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

[Hilden B. Lade]

So does anyone here think that the real Frank Miller was abducted by aliens in the early 2000's and was replaced by some hack? I've read some of his recent work and it's really like it's not even the same person writing from the person pre-2000's

I wouldn't say that he was abducted by aliens, but I will say that years of writing Sin City plus eternal Batman fanboyism plus a sudden shift in political views following 9/11 combined to do some rather nasty things to Mister Miller's pen hand.

[Jim Kelly]

To be perfectly honest, as a story BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT did not impress me much when it came out in 1986, in prestige format, as four separate issues (the first of which alone was called "The Dark Knight Returns"). I was more interested in it because (1) it paired Miller and Janson who had done such good work on DAREDEVIL; (2) it was yet another square bound comic using a new approach to printing comics; (3) it had impressive colour work by Lynn Varley.

As a story it felt like old hat. Yeah, Miller did his usual thing with the plot, but there had been several other stories about a possible future for Batman going back to the 1940s. Imaginary sorts of stories about what might happen to Batman in the future were a thing that was done with great regularity--and they were always never to be taken too seriously precisely because they were conjecture and not really in continuity. There was no reason to take this possible scenario any more seriously than Alfred's fanciful tales about Batman II and Robin II or the stories of the Super Sons from WORLD'S FINEST.

The last best story of this ilk that I read prior to BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT was in BATMAN 300 (June '78) written by David V. Reed with art by Walt Simonson and Dick Giordano. I think if BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT had been written by Steve Englehart with art by Marshall Rogers and Terry Austin it would have impressed me more. I was impressed by the printing process, paper quality and Varley's colouring--because all of that was very new at the time--but the work by Miller didn't stand comparison to his work on DAREDEVIL (although it might have been more accessible than RONIN which left me scratching my head most of the time).

When Superman showed up in the fourth and final issue ("The Dark Knight Falls"), I didn't like the way that Superman was portrayed, but it didn't really leave much of an impression on me, because I didn't take this imaginary story all that seriously. I think that Miller himself pushes the audiences away--in almost a Brechtian fashion--and I don't think he wants us to accept the story he's handing us. This is standard Miller for the rest of his career. He deliberately does stuff to push us away. If you actually accept it unquestioningly then you're not really reading the story in the way that Miller intends.

So the Superman scenes are yet more of that button-pushing from Frank Miller.

I don't really like it, but I don't think Superman fans should react so strongly against it. I think that strong reaction is what gave it fuel and allowed this wrong interpretation of the Superman/Batman relationship to bleed into continuity. The publisher saw that this was provocative and therefore employed it to get a reaction and sell more comics.

The more Superman fans fight against it, the more they ensure that it will always be a touchstone for future comics. It's regrettable that the movies might embrace this sensationalistic approach. But I'll be darned if I'm going to get heated up about it--that's just what they want, so they can capitalize on the controversy.

[Auguste Dupin]

Counterargument:





DAMN YOU AND YOUR LEMONADE

Counterargument:
These pics not all that funny.
No, seriously, I see the joke (assuming it is a joke, and not Frank Miller deciding Batman would be more "kewl" if he was like Marv). I just don't think that even if you're on it, it doesn't read well.
I mean, is Batman taking 3 days to go back to the Batcave (that, or the Child abduction service in faster than you would think) supposed to be part of the joke? The entire page dedicated to Vicky Vale's ass?
Frankly, it is my belief that saying it is a parody, even a bad one, is kind of streching it. Because it is post 9/11 Frank Miller, aka that guy who thought a propaganda comic where Batman defeats Al Quaida was a good idea, and we know that he completely lost it some time ago. As far as I'm concerned, All Star Batman is jusrt a manifestation of his "madness".

[Qwathings]

Counterargument:





DAMN YOU AND YOUR LEMONADE

Are you saying it's funny as a parody or funny as a terribly written comic? Is it the Naked Gun, or The Room?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Are you saying it's funny as a parody or funny as a terribly written comic? Is it the Naked Gun, or The Room?

Those panels are, I think, self-aware, which is the moments where it becomes legitimately funny in my opinion (though of course, those such as Auguste may disagree). It's when it thinks it's being serious (with the exception of a very small handful of moments), like with the 3 day car ride or the ass shots or anything to do with Wonder Woman, that things go totally off the rails.

[dancj]

Regardless of intent, Japs is considered a racial epithet. Just like kike, wetback, coon and a few others I'm sure you are aware of. It can be avoided just by spelling out the word "Japanese" when you are referencing people from Japan.

He wasn't referencing people from Japan. He was referencing WW2 era racism.

So no harm done.

[DochaDocha]

I can almost understand the argument that TDKR wasn't all that bad for Superman, but I can't fathom how it's actually good for Supes.

I remember years ago, I suggested to some Superman fans that if they made a TDKR animated movie, they should swap Superman with Captain Marvel. Immediately, several Captain Marvel fans replied that was the worst idea ever. So, look at it this way. If you're favorite hero were someone other than Superman or Batman, how would you feel if your favorite hero were subbed in for Superman? I'm guessing you wouldn't be too happy about it.

[Mr. Mastermind]

It doesn't really work as a story themetically if it isn't Superman, though.

