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

[Robotman]

TDKR is obviously one of the best Batman stories ever written. But many Superman fans hate this story because it features a Superman who has become a simple minded stooge for Reagan to Batman's anti-establishment hero. It also features a battle between the two icons in which Batman kicks Superman's ass.Granted with the help of Green Arrow and a Kryptonite arrow.
This book, along with The Watchmen, revolutionized the industry and showed the world just how powerful a comic could be.
Overall the comic does not paint Kal in a very positive light. But did the portrayal of Superman in TDKR wake up comic creators and make them realize that yes Superman and his 1950s Boy Scout routine had indeed become stale? Which in turn made Superman fans and creators delve deeper into what made the character great. If things become complacent occasionally you need a wake up call.
There have been so many amazing Superman stories since TDKR that have gotten to the core of the character and examined why he is the greatest hero ever.
Was The Dark Knight Returns actually a good thing for Superman? Was it the kick in the ass that Superman needed of a good Batman story that features a Superman who is just an obstacle in the great Batman's way?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

I don't think the blame can be laid at Miller's feet nearly as much as the fans that misinterpreted the work (that was an extension and deconstruction of Superman's public image at the time rather than how he was in the comics, same as his version of Batman was very much created with '66 in mind), but it sure as hell hasn't helped.

The blame can be laid entirely at Miller's feet, however, in how he'd treat Superman in his later works.

[Anis]

TDKR is obviously one of the best Batman stories ever written. But many Superman fans hate this story because it features a Superman who has become a simple minded stooge for Reagan to Batman's anti-establishment hero. It also features a battle between the two icons in which Batman kicks Superman's ass. Granted with the help of Green Arrow and a Kryptonite arrow.
This book, along with The Watchmen, revolutionized the industry and showed the world just how powerful a comic could be.
Overall the comic does not paint Kal in a very positive light. But did the portrayal of Superman in TDKR wake up comic creators and make them realize that yes Superman and his 1950s Boy Scout routine had indeed become stale? Which in turn made Superman fans and creators delve deeper into what made the character great. If things become complacent occasionally you need a wake up call.
There have been so many amazing Superman stories since TDKR that have gotten to the core of the character and examined why he is the greatest hero ever.
Was The Dark Knight Returns actually a good thing for Superman? Was it the kick in the ass that Superman needed of a good Batman story that features a Superman who is just an obstacle in the great Batman's way?

Batman DOES NOT kick Superman's ass, the fact that the scene gets interpreted into something that simple just shows how simple-minded and biased most readers are. I hate the effect the book has on Superman's brand. That damn book's just empowered the Bat fans because it emphasises Batman's coolness VS Superman's uselessness.

[SSJ4JW]

I think it kind of did do some damage. The Pete Holmes skit pretty much sums up what general people who don't read comics think of him.

[Auguste Dupin]

TDKR is obviously one of the best Batman stories ever written. But many Superman fans hate this story because it features a Superman who has become a simple minded stooge for Reagan to Batman's anti-establishment hero. It also features a battle between the two icons in which Batman kicks Superman's ass. Granted with the help of Green Arrow and a Kryptonite arrow.
This book, along with The Watchmen, revolutionized the industry and showed the world just how powerful a comic could be.
Overall the comic does not paint Kal in a very positive light. But did the portrayal of Superman in TDKR wake up comic creators and make them realize that yes Superman and his 1950s Boy Scout routine had indeed become stale? Which in turn made Superman fans and creators delve deeper into what made the character great. If things become complacent occasionally you need a wake up call.
There have been so many amazing Superman stories since TDKR that have gotten to the core of the character and examined why he is the greatest hero ever.
Was The Dark Knight Returns actually a good thing for Superman? Was it the kick in the ass that Superman needed of a good Batman story that features a Superman who is just an obstacle in the great Batman's way?

Hahaha.
Yeah, no,that's clearly not what happened, so worst thing (well, among the worst things I guess). It had a total of one good scene with Superman in it, and it was the nuke one.

[DochaDocha]

Regardless of intention, or what actually happens in the book, I'd say the net fan response to the book has been bad for Supes.

