Am I the only one who loves The Dark Knight Strikes Again?

[Cipher]

"Misogyny" is hatred of women.

You could easily make a case that there's a lot of sexism in Miller's work, but no suggestion that he hates women. Without that there's no misogyny.

Fair. Sexism then. It's clear he's not approaching them from the same place as men (overall).

[Great O.G.U.F.O.O.L.]

Fair. Sexism then. It's clear he's not approaching them from the same place as men (overall).

He is definitely not approaching them from the same place as men but it's not like his depiction of men is a fair representation of their gender. If someone reads Frank Miller comics, he won't get the impression that men are better beings than women.

His work seems to target a more male viewpoint, his stories and concepts are closer to male fantasies than female ones, they're more macho, but I don't see any hostility towards the female gender. In fact I believe he has a lot of affection for his female characters and I know a lot of women who like his work.

[t hedge coke]

Miller clearly has no problem objectifying, well, anyone, in his comics. And, he tends to aim the reader PoV to the reader he has in mind. So, you end up with bits like that butt-shot in All-Star in a scene where she's alone, it should, traditionally, be from her perspective, but instead we're a roving, vaguely horny camera watching her walk her living room in her underwear and heels, then the butt square on. Which, to me, is sad for a few reason, not the least of which are how well-characterized and interesting she is in the series aside from that, and how wonderfully arranged and designed her home is in those scenes.

Miller does draw incredibly sexed up and sexualized men, as well. There's male nudity and eroticization all across the Sin City yarns, and The Atom's lil atom is swinging about in DKSA subtly because his Atom does have that kind of swagger. The Fixer, in Holy Terror gets a loving butt-shot during an otherwise fairly serious scene, bent over and delicately detailed and all that.

I wish he wouldn't indulge in objectification at, to me, the cost of the story or characters, but, it's not my call. He's clearly chosen his creative path.

In terms of Wonder Woman referring to herself as Superman's prize and such... let's look at this a bit more.

Bondage and domination games. Loving domination, loving bondage gaming, versus cruel ownership or shaming, has been part of Wonder Woman since day one.

Supes and Wonder Woman are a monogamous, loving couple with a daughter just entering adulthood. Wonder Woman is, at no point, submissive, even while saying this. Superman is at no point aggressive or domineering. In none of Miller's work with him is he aggressive and domineering. He's restrained, he internalizes a lot, as seen by the foot-stamping as a young man in All-Star, or the inability to break free from the government in DKR, his unwillingness to burden others with his troubles or collapse under their weight, in DKR and DKSA, but he's not Wonder Woman's master or boss or lord or whatever. He may, however, be sexually excited by such talk in the broad, romanticized notes that Wonder Woman, who is the more aggressive and in charge in those scenes, is like to use.

Miller does the opposite with Batman in these comics and in Holy Terror, where Batman/Fixer is clearly sexually excited by Catwoman, but can only engage with her as if she is a victim of horrible, strong men, or if she's an enemy he can push anger and frustration onto. There's nothing healthy in their repetitive catch, sex, and release habits and Miller doesn't pretend it's healthy. In Holy Terror he pushes it right out there with their lovemaking scene, and later, when they try to talk about it and not-Batman, the Fixer, just can't talk about it. The same way that post making out on the docks, Batman can't talk about anything with Black Canary. Or, when Batman is hanging out with Superman and the sky and the flowers and the birds all love Superman, Batman can't talk about anything.

Batman's not a talker. He's a shouter, a lecturer. He's not a chatty guy. Even, sexually.

Superman might need a little dirty talk, a little roleplay, particularly because in his real life he's so tamped down at all times.

[Agent Z]

Bondage and domination games. Loving domination, loving bondage gaming, versus cruel ownership or shaming, has been part of Wonder Woman since day one.

