Was The Dark Knight Returns one of the worst or one of the best things to happen to Superman?

[sta8541]

I believe The Dark Knight Returns was one of the worst things to happen to Superman, & we are still (sadly) feeling its effects all these decades later.

The fact that the trailer for "Batman Beats Up Superman (Again): Dawn of Dark Justice" has Batffleck in the ridiculous armor & faceplate as he "squares off" against the "untrustworthy alien" is just one example. Batman, again encased in silly armor, disposing of the entire (Joker-envenomed & thus weakened) Justice League fairly recently in Batman's own book, is merely another example. You guys & gals are all sophisticated readers; I don't need to list off the totality of the dumbing down that Superman gets at the hands of the writers when batgod is around (not to mention the same treatment meted out to all the other powered heroes in the presence of Bruce Almighty) . It's practically proverbial at this point. Where do you think the inane phrase "Batman & His Bitches" w/regards to the Justice League comes from? It's b/c writers feel the need to power-down the rest of the Leaguers while simultaneously giving batgod yet another power-amp so he can try to keep up. It caters to batgod fanboys wet dreams...

And it all started w/TDKR.

Any possible subtle subtext about the political message was mostly drowned out by people who still say, to this day, that it was the book "where Batman beat Superman." That's all most people remember about it or know about it if they haven't read it. Even the quote from TDKR when DC announced the new movie was the "the one man who beat you" bs. A whole book of possible quotes to choose from (more, if you're not limiting yourself to TDKR) & that was the phrase they selected to inaugurate the movie to the world.

It all goes back to that aspect of TDKR.

The incredible thing to me is that the other half of the "dark 1-2 punch" in 1986 was Alan Moore, & his Watchmen made TDKR look absolutely idyllic by comparison. This makes him for the intents & purposes of this post the "king of the dark writers for the mainstream" back then...& this is THE SAME GUY who penned 2 of the most beloved & memorable...& frankly beautiful...Superman tales of all time. Of course I speak of "Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" & "For The Man Who Has Everything." He was the writer DC chose to literally close the door on the Silver Age w/the former story. And he had enough sensitivity & breadth of understanding to craft both the dystopian Watchmen and handle Superman very well & respectfully.

Miller in TDKR? Not quite so much, as they say. Superman, in a lot of ways, is still reeling from his treatment in the pages of The Dark Knight Returns. Hasn't been good for Superman on balance.

[Slaughter]

1. "Japs" is a racial slur. With regards to the US's history with the wrongful internment of Japanese and subsequent racist caricatures of Japanese at the time. Including the "Superman says you can slap a Jap" comic. It would be prudent to avoid using such terms. Just type out Japanese next time.

2. John Ostrander, Dan Jurgens, Jim Starlin and John Byrne depicted Superman interacting with Ronald Reagan.

You forgot the one where Superman tells Reagan he's not his enforcer. Was in a Ostrander Firestorm issue - Firestorm wanted to get rid of nukes because Prof. Stein was dying from brain cancer and decided to go out doing one big good thing for the world, so Ronnie and Stein start zapping nukes and turning them into paperweights, which results in immense shenanigans. The american and russian governments team up to stop Firestorm from upsetting the global geo-political situation, sending all sorts of goons against him - including Captain Atom, the Suicide Squad and even The Parasite. The Russians send Pohzar. During the story, Ronald Reagan pretty much realizes there is one person who can stop Firestorm - who else? - so he calls Superman for a chat, who then replies that:
1. He will never let a nuclear war destroy the world.
2. He knows how Firestorm felt and often feels like doing the same thing.
3. He thinks Firestorm is being a bit reckless on how he's doing it, but he's a good person(s) and...
4. He's not going after Firestorm, because he may help the government sometimes and cooperate on a number of issues - but Superman is not his (Reagan's) enforcer.

[t hedge coke]

I believe The Dark Knight Returns was one of the worst things to happen to Superman, & we are still (sadly) feeling its effects all these decades later.