[JackDaw]

Hahaha.
Yeah, no,that's clearly not what happened, so worst thing (well, among the worst things I guess). It had a total of one good scene with Superman in it, and it was the nuke one.

Years since I read it. But here's my memory of what happened.

Superman is weakened by dealing with a nuke. Batman, who has chained himself to a lamppost, and is wearing some gauntlet powered by entire city power supply. He calls Superman for assistance. When Superman comes Batman promptly hits him with powered gauntlet. Superman steps back, presumably surprised by his friend attacking him. Batman then collapses, apparently dead.

Later at the funeral, Superman realises that Batman has faked the death...he hears Batman's heartbeat. Superman goes along with his friends deception.

How on earth that becomes interpreted as Batman overpowering Superman is a real mystery. And again it's not consistent with Superman being a government stooge, he could have exposed Batman's scheme if he wanted to.

[Auguste Dupin]

Years since I read it. But here's my memory of what happened.

Superman is weakened by dealing with a nuke. Batman, who has chained himself to a lamppost, and is wearing some gauntlet powered by entire city power supply. He calls Superman for assistance. When Superman comes Batman promptly hits him with powered gauntlet. Superman steps back, presumably surprised by his friend attacking him. Batman then collapses, apparently dead.

Later at the funeral, Superman realises that Batman has faked the death...he hears Batman's heartbeat. Superman goes along with his friends deception.

How on earth that becomes interpreted as Batman overpowering Superman is a real mystery. And again it's not consistent with Superman being a government stooge, he could have exposed Batman's scheme if he wanted to.

Well, it has been stated in the comic that Superman didn't follow the governement because he believed it was the right thing, but because he felt it was the only way to keep doing his job in some form.
So yeah, he's not a stooge per say. He's just a quitter. And that's clearly the way the story wants you to look at him (and the way 90% of the readership did). After all, he could have made a stand like Batman did (which, granted, didn't end up so well), or he could have continued to be a hero in the shadows like Green Arrow did (without all the political undertone, but you don't need a costume to save people from an earthquake). He worked with the governement because it was easier than standing for what's right.
I would say that actually influenced in a bad way quite a few stories in the following years.

[JackDaw]

Well, it has been stated in the comic that Superman didn't follow the governement because he believed it was the right thing, but because he felt it was the only way to keep doing his job in some form.
So yeah, he's not a stooge per say. He's just a quitter. And that's clearly the way the story wants you to look at him (and the way 90% of the readership did). After all, he could have made a stand like Batman did (which, granted, didn't end up so well), or he could have continued to be a hero in the shadows like Green Arrow did (without all the political undertone, but you don't need a costume to save people from an earthquake). He worked with the governement because it was easier than standing for what's right.
I would say that actually influenced in a bad way quite a few stories in the following years.

If he felt it was the only way he could keep doing "the job" in some form...you know that small matter of actually saving life...then I find it hard to condemn his actions or call him a "quitter". I think there's an equally valid interpretation of his actions...that he was more concerned with helping other people than looking good, or appearing heroic.

I still maintain that the "usual" interpretation of DKSA isn't terribly consistent with what is actually shown as happening...the many negative interpretations of Superman's actions never account for his decision not to expose Batman at the funeral. For me, the overall story fits pretty well into that well established canon of stories where Superman pretends to be a government yes man to allow him to be more effective.

[DochaDocha]

I feel even if you reasonably look at it from a positive point of view, most readers look at it as a negative interpretation of Superman. The Superman haters point to it and say, "See, he's awful!" Many Superman lovers point to it and say, "How can they write Superman so awfully?"

I agree with Bruce Timm in this regard when in the sneak peek for part 2 he mentioned that this was not going to be a good moment for Superman.

[daBronzeBomma]

If he felt it was the only way he could keep doing "the job" in some form...you know that small matter of actually saving life...then I find it hard to condemn his actions or call him a "quitter". I think there's an equally valid interpretation of his actions...that he was more concerned with helping other people than looking good, or appearing heroic.

Except for the matter of Superman being an agent of the military, actively destroying and exploding foreign manned tanks and troops and aircraft carriers. They never show Superman saving anyone inside the vehicles he destroyed. It is not unreasonable to presume they are dead by Superman's hand. TDKR Superman is a government killer who quit being a hero because he was worried about the humans coming after the other superheroes (which they did anyway it turns out).

