Frank Miller's Dark Knight 3

[Powerboy]

And then the oft-repeated misunderstanding/misinterpretation by those taking it at face value was reinforced and the lessons were dragged into hell by the sequel...

Alas

Though at least the sequel never had the impact of the original.

[Vanguard-01]

Though at least the sequel never had the impact of the original.

Sure it did.

It further reinforced this "Batman > Superman" mentality that has dominated comics for decades.

[JBatmanFan05]

But he continued the story in a very disrespectful direction. I see no reason to believe that this direction will change in this new book.

Oh I agree. Not looking forward to DK3. Doesn't look good for Superman.

I think DKR & any story can be looked at in isolation, but yea...DK3...not looking forward to.

[manduck37]

Keep in mind that TDKSA was written a long time after TDKR. I'm not sure if the original was ever intended to be expanded on in a sequel or was meant to be a stand alone story. Though the writer came back to that world a long time after the original and perhaps with a very different mindset. You never know what could have bled into Miller's story from his personal experience or experience in the industry. Looking at the original, Superman wasn't really supposed to look bad. He was just put in a really bad situation that he hoped Batman could help. It may be the same writer, but that doesn't mean that the spirit or even intent of the original will carry over. People change and that is reflected in their writing.

Now, if you told me the Frank Miller of old who tackled TDKR, Year One, and Daredevil: The Man Without Fear was writing this sequel, I'd be excited. The Miller we have now seems like a bitter person with some pretty negative views that tend to bleed into his work. This Miller is one who's work I haven't enjoyed. So I don't feel inclined to pick up DK3. I think it should have been left alone with the original.

[jaybay]

In regards to Miller being respectful to Superman, my opinion will make a little more sense if I start off with what I think TDKR is about. To me, it's about politics. Batman is an aging man who sees that the world around him needs to change. The government is corrupt, the youth aren't like when he was young, and the country needs to change. Batman is a stubborn guy and thinks he can change the world in the same way he tried before, busting heads as Batman. Except being Batman clearly didn't work. Gotham became more corrupt and eventually so did the rest of the country. So when Batman comes back on the scene, his tried and true methods offer up the same results. Sure, he beats the Mutants, but nothing really changes. The government is still just as corrupt and Gotham is still the same. So in order to get the political climate to change and out this corruption, Batman must appeal to the youth to take action. They are in the position to actually change something, not him. In our political scenario, Batman is the lone guy seeking to change the system while Superman is the representation of the system.

So how is that respectful to Superman? Superman sees the corruption too. He doesn't want to be a part of that system, but he needs to be to help people. If he wants to keep being Superman, he has to work in a system he knows is corrupt at its core. He sacrifices his entire life as Clark Kent to continue to help people. What does Bruce do when big government takes control? He becomes a drunk and throws himself a decade spanning pity party. He doesn't help a single soul. Now, Bruce knows the government will send Superman after him. He also knows how powerful Superman is. It seems to me that Batman realizes he doesn't have to physically win a confrontation with Superman (and he doesn't win). He just has to make a big enough public spectacle that the young people will see him standing up to government control. So he stages a fight with Superman, hoping that Superman will pick up on what he's doing (Superman does). The entire fight, Superman is holding back. He constantly asks "are we done Bruce?". He makes it clear he could end the fight easily (like how after Batman's helm is gone Superman only takes low powered swings at his body, where the armor is). He lets Batman knock him around some. Just before Batman's "heart attack" Superman sees it happening and offers to help him. The heart attack was induced by a drug that Batman took to fake his own death. You don't go into a fight looking to win by taking a drug that causes a heart attack at any time. Plus, Batman doesn't want to "win" the fight. He wins by becoming a martyr, standing up to big government. Superman realizes this (as we see by the graveside wink to Robin) and then goes along with it. Superman refuses to give in to government demands and bring in Batman. He chooses to stay loyal to his friend and trust that his friend will have a plan that could save them all. Then he guards Batman's secret. Batman's plan was to show the world that you can stand up to the big powers and start to affect real change if you're willing to take action.

So really, Superman is a pretty noble guy and a good friend. That tends to get overlooked by people who take the book at face value and just see a fight between the two. There is a lot more to that story than a surly old Batman sticking it to Superman. The whole Superman/Batman fight isn't even a big part of the story. Batman learning to change and find ways to really inspire people to take up a cause is the big story. The showdown is basically a farce.