The fact that the trailer for "Batman Beats Up Superman (Again): Dawn of Dark Justice" has Batffleck in the ridiculous armor & faceplate as he "squares off" against the "untrustworthy alien" is just one example. Batman, again encased in silly armor, disposing of the entire (Joker-envenomed & thus weakened) Justice League fairly recently in Batman's own book, is merely another example. You guys & gals are all sophisticated readers; I don't need to list off the totality of the dumbing down that Superman gets at the hands of the writers when batgod is around (not to mention the same treatment meted out to all the other powered heroes in the presence of Bruce Almighty) . It's practically proverbial at this point. Where do you think the inane phrase "Batman & His Bitches" w/regards to the Justice League comes from? It's b/c writers feel the need to power-down the rest of the Leaguers while simultaneously giving batgod yet another power-amp so he can try to keep up. It caters to batgod fanboys wet dreams...

And it all started w/TDKR.

Any possible subtle subtext about the political message was mostly drowned out by people who still say, to this day, that it was the book "where Batman beat Superman." That's all most people remember about it or know about it if they haven't read it. Even the quote from TDKR when DC announced the new movie was the "the one man who beat you" bs. A whole book of possible quotes to choose from (more, if you're not limiting yourself to TDKR) & that was the phrase they selected to inaugurate the movie to the world.

It all goes back to that aspect of TDKR.

That's not really on DKR or Miller. For any page of Superman being punched or patiently listening to the President prattle on, you can find a page of Superman looking amazing in the sunlight, Superman saving lives, or Superman being absolutely right and driving a jealous Batman batty. From the very same comics.

That some people lack reading skills, or didn't read but saw an excerpt or heard someone say one time... doesn't really reflect on the comic itself.

And, really, "Batman and his Bitches"? I refuse to believe that's a common, everyday description of the Justice League outside for some small niche.

The incredible thing to me is that the other half of the "dark 1-2 punch" in 1986 was Alan Moore, & his Watchmen made TDKR look absolutely idyllic by comparison. This makes him for the intents & purposes of this post the "king of the dark writers for the mainstream" back then...& this is THE SAME GUY who penned 2 of the most beloved & memorable...& frankly beautiful...Superman tales of all time. Of course I speak of "Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" & "For The Man Who Has Everything." He was the writer DC chose to literally close the door on the Silver Age w/the former story. And he had enough sensitivity & breadth of understanding to craft both the dystopian Watchmen and handle Superman very well & respectfully.

If you want to claim that Miller lacks Moore's "breadth and understanding," I could sit here listing examples of Alan Moore being a provincial, overly-simplistic or inelegant writer. Moore's got flaws, just like anyone, and some of his flaws can really pull some readers out of a comic. Same, for Miller.

[Johnny Thunders!]

That's not really on DKR or Miller. For any page of Superman being punched or patiently listening to the President prattle on, you can find a page of Superman looking amazing in the sunlight, Superman saving lives, or Superman being absolutely right and driving a jealous Batman batty. From the very same comics.

That some people lack reading skills, or didn't read but saw an excerpt or heard someone say one time... doesn't really reflect on the comic itself.

And, really, "Batman and his Bitches"? I refuse to believe that's a common, everyday description of the Justice League outside for some small niche.



If you want to claim that Miller lacks Moore's "breadth and understanding," I could sit here listing examples of Alan Moore being a provincial, overly-simplistic or inelegant writer. Moore's got flaws, just like anyone, and some of his flaws can really pull some readers out of a comic. Same, for Miller.

The book set the dynamic for Superman and Batman for years to come. Superman is played as naive, vulnerable, and easily manipulated. You can't blame the fans for getting the point of the story, and it's not, "wow Batman should be more like Superman." Supermans the villain in the third act and Batman, beats him, out smarts him, and humiliates him. One little wink and a few heroic moments don't change the effect.

[t hedge coke]

The book set the dynamic for Superman and Batman for years to come. Superman is played as naive, vulnerable, and easily manipulated. You can't blame the fans for getting the point of the story, and it's not, "wow Batman should be more like Superman." Supermans the villain in the third act and Batman, beats him, out smarts him, and humiliates him. One little wink and a few heroic moments don't change the effect.