Supes and Wonder Woman are a monogamous, loving couple with a daughter just entering adulthood. Wonder Woman is, at no point, submissive, even while saying this. Superman is at no point aggressive or domineering. In none of Miller's work with him is he aggressive and domineering. He's restrained, he internalizes a lot, as seen by the foot-stamping as a young man in All-Star, or the inability to break free from the government in DKR, his unwillingness to burden others with his troubles or collapse under their weight, in DKR and DKSA, but he's not Wonder Woman's master or boss or lord or whatever. He may, however, be sexually excited by such talk in the broad, romanticized notes that Wonder Woman, who is the more aggressive and in charge in those scenes, is like to use.

Miller does the opposite with Batman in these comics and in Holy Terror, where Batman/Fixer is clearly sexually excited by Catwoman, but can only engage with her as if she is a victim of horrible, strong men, or if she's an enemy he can push anger and frustration onto. There's nothing healthy in their repetitive catch, sex, and release habits and Miller doesn't pretend it's healthy. In Holy Terror he pushes it right out there with their lovemaking scene, and later, when they try to talk about it and not-Batman, the Fixer, just can't talk about it. The same way that post making out on the docks, Batman can't talk about anything with Black Canary. Or, when Batman is hanging out with Superman and the sky and the flowers and the birds all love Superman, Batman can't talk about anything.

Batman's not a talker. He's a shouter, a lecturer. He's not a chatty guy. Even, sexually.

Superman might need a little dirty talk, a little roleplay, particularly because in his real life he's so tamped down at all times.

The bondage parts hadn't been a part of Diana's character for decades when Miller wrote DKSA (and for good reason). I'm not buying that he was interested in anything deeper than naked sexism and objectification with her, especially given she's nothing more than a sex toy/misandrist for Superman who is characterized as needing a good manhandling to be set right.

As for Superman not being forceful with Diana, read the scene were they make out in ASBAR. If he's going to use objectification, he's free to but that means people are free to call him out on it.

[nepenthes]

I loved the DKSA, it was prescient writing on Miller's behalf and actually a very innovative and well-told story. The art was not great in places, but for me the Dark Knight Strikes Again was as good a mix of predictive programming and politics with superhero comics are you'll ever see from someone as extremely intelligent as Frank Miller is. I think it may be come to be seen in hindsight as a great primer for The Dark Knight part III, the Master Race.

Absolutely, if DKSA was released now it would barely raise an eyebrow given the explosion and acceptance of different creative styles in mainstream hero comics today; bolder, zanier, more ebullient and less hurrm durrm "these are serious comics" than the vibe coming out of the back of the 90's. In 2003, in Batman and even broadly across DC and Marvel, books like this were just never going to go down with your average superhero reader. We'd pick up indie books or Vertigo if we wanted to read this arthouse shit. And for the thousands of dudes who hadn't read a Batman comic for years and were like "oh wow DKR 2.....wait dafuq is this"...well of course this would create an echo chamber where somehow Frank Miller, of all people, creates weird comics that suddenly suck.

For all the vitriol one thing that really gets me is that his critics rarely seem to give him credit for having an evolving style, for delivering something genuinely new instead of clinging to a worn-out act he pioneered 20 years before (a truly rare trait among among artists), or at least acknowledging the span of his career. He was 25 when he wrote DKR. Sin City was enough to know he'd long moved past that vibe.

I love it for all the reasons mentioned here. It's just an explosion of craziness and ideas taken to their logical conclusion.

Are the people who hate DKSA offended because they feel it strips heroes of their dignity or something? I often hear it's because their behaviour is not "correct" somehow.

Ha, but this is really an issue across the board with hero comics though - fans getting their noises out of joint because their favourite characters have been mishandled or not properly respected or not "competent" enough, or maybe said something that the reader would have written differently. It's why Batman pissing his pants or getting punched out by Green Lantern are ridiculous and laughable and certainly not canon. Frank Miller well he made the grand-daddy of all affronts - he defiled Dick Grayson. I'm not that anyone else before or ever after has been horrible enough to do this.

