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

[Qwathings]

When I recently read the fight scene between Batman and Superman in DKR, it seemed very much like Batman was a petty child throwing a tantrum and Superman was an adult that was worried about the child hurting himself. Superman offered very little resistance, and obviously wasn't looking for a fight. During almost every moment of that battle Superman was worried about Batman getting hurt or his heart giving out. Even after the kryptonite gas and getting beaten up, Superman was still more concerned about Batman's wellbeing.

All the while Batman was focused on making this powerful being pay for being powerful and using that power in ways that Batman wouldn't use it. He wanted to remind Superman that a regular person (with millions of dollars to throw around, unlimited access to advanced laboratories, and genius level knowledge of chemistry) could harm him. It kind of felt like Batman just wanted to show that he was the bigger man because he was jealous or insecure.

In the end, Superman discovers Bruce had faked his death and goes along with the ruse, because he didn't feel hurt about the fight and wanted what was best for his old friend.

It seems to me that if Batman had simply explained that his plan was to fake his death and then go into hiding, Superman would have offered to help him with that plan. Instead, Batman goes through with the pointless fight that gains him nothing but more broken bones and the sense that he can beat up a Superman that will stand there and take that beating because he doesn't want to hurt his friend.

[SpOck]

I personally strongly dislike The Dark Knight Returns. I'm the only person I know who has my opinion, but it's mine and I stand by it.

[LifeIsILL]

Batman beating Superman in The Dark Knight Returns wound up being the worst thing to ever happen to Superman. Ever.

Still feeling the negative effects 28 years later.

But if you were a Batman fan then? Well, hot dog! Greatest thing ever.

Someday Superman will be allowed his revenge on the BatGod. Probably when the Age of Batman ends, whenever that winds up being. No one stays on top forever.

Even in Injustice where Superman killed half the DC population and beat Batman to a pulp it didn't help.

The only way is if there's a huge storyline in main continuity where a war occurs between the characters or something and the two fight, holding nothing back and Superman hands it to Batman.

[Sacred Knight]

It was pretty damn bad. And not because Superman got beat up some by Batman. That's rather incidental and overly complained about. It was his role as government stooge that really hurt the character.

[Kurosawa]

In terms of effect, The DARK KNIGHT RETURNS was one of the best things to ever happen.

To superhero comics in general.

But to Superman and his fandom?

The worst thing.

Unequivocally the worst thing to ever happen to Superman. Yes, I'm saying it even tops Wertham's publishing the Seduction of the Innocents book for long-term effect on Superman.

Prior to TDKR, DC lived in the Age of Superman for over 4 decades. He was the undisputed Alpha of all alpha heroes. Batman was #2, but he was a comfortable distance behind #1. Once TDKR #4 hit, it was all downhill for Superman for about the next 20 years (except for a few blips, Supes didn't begin to turn things around until ALL-STAR SUPERMAN came out around 2005).

Superman's protrayal in TDKR became his default portrayal by John Byrne (who worked with Frank Miller to show that MAN OF STEEL's Superman would clearly become TDKR's Superman down the road). So consequently, while Batman rode the wave of creativity that TDKR brought, Superman became a punching bag for anyone with a suddenly-plentiful piece of kryptonite in their hand.

Batman beating Superman in The Dark Knight Returns wound up being the worst thing to ever happen to Superman. Ever.

Still feeling the negative effects 28 years later.

But if you were a Batman fan then? Well, hot dog! Greatest thing ever.

Someday Superman will be allowed his revenge on the BatGod. Probably when the Age of Batman ends, whenever that winds up being. No one stays on top forever.

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).



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

I agree with most of this, apart from TDKR being a good thing for anyone, and for comics in general, because I feel it was a very bad thing. Since Superman was the most popular superhero when comics were at their peak, and since his decline came at the same time as the decline of comics in general, there is correlation between Miller's purposeful destruction of the character and in the decline of comics sales and popularity. Of course it hit big with people like Snyder who felt that comics were stupid kiddy stuff before TDKR and Watchmen.

The book has it's fans but I am not a fan of the books fans.

[JackDaw]

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.

Why would that mean giving up Clark Kent? If he didn't show himself, then he could have just carried on everyday life as usual.

Anyway, I noticed I dropped several clangers in my earlier posting…for a start I meant Dark Knight Returns, rather than Dark Knight Strikes Again. (I have read the latter book. But can't remember a single thing about it…usually a reliable sign that I disliked story intensely.)

As I admitted earlier, not read the book for years. And never re-read… my line on it is that I admired the artwork but didn't like the story.

Time had mercifully expunged most of detail of DKR (as well as DKSA) from my memory, and I was surprised (and educated) by DaBronzeBomma's contribution. Having seen his comments refreshed my memory of book by a few quick Google searches.

Having done that. I have to say my present feeling is that Superman is written bizarrely (badly?) throughout DKR.