Superman is pretty good to Batman in terms of not zaaping him from the sky but how is everything else heroic or respectful? He's Superman! Day 1 Superman from the 30s is fighting corrupt gov't, not bending to their will because of ultimatums. The whole point is he can do anything, so sticking him in a gov't coated corner and making him work with the very governing entity that is responsible for the sad state of affairs, mutilated, tortured and killed heroes, have a hand in that himself and fight in wars isn't, at least to me, noble at all unless you're anyone but Superman. If there wasn't a Batman in this story Superman would not effect any positive and long term change. He's not standing up to big gov't like so many people favor, he's not inspiring anyone to do that either, he's actively preventing that and succumbing to "the ends justify the means". This to me is looking at a list of Superman qualities and doing the direct opposite to make a point, make a story work and to build up Batman.

[manduck37]

Superman is pretty good to Batman in terms of not zaaping him from the sky but how is everything else heroic or respectful? He's Superman! Day 1 Superman from the 30s is fighting corrupt gov't, not bending to their will because of ultimatums. The whole point is he can do anything, so sticking him in a gov't coated corner and making him work with the very governing entity that is responsible for the sad state of affairs, mutilated, tortured and killed heroes, have a hand in that himself and fight in wars isn't, at least to me, noble at all unless you're anyone but Superman. If there wasn't a Batman in this story Superman would not effect any positive and long term change. He's not standing up to big gov't like so many people favor, he's not inspiring anyone to do that either, he's actively preventing that and succumbing to "the ends justify the means". This to me is looking at a list of Superman qualities and doing the direct opposite to make a point, make a story work and to build up Batman.

This is an out of continuity story. It's not using any existing version of Superman, but rather exaggerating elements of Superman that have existed in order to represent the struggle Batman is facing. Sure, originally Superman was kicking in the mayor's door and accusing him of corruption or shaking down crooked cops. That version only lasted a couple of years though. There was a much longer period in Superman's history where he was a flag waving patriot, selling warbonds and being the ultimate American superhero. We see that back during WWII. Superman is much more of a metaphor in this story, not a direct take on the actual Superman. Superman is a metaphor for the government and it's power just as Batman is a metaphor for the regular person, or an older person coming to terms with how the world works. So the story is making a point (like I said in my post, primarily about politics) but the elements of Superman it uses are right from the character himself back in his earliest days. It's not doing the opposite, it's exaggerating what's already there to an extreme. Not to mention that we are only given one real instance of another super being mutilated, which was Green Arrow. I don't remember if it was Superman himself who took Ollie's arm or if the government did it after Supes brought him in. Either way, Superman is responsible. That scenario just serves to show just how bad a situation Superman is in and why he wants out of it so badly. Batman mentions Oliver as one of his reasons for throwing down, but really it's more of a reason for Superman to throw the fight. He doesn't want to be put in the position like that. This story also comes from a time when Superman was exploring his place in the world and fearful that forcing his ways on us with his unlimited power would turn him into a dictator. Superman had decided to follow the laws of man so that his own interests never corrupted him into becoming our ruler. TDKR just took that idea and exaggerated it to a harsh degree. This is dystopian story where all the heroes are in a bad place and force to go places they would never go otherwise.

Plus, this was a pretty huge story but it really doesn't make Batman look all that good. So it's not really tearing down Superman to build Batman up. Batman is a drunk who abandons his cause because his feelings were hurt. He spends a good portion of the series beating teenage kids and it doesn't make any difference in the world. Bruce's mission ultimately failed and he turned to the bottle. When he tries to rekindle his old mission, it still fails and he has to completely change tactics and remove himself from the equation. So Batman isn't exactly built up to epic hero status. He's just as torn down as Superman.

Granted, it didn't really do us Superman fans any favors. It seems like all most people took away from this story was that Batman could fight Superman and completely ignored the themes and layers of this story. It's a shame, but the damage seems to be done.

[JBatmanFan05]