Nah, I enjoy it a lot.

Also has some terrific takes on the rest of the League, Atom, Flash, Captain Marvel and Green Lantern.

Ha, even Captain Marvel manages to be awesome in this. "You bum" : )

And that send-off from Diana. Her characterisation is so distinct and well-formed across DKSA, but in so little words. She uses words like weapons, measured and targeted for maximum effect. An Amazon princess battle-crying an old friend and literal god to a warriors death, or rallying a faded Superman, and old flame, by actually mocking his literal manhood.

[Jody Garland]

Man, we see so little of Captain Marvel and Hal in DKSA, and they get such great takes. Cap, specifically, has a genuinely nice take on his Golden Age 'seperate from Billy' incarnation. "It's been nice existing." Hal as an almost literal God is under explored too.

[Punisher007]

No, it was garbage. There was nothing "clever" about it, the art was atrocious, his depictions of WW and Dick Grayson were nothing short of abysmal, and Batman himself is a sociopathic a-hole Gary Stu. I HATE it.

[Punisher007]

Miller clearly has no problem objectifying, well, anyone, in his comics. And, he tends to aim the reader PoV to the reader he has in mind. So, you end up with bits like that butt-shot in All-Star in a scene where she's alone, it should, traditionally, be from her perspective, but instead we're a roving, vaguely horny camera watching her walk her living room in her underwear and heels, then the butt square on. Which, to me, is sad for a few reason, not the least of which are how well-characterized and interesting she is in the series aside from that, and how wonderfully arranged and designed her home is in those scenes.

Miller does draw incredibly sexed up and sexualized men, as well. There's male nudity and eroticization all across the Sin City yarns, and The Atom's lil atom is swinging about in DKSA subtly because his Atom does have that kind of swagger. The Fixer, in Holy Terror gets a loving butt-shot during an otherwise fairly serious scene, bent over and delicately detailed and all that.

I wish he wouldn't indulge in objectification at, to me, the cost of the story or characters, but, it's not my call. He's clearly chosen his creative path.

In terms of Wonder Woman referring to herself as Superman's prize and such... let's look at this a bit more.

Bondage and domination games. Loving domination, loving bondage gaming, versus cruel ownership or shaming, has been part of Wonder Woman since day one.

Supes and Wonder Woman are a monogamous, loving couple with a daughter just entering adulthood. Wonder Woman is, at no point, submissive, even while saying this. Superman is at no point aggressive or domineering. In none of Miller's work with him is he aggressive and domineering. He's restrained, he internalizes a lot, as seen by the foot-stamping as a young man in All-Star, or the inability to break free from the government in DKR, his unwillingness to burden others with his troubles or collapse under their weight, in DKR and DKSA, but he's not Wonder Woman's master or boss or lord or whatever. He may, however, be sexually excited by such talk in the broad, romanticized notes that Wonder Woman, who is the more aggressive and in charge in those scenes, is like to use.

Miller does the opposite with Batman in these comics and in Holy Terror, where Batman/Fixer is clearly sexually excited by Catwoman, but can only engage with her as if she is a victim of horrible, strong men, or if she's an enemy he can push anger and frustration onto. There's nothing healthy in their repetitive catch, sex, and release habits and Miller doesn't pretend it's healthy. In Holy Terror he pushes it right out there with their lovemaking scene, and later, when they try to talk about it and not-Batman, the Fixer, just can't talk about it. The same way that post making out on the docks, Batman can't talk about anything with Black Canary. Or, when Batman is hanging out with Superman and the sky and the flowers and the birds all love Superman, Batman can't talk about anything.

Batman's not a talker. He's a shouter, a lecturer. He's not a chatty guy. Even, sexually.

Superman might need a little dirty talk, a little roleplay, particularly because in his real life he's so tamped down at all times.