How does anybody reconcile what Superman actually does in it with any known characterisation of Superman?? (i.e. How is Superman's character consistent with being willing to kill enemy soldiers?… when he will know that their only "crime" is being forced to fight for their country. Or why would Superman be willing himself to blindly follow orders?? After all this is the guy whose love of the truth is so strong that he spends masses of time and energy into being an investigative reporter…hardly likely to accept on face value what somebody in power tells him.)

My own guess is that Frank M is writing Superman in DKR as a symbol for America's military: willing to do dark deeds abroad, but not willing to act in same way within America's own border (hence the reason he won't ultimately betray Batman.) That at least makes some sense of scene where Superman turns away from looking at eagle (symbol of America?) killing a smaller bird. (At first I thought scene completely bizarre….here we have most observant farm lad in world unwilling to face what actually happens in nature.)

All in all it strikes me that FM decided to use Superman because he's a potent brand image, and didn't really care a monkey's about writing him in character.

[Adekis]

I do have to agree that the Superman from The Dark Knight Returns bears little to no similarity to any version that came before him. It's worth noting that at no point in the comic does anyone ever say the word "Superman" or even the name "Kal-El"; most characters call him "Clark" or "Kent", and a news reporter almost calls him "Man of Steel" before she gets cut off by censorship. That's the closest they get to calling him Superman, and though I don't think that was intentional on Miller's part, I do think it's a useful in-text reminder that that particular version of the character doesn't deserve that title.

No Superman written prior to 1986 would roll over for the government, cover up his own existence, condone government censorship of the media, or give up his daily life as a journalist. I'll give 'em the killing of enemy combatants, but only because I said "no Superman before '86", and Golden Age Superman would have killed them too. Still, Bronze Age Superman never would have even considered it, and that's what Miller had to work with. The fact that DKR was so influential all over is what really makes a lot of Superman fans bitter over it. As said earlier, John Byrne's Superman, and really a lot of versions of Superman probably going up 'til just a few years ago, were heavily influenced by Miller's version. While Byrne's Superman has his merits and his fans (and I'm among them, to a certain extent) the source material just bugs a lot of Superman fans.

Sorry Robotman, you just picked the wrong forum to speculate about whether DKR was good for Superman in the long run. It seems we mostly agree here that it wasn't.

[Doctor Know]

I don't think TDKR hurts Superman's character. I'm a big Superman fan myself. I will admit I was a little irked the first time I read the comic with Batman's asspull victory over Superman. However upon reading more in to the themes of the comic, and reading interviews from Frank Miller (that were posted on this site before the overhaul in threads that are now gone); I find Superman's portrayal in TDKR to be fairly measured.

Lets not forget TDKR is not the first time Superman has involved himself in the affairs of the US Govt against another nation.

Against the Nazis and Japanese during WWII







Superman fighting for the US Govt against the Communists during the Cold War isn't a big afront to the character if we reconcile other time Superman has fought for the US.
Recall also that Superman said he was able to save lives. While we didn't see Superman save any Russian soldiers, I doubt he let them die or physically killed them himself. The Russians would've launched in to full scale war with the US if they were suffering such extreme casualties. Superman was keeping the escalation of the Cold War to a net zero in TDKR. The Russians jumped the shark with the cold bringer missile to try to break the stalemate. Superman diverted the missile and saved millions by his action. He's as much of a hero in TDKR as Batman.

[Vinsanity]

I personally strongly dislike The Dark Knight Returns. I'm the only person I know who has my opinion, but it's mine and I stand by it.

I'm 100% behind you.

[UltraWoman]

I don't think TDKR hurts Superman's character. I'm a big Superman fan myself. I will admit I was a little irked the first time I read the comic with Batman's asspull victory over Superman. However upon reading more in to the themes of the comic, and reading interviews from Frank Miller (that were posted on this site before the overhaul in threads that are now gone); I find Superman's portrayal in TDKR to be fairly measured.

Lets not forget TDKR is not the first time Superman has involved himself in the affairs of the US Govt against another nation.

Against the Nazis and Japanese during WWII







Superman fighting for the US Govt against the Communists during the Cold War isn't a big afront to the character if we reconcile other time Superman has fought for the US.
Recall also that Superman said he was able to save lives. While we didn't see Superman save any Russian soldiers, I doubt he let them die or physically killed them himself. The Russians would've launched in to full scale war with the US if they were suffering such extreme casualties. Superman was keeping the escalation of the Cold War to a net zero in TDKR. The Russians jumped the shark with the cold bringer missile to try to break the stalemate. Superman diverted the missile and saved millions by his action. He's as much of a hero in TDKR as Batman.

I think the difference is that to many in the US (there were very VERY few detractors in comparison to current and previous wars) just about every news source and public opinion had an overwhelmingly positive stance on WWII in comparison to any other war (and yes, I'll include WWI in that). In part that's because it re-started the US economy on a broad scale and made sure there wee plenty of jobs. Nothing to this date has had such an effect on the US economy (and thus, jobs, and thus public opinion.) The Cold War might have had an influence but that level of paranoia continued (and then ended) a decade or so AFTER Reagan.