Actually, I think for many readers, they do. Superman isn't "the villain." He's an obstacle because they disagree, but in the end they're both working together. He's not trying to stop Batman, he's not trying to hurt Batman, but when things got too big, too loud, he stepped in to try to stop him from doing that one thing. He tried talking to him, earlier, and it didn't work. But he doesn't arrest him, he doesn't out that he faked his death, he doesn't smash him into paste. He plays along.

Batman "dies" two punches into that time he beat Superman, and Supes had already been hit by a nuke and didn't want to fight. Superman walks away from that, Batman does not. And, it's clear to me that Batman declaring that a win has more to do with that comedic jealousy we see earlier than it does with the reality of the fight.

Heck, their fight in DKSA is just to plant the bug on him for later. It's theater to distract the villains who are forcing him to play ball with their corruption. Flash and Ollie, who've been imprisoned horrendously and lost a limb, respectively, seem to be taking it a lot more personally than Bats who uses the same kryptonite gloves there as he did in the faked-for-an-audience fight between them in Brave and the Bold.

[manduck37]

TDKR really didn't hurt Superman's image any. What hurt Superman's image is people taking the infamous fight at face value without really looking at what the story was doing or even what really happens in the fight. People see a couple of panels of Batman decking Superman in power armor or whatever and then say "hey wow, Batman can beat Superman". Here's the thing, Batman didn't beat Superman and he wasn't even trying to.

As I've said in plenty of other threads about this, what is TDKR really about? It's about politics, when you boil it all down. Batman is a broken down alcoholic because his big crusade for justice failed. Now he's an old man who sees the corrupt system around him and he feels he has to come back and fix it. So what happens from there? Does he come back and fix society as Batman? Does Gotham become a clean and corruption free city? Does the government change its tune and straighten up because the mighty Batman is in town? No on all counts. Going back to his old ways as Batman does nothing. Sure, he beats the crap out of a gang leader and runs off The Mutants but that doesn't end up really helping Gotham at all.

So what's the answer? Batman has to change the system from within. The only way to do that it to appeal to the young people who will eventually take the places of power. So he needs to show them to stand up and fight for their freedom from corruption and take their power back. Batman knows the government will send Superman after him. It's what he wants. Not because this is his big chance to stick it to Superman. It's because they used to be friends and he hopes Superman will ultimately help him too, by figuring out what he's trying to do and play along. Which is exactly what Superman does.

So why does Batman rant and try to put down Superman in his internal dialogues or his famous speech? In part, childish jealousy and in part putting on a good show. Superman never gave up his fight to help people. In a horrible situation, Superman made sacrifices to continue to help people. Batman didn't do any of that. He threw a temper tantrum, quit and became a drunk. So all those years Batman drank rather than saving people, Superman was out there doing the job. Batman doesn't agree with his sacrifices but he's also jealous that Superman stuck it out to still be a hero. Who did Batman help while hiding in his mansion with a bottle? No one. So calling Superman a sellout or government stooge is his way of childishly trying to justify his own mistakes. Now the big speech during the fight is a different story. Batman knows the news will cover the fight. His big speech isn't him telling Superman "I can beat you", because he really knows that he can't win. What he's really saying is all those young people out there have a chance if they're just willing to stand up to someone they think is bigger than they are. Batman's icing on the cake is essentially martyring himself for the cause, which we know is a fake out.

Now let's look at the actual fight. Batman throws everything under the sun at Superman. Nukes, the power grid and even synthesized kryptonite. How does Superman react to all that? By saying "come on Bruce, just stop. I don't want to do this". So in this whole big "fight" Superman isn't even fighting. He's more concerned about his friend, who he's not interesting in bringing into the government. Superman's sole concern is for Batman's safety. When Superman figures out what Batman is up to, he throws in a few shots of his own for show. He tears the helmet off Batman but never punches him in the head to knock him out. He hits Batman where he's armored the most. It's a farce. Here's how I know. There are two really big tells in the fight. One is the kryptonite. Bruce spent decades and billions to make the synthetic kryptonite right? He then tells Superman that it's a watered down version that will only slow him down for a few seconds. So do you really look to win a fight against Superman with Nerf-kryptonite? You don't spend all that time and money for a half-baked result and hope for a win, especially if you're Batman. The other big tell is how the fight ends. Bruce has a heart attack, which we learn is the result of a drug he took to fake his own death. You don't go looking to win a fight by taking a drug that will randomly render you unconscious at any time. Batman wasn't looking to win. He was looking to become a symbol the youth of America could rally behind. In order to do that, they had to see Batman fall and be outraged by it.

