My problem with 'The Dark Knight Returns'

[Pohzee]

I think when Batman said "the enemy" in that speech, it was intended to mean "your enemy." Which in this case meant all the rioters and looters in Gotham. Context is key here. He clearly wasn't referring to the police.

Also, DKR is a story that exemplifies an "end justifies the means" philosophy. So its bound to have abundant hypocrisy on all sides.

If it were about the ends justifying the means, then he would not have discouraged guns. Guns are very effective.

[JBatmanFan05]

If it were about the ends justifying the means, then he would not have discouraged guns. Guns are very effective.

Miller tries to be true to Batman & himself with the guns stuff in DKR. Batman disavows guns to criminal youth/most everyone, but Miller feels Batman will use whatever if the circumstances force it.

[GhostPirate]

Well, AFAIC, the animated bastardization of DKR doesn't really deserve to be liked. It's just so much pretty garbage, and a hollow representation of one of the truly seminal Batman stories, done by people intent on putting their "stamp" on the vision of a (much) superior storyteller without being bothered to try to comprehend what made it an important story to begin with. Additionally, if a filmmaker considers voiceover narration anathema (as apparently so many people do nowadays) then, imo, they have absolutely no business trying to adapt a Frank Miller story (I know, so many of today's comic audiences don't want to have to read, just look at pretty pictures and the occasional 'hh'). Now, before someone comes in with the trite "it's a 'adaptation' and/or shouldn't have to be word for word"... you're right, but the point and goal should be, especially in the cases of highly regarded original works, to keep as close as possible and change only when it improves upon the original. I mean, I was disappointed at first they wouldn't have Conroy and Hamil, et al. spouting that great, pulpy Miller dialogue... until I watched it and realized they omitted 90% of it, usually poorly, with generic, "modern" dialogue and their talents would have been wasted regardless, only increasing the disappointment.

Anywho...

I'd like to go ahead and provide some counterpoints here. First is, the first panel is no more hypocritical (as I've seen some of the typically narrow minded responses call it), than an adult parent having a beer after getting home from work, but if their kid tries to grab one telling them that "it's not good for them". It's the difference between Batman himself being in the position of using a gun as probably the safest, surest way to save a child from her kidnapper, who obviously had no problems with doing her harm, and someone with much less discretion and/or self-control just carrying around a shotgun dispensing "justice" however and on whomever they see fit... and it honestly scares me for the future of our so-called "society" that so many people can't see the difference, all while it explains so very, very much.

In addition, please compare and contrast the initial two panels. The first one is a teacher trying to break bad habits of his potential pupils, and obviously meant as a speech; in the second the dialogue is boxed differently, in the way of his running inner narrative (meaning he didn't say it out loud), and the falling pearls should signify that "coward" and "thief" is directed specifically at Joe Chill and his ilk, that only have the courage to rob and kill because they know that they have a gun and their intended victims likely do not... and not directed at police or military.

[dancj]

Well, AFAIC, the animated bastardization of DKR doesn't really deserve to be liked. It's just so much pretty garbage,

I actually really enjoyed it. The Year One adaptation bored me a bit, but TDKR was great.