This is an out of continuity story. It's not using any existing version of Superman, but rather exaggerating elements of Superman that have existed in order to represent the struggle Batman is facing. Sure, originally Superman was kicking in the mayor's door and accusing him of corruption or shaking down crooked cops. That version only lasted a couple of years though. There was a much longer period in Superman's history where he was a flag waving patriot, selling warbonds and being the ultimate American superhero. We see that back during WWII. Superman is much more of a metaphor in this story, not a direct take on the actual Superman. Superman is a metaphor for the government and it's power just as Batman is a metaphor for the regular person, or an older person coming to terms with how the world works. So the story is making a point (like I said in my post, primarily about politics) but the elements of Superman it uses are right from the character himself back in his earliest days. It's not doing the opposite, it's exaggerating what's already there to an extreme. Not to mention that we are only given one real instance of another super being mutilated, which was Green Arrow. I don't remember if it was Superman himself who took Ollie's arm or if the government did it after Supes brought him in. Either way, Superman is responsible. That scenario just serves to show just how bad a situation Superman is in and why he wants out of it so badly. Batman mentions Oliver as one of his reasons for throwing down, but really it's more of a reason for Superman to throw the fight. He doesn't want to be put in the position like that. This story also comes from a time when Superman was exploring his place in the world and fearful that forcing his ways on us with his unlimited power would turn him into a dictator. Superman had decided to follow the laws of man so that his own interests never corrupted him into becoming our ruler. TDKR just took that idea and exaggerated it to a harsh degree. This is dystopian story where all the heroes are in a bad place and force to go places they would never go otherwise.

Really accurate summary of what Miller does in DKR and the context. Superman & Batman comics never really got much subjected to the post-Nixon post-Vietnam generation's skepticism about our leaders or our country (that carried over into the 1980s), and Miller finally does that..finally goes there.

[DochaDocha]

I look forward to the memes and critical review videos. At least there's that. I'm rooting for this book to be as awful as conceivably possible, in the same vein as All-Star Batman & Robin.

[Auguste Dupin]

I look forward to the memes and critical review videos. At least there's that. I'm rooting for this book to be as awful as conceivably possible.

It probably will. At this point, no fan of either Batman or Superman is taking Miller seriously anymore.
It's going to be a wonderful trainwreck that will completely disrespect Superman (I mean if it is a sequel of DKSA, Superman has already taken over the world), but will also destroy Batman by trying to make him cool and edgy, and the whole thing will read like Miller was high as a kitten the whole time. I mean, even back in DKSA it was obvious that Miller lost his mind, let alone his talent.
In a way, I'm disapointed Azzarello is even involved, because I doubt he can really save it, and I fear he might prevent the whole thing from being hilariously bad.

[superduperman]

Sooooo.....then why did Miller do yet another story in which Batman once again humiliates Superman (this time, without the entire nation looking on) if this story was supposed to be about Superman taking a dive for the greater good?

Because Miller went insane years ago. Like I said in a previous post, the Miller who wrote the original DKR doesn't exist anymore. DKR, if you think about it, only really works as a stand alone story. It wasn't suited to sequels nor was it originally designed for any. Where could they take it? The government finds out Batman is still alive and hunts him down? What then? Superman loses his job or is forced to hunt Bats down and kill him for real this time? There really isn't anywhere for them to go. I think that's one of the reasons why the sequel was just an objectivist rant, there wasn't anything else to do with it.

[jaybay]

This is an out of continuity story. It's not using any existing version of Superman, but rather exaggerating elements of Superman that have existed in order to represent the struggle Batman is facing. Sure, originally Superman was kicking in the mayor's door and accusing him of corruption or shaking down crooked cops. That version only lasted a couple of years though. There was a much longer period in Superman's history where he was a flag waving patriot, selling warbonds and being the ultimate American superhero. We see that back during WWII. Superman is much more of a metaphor in this story, not a direct take on the actual Superman. Superman is a metaphor for the government and it's power just as Batman is a metaphor for the regular person, or an older person coming to terms with how the world works. So the story is making a point (like I said in my post, primarily about politics) but the elements of Superman it uses are right from the character himself back in his earliest days. It's not doing the opposite, it's exaggerating what's already there to an extreme. Not to mention that we are only given one real instance of another super being mutilated, which was Green Arrow. I don't remember if it was Superman himself who took Ollie's arm or if the government did it after Supes brought him in. Either way, Superman is responsible. That scenario just serves to show just how bad a situation Superman is in and why he wants out of it so badly. Batman mentions Oliver as one of his reasons for throwing down, but really it's more of a reason for Superman to throw the fight. He doesn't want to be put in the position like that. This story also comes from a time when Superman was exploring his place in the world and fearful that forcing his ways on us with his unlimited power would turn him into a dictator. Superman had decided to follow the laws of man so that his own interests never corrupted him into becoming our ruler. TDKR just took that idea and exaggerated it to a harsh degree. This is dystopian story where all the heroes are in a bad place and force to go places they would never go otherwise.