Superman is just as trapped as the rest of the country. So he wants Batman's plan to succeed as well. If it works, Superman will be free someday too. That's why he winks at Robin at the "funeral", to say he's in on it and he gets it. Superman is actually a lot more noble than Batman in the story. He's willing to make sacrifices and take a fall for the greater good, even after years of never giving up. He seizes an opportunity based on his friendship with Bruce, who he still trusts after all these years, even if Bruce is mad at him. It's a rare story where Batman is actually the one who quits and has to make amends while Superman was the one who never gave up.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Superman is not in control of his destiny. When Batman takes the fall, he gives Superman an out. It has nothing to do with Superman's plans at all. Superman gets to follow orders from the government and he gets to let his friend go free, but he is still being manipulated, or rescued by someone else.

[Nite-Wing]

I mean its basically like Dr Manhattan all over again the gov't points Superman somewhere and he does their bidding. He lost any real sympathetic light to his cause when he took green arrow's arm away.
Its almost sad because its the same logic Lex uses Clark loves being a hero and can't not do it so if being a hero means he has to take orders from someone he'll do it.
Superman couldn't not be a public hero like everyone else was forced to do and in the end he got corrupted.
I mean once the authority figures decided that Bruce was a problem again for saving Gotham, Superman didn't even have to think about it. He just went to Bruce and said they want you taken in.
Batman had to destroy Superman's ego along with humbling him and as you see in DKSA he's utterly broken when Wonder Woman finds him.

[manduck37]

I mean its basically like Dr Manhattan all over again the gov't points Superman somewhere and he does their bidding. He lost any real sympathetic light to his cause when he took green arrow's arm away.
Its almost sad because its the same logic Lex uses Clark loves being a hero and can't not do it so if being a hero means he has to take orders from someone he'll do it.
Superman couldn't not be a public hero like everyone else was forced to do and in the end he got corrupted.
I mean once the authority figures decided that Bruce was a problem again for saving Gotham, Superman didn't even have to think about it. He just went to Bruce and said they want you taken in.
Batman had to destroy Superman's ego along with humbling him and as you see in DKSA he's utterly broken when Wonder Woman finds him.

Yeah, Superman went to Batman and said "they want me to take you in" and then didn't do it. I don't know that ego had anything to do with it. I'm also not to quick to use TDKSA as a reference for what was trying to be said in TDKR. It was written a considerable number of years after TDKR and by a crazier Miller. So who knows what he was trying to say in TDKSA.

Corruption is a big part of the story though. Every character was corrupted in some way. Superman clearly was, as we see with Ollie. Batman let the system beat him and became an alcoholic. He was corrupted too. Superman was clearly trapped in his situation, which is why he was willing to go along with Batman's plan. It meant freedom for them both and possible redemption. Besides, of course Superman needed Batman to save him, it's a Batman story

Edit: TDKR is also a rather scathing criticism of superheroes. It uses superheroes, the two biggest out there, to tell the story of how being a superhero doesn't accomplish anything. Batman's entire career as Batman essentially amounts to nothing. Superman doesn't save the day and becomes part of the system. It isn't until they cast aside their roles as superheroes can they accomplish anything.

[JBatmanFan05]

That's not really on DKR or Miller. For any page of Superman being punched or patiently listening to the President prattle on, you can find a page of Superman looking amazing in the sunlight, Superman saving lives, or Superman being absolutely right and driving a jealous Batman batty. From the very same comics.

That some people lack reading skills, or didn't read but saw an excerpt or heard someone say one time... doesn't really reflect on the comic itself.

This is true. Many are not precisely fair to Miller's depiction of Superman. Superman is conflicted and sympathetic to Batman's aims and ultimately helps Batman achieve them.

