMMv_LD5Q

"Let's go back one more time and show them what we're capable of." The delivery of that line is pure TDKR. Weller was fine in the role, but I think Keaton would've made this really special. :(

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 29 Jul  2013, 15:05Guess I never posted my thoughts about the movie. So. On with the show, this is it.

I'm coming back to this.

Reread TDKR yesterday and rewatched part 1 of the animated feature. Doing so shows you the similarities. But the differences stand out all the more.

The animated film uses as a celebrity-obsessed blowhard. He's just a guy who wants his 15 minutes of fame. If Wolper was a real life person, I suspect he'd get along famously with Dr. Phil.

Miller uses Wolper as a celebrity-obsessed blowhard... who has a point. He suggests that Batman ultimately has a negative effect on society. He inspires villains to be villains while also serving as a poor example to the youth. That seems absurd and at first Miller himself seems to ridicule the idea... until you remember thinks like Carrie Kelly, the Sons of Batman, the return of the Joker and so forth.

In the final analysis, Miller's view appears to be that, yes, Batman does positive things but his mere existence is ultimately a negative... which, I think, even the character himself realizes at the end of the book when it's implied that Bruce will turn his attention away from street crime and focus instead on corruption in the government.

Ignore what does or doesn't happen in the sequels to TDKR. I'm considering only TDKR as a standalone piece here.

It would appear that Miller and Burton both have very similar and somewhat cynical views of Batman. He's not a virtuous hero on a noble quest. He's a dangerous vigilante who arguably does more harm than good.

In any case, the animated film somewhat misses this angle. It's not completely lost but it's not as self-evident as it is in the comic.

Another change is more structural in nature. Jay Olivia obviously wanted to end part 1 on a cliffhanger. The logical place, as per the comic, to end part 1 would've been Bruce staring triumphantly out his window listening to wolves howl after beating the snot out of the Mutant leader. But that's no good as a lead-in for part 2.

So Olivia set up the Joker's return to lucidity as the end of part 1.

That works well dramatically but it creates a structural problem with Two Face bombing the Gotham towers. In the comic, the Joker's lackey tampered with the bombs and activated them without Two Face's knowledge on the Joker's orders. But since the Joker isn't lucid until the end of the animated part 1, there's no choice except to reimagine Harvey's motives for the bombing as a suicide run... even though that clearly wasn't really his motive in the comic.

As I say, it's unavoidable.

But in a broader sense, the voice acting is mostly spot-on, the movie makes sense out of a lot of confusing stuff from the comic (the abstract art is sometimes incomprehensible), the score is INCREDIBLE and this was obviously a labor of love for everybody involved.

Of all the Batman animated features I've seen so far, TDKR is probably my favorite.

This is surprising since I thought I was burned out on TDKR. What I've come to understand is that the story is fine. It's very enjoyable. It is for the Pre-Crisis Batman what Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is for Superman. Except TDKR is actually enjoyable while WHTTMOT isn't. But you get the idea.

What I'm sick of is the adulation TDKR gets and has gotten. It's good but NOTHING is THAT good.

But when you remove TDKR from TDKR's reception, it's a good story. And the animated feature is amazing. In fact, I daresay TDKR is a better Batman story than Year One.

Guys, give this two-part animated feature another look. The actors are mostly awesome, the filmmakers obviously love the material and IT'S FREAKING TDKR! And it's not compromised or watered down. Well, not too much anyway.

And that score...

I for one loved that Part I ended as a cliffhanger with the Joker coming out of his vegetable state when he hears Batman is on the news again.

When comparing the two popular Batman tales from the 1980s adapted into animation, I prefer The Dark Knight Returns animated adaptation than the comic itself, but The Killing Joke made me realise it's best appreciated as a comic only, as it doesn't quite work as a feature film.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  7 Aug  2016, 19:23

the score is INCREDIBLE

Agreed. Most scores for these 2000s-2010s animated movies usually lack "personality" - they're just some serviceable action music to accompany the visuals. This was different, and a great listen on album.

My favourite track:

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  7 Aug  2016, 19:23
Guys, give this two-part animated feature another look. The actors are mostly awesome, the filmmakers obviously love the material and IT'S FREAKING TDKR! And it's not compromised or watered down. Well, not too much anyway.

And that score...

TDK Returns is hands down my top Batman animated movie. And truth be told, it's probably my number one Batman movie overall. I didn't really comprehend just how good it was until I saw the underwhelming Killing Joke. With TKJ, they fumbled a great story and made me wish they kept their hands off it. That's not the case with TDK Returns. It has everything that makes the comic great, but simply translated into animation. I can't imagine the movie being any better than it already is. TDK Returns Batman is everything I want in the character.