Plus, this was a pretty huge story but it really doesn't make Batman look all that good. So it's not really tearing down Superman to build Batman up. Batman is a drunk who abandons his cause because his feelings were hurt. He spends a good portion of the series beating teenage kids and it doesn't make any difference in the world. Bruce's mission ultimately failed and he turned to the bottle. When he tries to rekindle his old mission, it still fails and he has to completely change tactics and remove himself from the equation. So Batman isn't exactly built up to epic hero status. He's just as torn down as Superman.

Granted, it didn't really do us Superman fans any favors. It seems like all most people took away from this story was that Batman could fight Superman and completely ignored the themes and layers of this story. It's a shame, but the damage seems to be done.

I guess I'm just rooted in place on how deliberate mischaracterization and exacerbating an already widely unappealing aspect of a character other writers were using that you don't even like so much so you can legitimately root against Superman (which again, I did, because his choices imo aren't heroic or honorable) is respectful to Superman. Something that wouldn't have happened if the story had Superman as the protagonist according to Miller. That's all I'm really commenting on.

And as far as how Batman is perceived in story it's not really negative considering it's still a story about a brooding hero conquering his circumstances, being anti-establishment and physical/morally trumping a god among men. He beats up teenagers terrorizing the innocence, drinks when he fails as people will relate to and outsmarts the gov't. Miller really wasn't blowing up his worse qualities. Heck and Batman uses kids.

[Powerboy]

Sure it did.

It further reinforced this "Batman > Superman" mentality that has dominated comics for decades.

I personally don't even know anybody who has read the sequel. Heck, most of them don't even know it exists. It simply didn't have the kind of impact the original did.

[William300]

I personally don't even know anybody who has read the sequel. Heck, most of them don't even know it exists. It simply didn't have the kind of impact the original did.

DKSA is bad. But All-Star Batman & Robin is pure garbage.

[Vanguard-01]

I personally don't even know anybody who has read the sequel. Heck, most of them don't even know it exists. It simply didn't have the kind of impact the original did.

Start a Batman vs. Superman debate on the Bat forums. I guarantee you, you'll be bombarded with images from that travesty within two pages.

Sure, images from the first book will be the first salvo they'll throw at you. But you'll still encounter people who'll use that story as a weapon as well.

[manduck37]

I guess I'm just rooted in place on how deliberate mischaracterization and exacerbating an already widely unappealing aspect of a character other writers were using that you don't even like so much so you can legitimately root against Superman (which again, I did, because his choices imo aren't heroic or honorable) is respectful to Superman. Something that wouldn't have happened if the story had Superman as the protagonist according to Miller. That's all I'm really commenting on.

And as far as how Batman is perceived in story it's not really negative considering it's still a story about a brooding hero conquering his circumstances, being anti-establishment and physical/morally trumping a god among men. He beats up teenagers terrorizing the innocence, drinks when he fails as people will relate to and outsmarts the gov't. Miller really wasn't blowing up his worse qualities. Heck and Batman uses kids.

I got ya. This certainly isn't a version of Superman I'd want to read about on a regular basis. My main point was that both characters have good and bad points to them, but I don't think Miller was trying to be disrespectful. He simply exaggerated the qualities of both heroes to tell his story on politics. I can't think of any in continuity version of Superman who would be ok with total government control or would hunt down other heroes. Except perhaps Byrne's Superman, which he based heavily on Miller's version. To me, it was just an exaggeration to tell the kind of story Miller wanted to tell. I don't think Miller had it out for Superman or anything.

I certainly didn't like seeing Batman and Superman fight. I still don't. I think it makes both characters look bad. Batman looks like a psychotic control freak and Superman looks like either a bully or a pushover. Unfortunately people really took to that fight, without really getting the context or story around it, and assumed that Batman could take out anyone. Many point to TDKR as the birth of the Batgod (with Morrison and Waid later adding to it). Oddly enough, Scott Snyder had a bit of meta commentary on it a recent issue of Batman, where Bats battles a Joker controlled JL. Batman say to himself "People often wonder who would win in a fight between the two of us. The answer is we both lose".

Sure, Batman still is the hero of the book. It's his book after all. He's the one with the plan to stop government corruption. There is certainly plenty of criticism of Batman in there though. Especially considering the only way Batman can succeed is to stop being Batman, as Batman is ultimately ineffective. It's easier to forgive his flaws and mistakes though, as he's the one working to solve the problem.

As for TDKSA and DK3, well it seems Miller went a little nuts and took things in a completely different direction. I only read two of the three issues of TDKSA, as that was all I could take. I really have no interest DK3. Miller seems like a bitter person these days and his current work holds no appeal to me. Especially the direction he took the DK world he built.