DKR takes place squarely in that paranoid time. I think so many people are offended that Superman would give into that very paranoia. The difference between the WWII one and the DKR one is so very different. Don't forget that the Japanese attacked and killed people on Hawaii, which acted as a rallying cry such the like I'm not sure we've seen since (and yes, I include 9-11 in that.) The difference between the two is that the paranoia involved with the Cold War and that of WWII were rather different animals, and the use of it as justification, didn't seem appropriate for DKR.

[Joe Acro]

I'm inclined to think that the Dark Knight Returns didn't actually do any harm to Superman as a character. I know that I can read pre-DKR Superman stories and post-DKR Superman stories and overall feel like it's the same character. His fundamentals and his drama did not change; those things that make his stories interesting are all still there. In fact, I would argue that writers post-DKR made sure to have Superman exemplify those traits that a few in here say the DKR version wrongfully exhibits. He doesn't work for the government or its operations--he's wary of it. This was made easier by Lex being President for a bit, but even without that, writers made it clear that Superman is not an agent of the government--more Spider-Man, less Captain America.

The Dark Knight Returns affected Superman the same way it did everything else. The world he had to save was now one filled with more shades of gray and more grittiness. This is why, in particular, his fight and speech against the Elite was so poignant. Despite all the changes, despite the comic world growing darker and antiheroes seeming to become the norm, Superman remains resolute in what he is and how he does things.

[Diamond]

No. Only the people that did not understand that TDKR is an Elseworld story.

[XanatosVanBadass]

It's worth noting that at no point in the comic does anyone ever say the word "Superman" or even the name "Kal-El"; most characters call him "Clark" or "Kent", and a news reporter almost calls him "Man of Steel" before she gets cut off by censorship. That's the closest they get to calling him Superman, and though I don't think that was intentional on Miller's part, I do think it's a useful in-text reminder that that particular version of the character doesn't deserve that title.

I disagree. I think it was absolutely intentional when you analyze FM's works. In DKSA, he is referred to as Superman twice. First by Wonder Woman ("Where is that man? Where I'd that Superman?"). Then again at the end of the book ("I am no man. I am Superman!") when he finally breaks the hold Luthor and the government has on him and turns against them.

[Doctor Know]

^ TDKSA is far inferior to TDKR. I try my hardest to forget that awful schlock. It's hard to believe TDKR and TDKSA were written by the same writer. Post 9/11 Frank Miller is when his work began to slide in to the down right idiotic. AllstarBatman and Robin is better but still inferior to TKDR and Batman Year One.

Superman represented the authority in TKDR. While Batman represented vigilante outside the law. However both characters in the story care about justice. It was a clash of ideologies. Superman loses because as Frank Miller said it was a batman centered story so he centered the universe around him. If/when Frank Miller writes a Superman story (he claims he has one he wants to write) the universe will be centered around Superman.

[CrazyOldHermit]

I think the difference is that to many in the US (there were very VERY few detractors in comparison to current and previous wars) just about every news source and public opinion had an overwhelmingly positive stance on WWII in comparison to any other war (and yes, I'll include WWI in that). In part that's because it re-started the US economy on a broad scale and made sure there wee plenty of jobs. Nothing to this date has had such an effect on the US economy (and thus, jobs, and thus public opinion.) The Cold War might have had an influence but that level of paranoia continued (and then ended) a decade or so AFTER Reagan.

DKR takes place squarely in that paranoid time. I think so many people are offended that Superman would give into that very paranoia. The difference between the WWII one and the DKR one is so very different. Don't forget that the Japanese attacked and killed people on Hawaii, which acted as a rallying cry such the like I'm not sure we've seen since (and yes, I include 9-11 in that.) The difference between the two is that the paranoia involved with the Cold War and that of WWII were rather different animals, and the use of it as justification, didn't seem appropriate for DKR.

Thats the implication explored in the book. The idea was that Superman's very simplistic morality and characterization would make him unable to handle the more complex situations of the 1980s. He fights Russian forces in the Corto Maltese and believes he is doing the right thing because they're the bad guys and the bad guys have to be beaten. Superman is deliberately being played as he is often percieved, which is as a Big Blue Boy Scout who never tells a lie, fights for truth, justice and the American way and believes in serving law and order. Ronald Reagan comes to him and tells him that superheroes are going to be illegal and if he doesn't want to be an outlaw (the bad guy) he will work with them. Superman can't deal with the idea of turning against his strict principles opposing the President of the United States.

To be totally honest I could absolutely see Christopher Reeve doing exactly what Clark did in TDKR. If Jimmy Carter said to him "Hey Superman we need you to talk some sense into your superhero buddies" Reeve would have said "No problem. After all we're all on the same team!"

All that being said, as interesting as it was I can't say it was good for Superman.