I was thinking about the "I believe you" hostage scene today, and kept comparing the obvious differences between the ambiguity surrounding how Batman shot the Mutant in Frank Miller's comic, to the animated version's more safe approach. A reason for this is because the question whether or not Miller's Batman had killed the Mutant had been a hot topic for years.

So I did a bit of digging about the thought process behind it, and I found these tweets by Jay Oliva from last November. He believed Batman did kill during that moment in the comic, and changed the scene in the movie to suit the storytelling.

Quote from: Jay Oliva
My interpretation was that he shot the thug in the head. I noticed the times Batman loses his s*** is when children are involved. He won't break his rule but if it would mean a child would be killed then I think he'd make an exception. Remember his parents died when he was a kid

We changed it in the movie to the hand to keep it simpler and to drive the narrative forward. That sequence needs a lot more exploration and deep dive into what Batman is willing to do or not to do for justice. I didn't have that luxury in the film to explore.

We barely had enough time to fit everything into 2 films as it was!

But I do find that concept fascinating. Especially in the context of a DKR Batman.

Source: https://twitter.com/jayoliva1/status/1197982683608993792

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-L6F1N0Mfupc%2FTwkZ8GUgOEI%2FAAAAAAAAAN0%2FiybdMgN7zJs%2Fs1600%2Fibelieveyou1.gif&hash=94ae2eb2461b1c3eae2480c4a92bc66c36fb454c)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-DuKATSYjJi8%2FTwkaArGNL0I%2FAAAAAAAAAN8%2FeSs3gXu05y4%2Fs1600%2Fibelieveyou2.gif&hash=c854fa7c82b844276216f55361713da117d43a82)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPdRaCeL07g

When Zack Snyder referenced this moment in the comic while talking about the end of the warehouse scene in BvS, he got some backlash and ridicule because he described the Mutant "getting shot in the eyes". But considering Oliva thought the Mutant got shot in the head, there's no denying the interpretation over the Mutant meeting her demise is very common.

I, for one, always thought the moment in the comic was ambiguous at least, and felt inclined to believe Batman did kill the perpetrator. We can debate where exactly did the Mutant get shot, but the fact is if Miller really wanted to convey that Batman didn't kill her, he would've done exactly what the animated film did. The fact the scene looked deadly must have been done on purpose - to make you question whether or not Batman is a reliable narrator. If the splash of grey on the panel isn't an obvious metaphor to how morally grey Batman is in the story, then I don't know what is.

For what is worth, I must admit that I prefer the animated film's interpretation of the scene. Simply because it shows off Batman's coolness as he easily disarms the Mutant with near-superhuman precision.

I never doubted that Batman blew that mutant into the next life. I understand why Oliva fudged that scene a bit in the movie and made it a bit safer. And I do not condemn his decision. It was probably the right call to make considering the format he was working in. But let's be real, that chick was a goner.

It's a great moment in the comic and... eh, a decent moment in the (otherwise awesome) movie.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  2 Apr  2020, 13:15
I never doubted that Batman blew that mutant into the next life. I understand why Oliva fudged that scene a bit in the movie and made it a bit safer. And I do not condemn his decision. It was probably the right call to make considering the format he was working in. But let's be real, that chick was a goner.

It's a great moment in the comic and... eh, a decent moment in the (otherwise awesome) movie.

It's ambiguous but I'm inclined to say Batman didn't kill the guy.

When you look at the entirety of TDK Returns we see him:

Using rubber bullets from the Batmobile.
Angrily snapping a gun in half.
Calling guns loud and clumsy, the weapon of the enemy.
And a gun is described as a liar and coward's weapon.

Therefore I think the film handled the moment perfectly, because they had to show SOMETHING. Batman uses a gun to shoot another gun, which remains in line with the rhetoric and conduct from the comic.

This is another reason why I prefer the comic, because it puts the outcome onto the reader. Perhaps Batman did kill the mutant, as the life of a child is a special circumstance and one very close to his heart.

Wasn't sure where the best place was to post this. But this is from Wizard #54, speculative casting about a TDKR film made in the Nineties. Aside from a sort of tasteless joke about Reagan, it's actually a pretty good column. And (otherwise) a pretty credible cast.

(https://i.imgur.com/uTYoZT4.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/wtexne2.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/ziqZjv1.jpg)

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

That is a pretty solid casting job. The older I get the more I resonate with TDK Returns. Not just because the world I see in the comic is what I'm seeing outside my own front door. But because like Miller, I like the idea of bumping Batman's age up to be older than me - as he always had been.

I particularly like the idea of a mid-1990's Ed Harris playing the TDKR Harvey Dent/Two-Face.

That would have been pretty awesome actually.