Yeah I'm not buying that AT ALL. There NOTHING in the book to suggest that Miller meant anything other than "Superman needs to "tame" WW the up-tight psycho b****, like a REAL MAN!!" Given his writing of her in other places, I'm even more convinced of this.

[Aioros22]

The bondage parts hadn't been a part of Diana's character for decades when Miller wrote DKSA (and for good reason). I'm not buying that he was interested in anything deeper than naked sexism and objectification with her, especially given she's nothing more than a sex toy/misandrist for Superman who is characterized as needing a good manhandling to be set right.

Anyone is free to believe what they want, but Miller is known to use bondage and submision in several works, so I wouldn`t get past it. Diana holds the power to lift Superman up trought loving submission, to me. She`s strong and wants a strong man. She can be the prize and be in power. Someone well versed in bondage material or actual BDSM antics would likely agree with me. This isn`t 50 Shades of suck, where you only have an abusive relationship with a virgin. Miller depicted Diana as equally powerful in pulling the strings in the relationship.

I would actually conclude that Miller`s writting of Captain Marvel likely suggests he either knows about parts of lore that haven`t been used in ages or had the minimal trouble in researching them. His Captain Marvel is wonderfully Golden Age in this book.

Yeah I'm not buying that AT ALL. There NOTHING in the book to suggest that Miller meant anything other than "Superman needs to "tame" WW the up-tight psycho b****, like a REAL MAN!!" Given his writing of her in other places, I'm even more convinced of this.

She`s pummeling him down for not being the man she knows he is/can be. I think that`s something towards the ideia.

[t hedge coke]

Yeah I'm not buying that AT ALL. There NOTHING in the book to suggest that Miller meant anything other than "Superman needs to "tame" WW the up-tight psycho b****, like a REAL MAN!!" Given his writing of her in other places, I'm even more convinced of this.

I don't want to say you're projecting, but... there's nothing in her scenes in DKSA that read that way. There's no evidence that Frank Miller feels that way. No one says anything like that. The physical events that take place don't reflect that.

Diana is never presented as uptight, as psycho, or as a bitch, nor does anyone (well, anyone not a villain) refer to her as such. And she is never tamed, nor is it ever implied she needs to be.

So, while I do not dispute your conviction, it's not a conviction rooted in the comic. It's coming from somewhere else.

[Agent Z]

I don't want to say you're projecting, but... there's nothing in her scenes in DKSA that read that way. There's no evidence that Frank Miller feels that way. No one says anything like that. The physical events that take place don't reflect that.

Diana is never presented as uptight, as psycho, or as a bitch, nor does anyone (well, anyone not a villain) refer to her as such. And she is never tamed, nor is it ever implied she needs to be.

So, while I do not dispute your conviction, it's not a conviction rooted in the comic. It's coming from somewhere else.

She refers to herself as Superman's prize and punches him when he stops acting like "the man who threw her to the ground and made [her] his prize". And then there's her portrayal in ASBAR which is mostly her ranting anbout how she can't stand men and the JL are wimps for not asserting their will over the "ants". Then Superman knocks her to the ground and then they kiss.

There is nothing healthy or charming about this relationship no matter how you try to frame it.

[t hedge coke]

There is nothing healthy or charming about this relationship no matter how you try to frame it.

There may be nothing healthy or charming about it. Charming is subjective, for sure.

There is, also, however, nothing to suggest that

Yeah I'm not buying that AT ALL. There NOTHING in the book to suggest that Miller meant anything other than "Superman needs to "tame" WW the up-tight psycho b****, like a REAL MAN!!" Given his writing of her in other places, I'm even more convinced of this.

is anything shown in the comic. At all.

There is, again, no moment in the comic where Wonder Woman is portrayed as up-tight, psycho, or a bitch. It does not happen.

There is no suggestion or scene in the comic where Wonder Woman needs to be tamed or corrected by Superman.

This very ugly idea never happens in the comic because... it's not in the comic.