And some of course forget that Miller wrote an Elseworld...meaning he used Superman deliberately differently some from main continuity Superman for artistic reasons, to cleverly use Superman some as the superhero foil, the superhero-equivalent of the Reagan era establishment.

[dumbduck]

Here is the problem:

I've read it all before: Miller didn't like the effect that TDKR had for Superman. The story wasn't about the fight. Fans and writers interpreted it badly. Superman wasn't shown badly (I highly disagree with that.) Batman fans and writers don't care about the fight scene.

Okay.

How did Zack Snyder announce the second movie?

"I want you to remember Clark. In all the years to come. My hand at your throat."


All your arguments. All your rationalizations. All the 'deeper' themes of TDKR. Are resumed to that sentence.

Batman doesn't need to fight Superman to be cool? Explain why it was announced with that sentence.

TDKR is about the deeper themes? Explain why it was announced with that sentence.

Explain what the heck Snyder meant after the announcement. "It's not what we gonna do but it's totally what we gonna do, yall."

Batman fans don't want to see the fight? Explain why they howled like hyenas after the announcement and after the trailer "Do you bleed?"

TDKR didn't influence how Batman and Superman were written in the years to come? Explain how the freaking movie was announced with that sentence.



All your explanations. All rationalizations. All reasoning. And the freaking movie gets announced with that quote.

[sta8541]

That's not really on DKR or Miller.

I disagree.

That some people lack reading skills, or didn't read but saw an excerpt or heard someone say one time... doesn't really reflect on the comic itself.

I agree. However, the overall effect on the comic book world is that this is the book where "Batman beat Superman." That's all most people know about it, or care. Wait till this movie comes out, then see the reaction. And I don't think so little of Miller to believe this possibility didn't at least cross his mind, that of the battle being the overriding take away for most readers. In fact, he candidly admitted in an interview that he wanted to see a flying man in a cape get the crap beaten out of him by an ordinary guy. He's fine to feel that way, of course, but you don't then get to weasel out of it afterward when you are accused...accurately...of not handling the flying man in a cape w/aplomb & sensitivity.

And, really, "Batman and his Bitches"? I refuse to believe that's a common, everyday description of the Justice League outside for some small niche.

Yes, really. It's practically a trope. Believe whatever you like, but as far as "small niche" goes, I don't know what that is, in this context, & neither do you. The internet is pretty large. Run a search for the phrase "Batman & his bitches" & let me know what you come up w/.

If you want to claim that Miller lacks Moore's "breadth and understanding," I could sit here listing examples of Alan Moore being a provincial, overly-simplistic or inelegant writer. Moore's got flaws, just like anyone, and some of his flaws can really pull some readers out of a comic. Same, for Miller.

This is a straw man. I never said Moore was a "flawless writer." I said he's the same writer who wrote Superman w/sensitivity & beauty while also creating the very dark Watchmen. Miller has never displayed this kind of range. Closest you get is the absolutely beautiful line he put in Cap's mouth in Born Again, a Daredevil story. And it was beautiful. But would I like to see him handle Captain America? Hell no I wouldn't; he's just not the kind of character that I think fits Miller's oeuvre, & I could see it being a total trainwreck on the order of Superman at his hands in TDKR. But he has nothing to compare w/those 2 classic Superman tales bookending one side w/Watchmen anchoring the other. That's what I was getting at.

[sta8541]

The book set the dynamic for Superman and Batman for years to come. Superman is played as naive, vulnerable, and easily manipulated. You can't blame the fans for getting the point of the story, and it's not, "wow Batman should be more like Superman." Supermans the villain in the third act and Batman, beats him, out smarts him, and humiliates him. One little wink and a few heroic moments don't change the effect.

Agreed.

10 char.

[JackDaw]

For me, even worse for Batman. It led to the Uber-Bat.

I miss that affable fallible and friendly guy who was "merely" the world's greatest detective that I followed through the Brave and Bold adventures of blessed memory.