I still maintain that the "usual" interpretation of DKSA isn't terribly consistent with what is actually shown as happening...the many negative interpretations of Superman's actions never account for his decision not to expose Batman at the funeral. For me, the overall story fits pretty well into that well established canon of stories where Superman pretends to be a government yes man to allow him to be more effective.

Effective at what? Killing humans who don't wave the American flag?

[Auguste Dupin]

If he felt it was the only way he could keep doing "the job" in some form...you know that small matter of actually saving life...then I find it hard to condemn his actions or call him a "quitter". I think there's an equally valid interpretation of his actions...that he was more concerned with helping other people than looking good, or appearing heroic.

I still maintain that the "usual" interpretation of DKSA isn't terribly consistent with what is actually shown as happening...the many negative interpretations of Superman's actions never account for his decision not to expose Batman at the funeral. For me, the overall story fits pretty well into that well established canon of stories where Superman pretends to be a government yes man to allow him to be more effective.

He could have just taken away his costume and saved people without showing himself. That way he gets to save people without being an overpowered goon for a parody of Ronald Reagan.
Of course, that would mean sacrifices, the obvious one being his life as Clark Kent. But that would have been the actual right thing to do.

[Robotman]

TDKR is obviously one of the best Batman stories ever written. But many Superman fans hate this story because it features a Superman who has become a simple minded stooge for Reagan to Batman's anti-establishment hero. It also features a battle between the two icons in which Batman kicks Superman's ass. Granted with the help of Green Arrow and a Kryptonite arrow.
This book, along with The Watchmen, revolutionized the industry and showed the world just how powerful a comic could be.
Overall the comic does not paint Kal in a very positive light. But did the portrayal of Superman in TDKR wake up comic creators and make them realize that yes Superman and his 1950s Boy Scout routine had indeed become stale? Which in turn made Superman fans and creators delve deeper into what made the character great. If things become complacent occasionally you need a wake up call.
There have been so many amazing Superman stories since TDKR that have gotten to the core of the character and examined why he is the greatest hero ever.
Was The Dark Knight Returns actually a good thing for Superman? Was it the kick in the ass that Superman needed of a good Batman story that features a Superman who is just an obstacle in the great Batman's way?

That was just hyperbole. I know it wasn't as cut and dry as that.

[DochaDocha]

That was just hyperbole. I know it wasn't as cut and dry as that.

Hyperbole or not, that's the part of the story that so many comic fans remember, and the part that often gets cited. The underlying and mitigating circumstances sort of get lost in the mix. The part people talk about is that this is the story in which Batman beats Superman. I'm cherry picking examples here, but when the movie was announced in Comic-Con 2013, what part of the book got read over the PA? Which line did Kevin Conroy recite (adjusted for the right names, of course) when he guest starred in the Daly web show?

"I want you to remember, Clark…in all the years to come…in your most private moments…I want you to remember…my hand…at your throat…I want…you to remember…the one man who beat you."

That's what fans remember, perhaps above all other facets from the books. That's the book's legacy. People forget the details over the years, or they get caught up in the moment they don't care about the details in the first place, but this is what has stuck.

[Lorendiac]

Addressing the original question before I've read the entire thread:

I strongly suspect that in the long run DKR didn't make much difference to Superman. I think he probably would have been handled about the same in his own ongoing titles during the Post-Crisis Superman Reboot from John Byrne in the late 80s, and subsequently in the "triangle years" (1990s and early 2000s), and in the DCAU cartoons and so forth, even if nobody had ever seen or heard of "The Dark Knight Returns."

In other words -- as I understand it, John Byrne didn't get the green light to do a full-fledged Superman Reboot because of anything Frank Miller had recently done. He got permission to do the Reboot because a) Crisis on Infinite Earths was creating a golden opportunity to throw away tons and tons of old continuity which had become an embarrassing burden, and b) because Superman's monthly sales had been in the cellar for years and DC had nothing to lose and everything to gain by bringing in some new blood to really shake things up and try a whole new take on just what was or wasn't "essential" for the character concept in that day and age (the late 80s). And everything else followed from there.