DKR did undeniably harm Supermans reputation, and brought the obnoxious patriotic element of the character out in the open for other writer to exploit.

[dancj]

So, look at it this way. If you're favorite hero were someone other than Superman or Batman, how would you feel if your favorite hero were subbed in for Superman? I'm guessing you wouldn't be too happy about it.

My favourite superhero is Superman - and I'm more than happy with The Dark Knight Returns

[XanatosVanBadass]

I can almost understand the argument that TDKR wasn't all that bad for Superman, but I can't fathom how it's actually good for Supes.

I remember years ago, I suggested to some Superman fans that if they made a TDKR animated movie, they should swap Superman with Captain Marvel. Immediately, several Captain Marvel fans replied that was the worst idea ever. So, look at it this way. If you're favorite hero were someone other than Superman or Batman, how would you feel if your favorite hero were subbed in for Superman? I'm guessing you wouldn't be too happy about it.

Ugh. Could you imagine the butthurt if Frank Miller depicted Batman beating up Wonder Woman? God, even I'd feel uncomfortable with that one. People'd call for Miller's head BEFORE it was cool to accuse him of mysogyny.

[Kurosawa]

Although a lot of people excuse DKR because it was not the regular (at that time) DCU, Miller had exerted influence on the mainstream DCU before that series came out. The origin of Batman and the Outsiders, as written by Mike W. Barr, was Miller's suggestion, and in that scenario, Superman kowtows to the US Government over the Civil War in Markova. That was also the first time that Superman and Batman's friendship had fallen apart. All of that came several years before DKR, was in the mainstream DCU, and was Miller's idea.

[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.

[Powerboy]

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?

I didn't dislike DKR but I honestly didn't see "the Big Whoop" about it. To me, it was just a story about character hyperbole, taking every character to his ultimate, parody level. Even the art showcased the fact that it was a story of unrealistic character extremes. My reaction was uncertainty of how I was supposed to react to it? Obvious parody? Seriously?

I really did not get why so many people I knew were reacting to this as if it was the Shakespeare of comic book works. It was good but it wasn't as if comics were not already moving in the direction of realism. And this overshot realism by a hundred miles to an unrealism equivalent to the Silver Age only in the opposite direction.

I could understand the negative reaction to the Superman of this story. What I did not understand was why so many people I knew perceived Superman as always being like this. Okay, they really had pushed the Silver Age Superman into this "I never break the law" thing so maybe but the Bronze Age was
already long there and I didn't buy this interpretation that he would do these things in the main continuity.

I loved Batman Year One which was sort of Frank Miller with an editorial leash on him and was the realistic version of DKR.

In my opinion, DKR was not a good thing for Superman because the same sort of people who did not "get" Superman then are the same ones who do not get him now. It started him down a road of being dumbed down and powered down whenever they meet so Batman can be superior. For a long while, DC seemed afraid to present Superman as brilliant and very, very powerful and wise. I don't know if there some some lingering desire to appeal to those who didn't like him to begin with and change their minds. I really don't know. At the best, DKR had no impact on Superman. At worst, it had a negative one. I don't think one can just claim that Superman getting in depth character stories was a result of DKR. DC was long moving in that direction. That was happening and was going to happen to most characters regardless.

[sta8541]

As a story it felt like old hat. Yeah, Miller did his usual thing with the plot, but there had been several other stories about a possible future for Batman going back to the 1940s. Imaginary sorts of stories about what might happen to Batman in the future were a thing that was done with great regularity--and they were always never to be taken too seriously precisely because they were conjecture and not really in continuity. There was no reason to take this possible scenario any more seriously than Alfred's fanciful tales about Batman II and Robin II or the stories of the Super Sons from WORLD'S FINEST.

When Superman showed up in the fourth and final issue ("The Dark Knight Falls"), I didn't like the way that Superman was portrayed, but it didn't really leave much of an impression on me, because I didn't take this imaginary story all that seriously. I think that Miller himself pushes the audiences away--in almost a Brechtian fashion--and I don't think he wants us to accept the story he's handing us. This is standard Miller for the rest of his career. He deliberately does stuff to push us away. If you actually accept it unquestioningly then you're not really reading the story in the way that Miller intends.

So the Superman scenes are yet more of that button-pushing from Frank Miller.

I don't really like it, but I don't think Superman fans should react so strongly against it. I think that strong reaction is what gave it fuel and allowed this wrong interpretation of the Superman/Batman relationship to bleed into continuity. The publisher saw that this was provocative and therefore employed it to get a reaction and sell more comics.

The more Superman fans fight against it, the more they ensure that it will always be a touchstone for future comics. It's regrettable that the movies might embrace this sensationalistic approach. But I'll be darned if I'm going to get heated up about it--that's just what they want, so they can capitalize on the controversy.

This was a very thoughtful & interesting post. The first quote is absolutely factually true, & the rest has the feel of accuracy about it. I never quite thought abut it that way.

[sta8541]

In my opinion, DKR was not a good thing for Superman because the same sort of people who did not "get" Superman then are the same ones who do not get him now. It started him down a road of being dumbed down and powered down whenever they meet so Batman can be superior. For a long while, DC seemed afraid to present Superman as brilliant and very, very powerful and wise.

Totally agree.