[sta8541]

TDKR really didn't hurt Superman's image any. What hurt Superman's image is people taking the infamous fight at face value without really looking at what the story was doing or even what really happens in the fight. People see a couple of panels of Batman decking Superman in power armor or whatever and then say "hey wow, Batman can beat Superman". Here's the thing, Batman didn't beat Superman and he wasn't even trying to.

As I've said in plenty of other threads about this, what is TDKR really about? It's about politics, when you boil it all down. Batman is a broken down alcoholic because his big crusade for justice failed. Now he's an old man who sees the corrupt system around him and he feels he has to come back and fix it. So what happens from there? Does he come back and fix society as Batman? Does Gotham become a clean and corruption free city? Does the government change its tune and straighten up because the mighty Batman is in town? No on all counts. Going back to his old ways as Batman does nothing. Sure, he beats the crap out of a gang leader and runs off The Mutants but that doesn't end up really helping Gotham at all.

So what's the answer? Batman has to change the system from within. The only way to do that it to appeal to the young people who will eventually take the places of power. So he needs to show them to stand up and fight for their freedom from corruption and take their power back. Batman knows the government will send Superman after him. It's what he wants. Not because this is his big chance to stick it to Superman. It's because they used to be friends and he hopes Superman will ultimately help him too, by figuring out what he's trying to do and play along. Which is exactly what Superman does.

So why does Batman rant and try to put down Superman in his internal dialogues or his famous speech? In part, childish jealousy and in part putting on a good show. Superman never gave up his fight to help people. In a horrible situation, Superman made sacrifices to continue to help people. Batman didn't do any of that. He threw a temper tantrum, quit and became a drunk. So all those years Batman drank rather than saving people, Superman was out there doing the job. Batman doesn't agree with his sacrifices but he's also jealous that Superman stuck it out to still be a hero. Who did Batman help while hiding in his mansion with a bottle? No one. So calling Superman a sellout or government stooge is his way of childishly trying to justify his own mistakes. Now the big speech during the fight is a different story. Batman knows the news will cover the fight. His big speech isn't him telling Superman "I can beat you", because he really knows that he can't win. What he's really saying is all those young people out there have a chance if they're just willing to stand up to someone they think is bigger than they are. Batman's icing on the cake is essentially martyring himself for the cause, which we know is a fake out.

Now let's look at the actual fight. Batman throws everything under the sun at Superman. Nukes, the power grid and even synthesized kryptonite. How does Superman react to all that? By saying "come on Bruce, just stop. I don't want to do this". So in this whole big "fight" Superman isn't even fighting. He's more concerned about his friend, who he's not interesting in bringing into the government. Superman's sole concern is for Batman's safety. When Superman figures out what Batman is up to, he throws in a few shots of his own for show. He tears the helmet off Batman but never punches him in the head to knock him out. He hits Batman where he's armored the most. It's a farce. Here's how I know. There are two really big tells in the fight. One is the kryptonite. Bruce spent decades and billions to make the synthetic kryptonite right? He then tells Superman that it's a watered down version that will only slow him down for a few seconds. So do you really look to win a fight against Superman with Nerf-kryptonite? You don't spend all that time and money for a half-baked result and hope for a win, especially if you're Batman. The other big tell is how the fight ends. Bruce has a heart attack, which we learn is the result of a drug he took to fake his own death. You don't go looking to win a fight by taking a drug that will randomly render you unconscious at any time. Batman wasn't looking to win. He was looking to become a symbol the youth of America could rally behind. In order to do that, they had to see Batman fall and be outraged by it.

Superman is just as trapped as the rest of the country. So he wants Batman's plan to succeed as well. If it works, Superman will be free someday too. That's why he winks at Robin at the "funeral", to say he's in on it and he gets it. Superman is actually a lot more noble than Batman in the story. He's willing to make sacrifices and take a fall for the greater good, even after years of never giving up. He seizes an opportunity based on his friendship with Bruce, who he still trusts after all these years, even if Bruce is mad at him. It's a rare story where Batman is actually the one who quits and has to make amends while Superman was the one who never gave up.

This is a sophisticated & nuanced understanding of the tale, & thank you for posting it. I just wish more readers had that grasp & comprehension.