Dark Knight Strikes Back

[Guest HellSpawn]

Hello True Believers !

 

First, I know DKSB has been out for several weeks, but Im re-reading it now, and I dunno....

 

Art suck. I dunno, IMDO... his worst art EVER. or like Mr.Larger than Life would say... Eeeeeeeeeever.

Story mmmmm... kinda suck, is weird.

 

I mean, I love Miller, but (again) right now.... I clearly could place several Sin City stories way, WAY above DKSB.

 

Well, at least, the million he got, plus royalties via TPB, POsters, Toys, Statues, and whatever will help him.

 

Maybe this is the ultimate exhibit against sequels.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Is Part 3 out already or what? Granted I'm in no hurry to go back for more, but I just wanna read it and be done with it.

 

DKSB part 1 owned you all and was way under-rated by uptight dorks nationwide.

DKSB part 2 was so fucking bad that it defied all human logic. If there's ever been a bigger drop-off between installments of a series I've yet to see it.

 

Hopefully Miller was able to at least salvage SOMETHING out of the 3rd part....

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Is Part 3 out already or what? Granted I'm in no hurry to go back for more, but I just wanna read it and be done with it.

 

DKSB part 1 owned you all and was way under-rated by uptight dorks nationwide.

DKSB part 2 was so fucking bad that it defied all human logic. If there's ever been a bigger drop-off between installments of a series I've yet to see it.

 

Hopefully Miller was able to at least salvage SOMETHING out of the 3rd part....

Nope, it was EVEN WORSE.

[Guest MaskedDanger]

Jesus, people act like this comic killed their kids, or something. It's not THAT bad, folks. I liked the art (gasp!), I thought Miller's characterizations (heroes and villains) of all the old school DC guys were great (Brainiac as a threat...double gasp!) and I thought ALL the stuff with the Kryptonians, especially the focus on Superman, was top notch (triple robo-death gasp!!!). Hell, I'm one of the few people who thought that the "final, final" battle of the last issue (people who've read the book will know what I'm talking about) was well done. The foreshadowing of it with Catgirl's visit to "Saturn Girl" was creepy as all hell, and although I admit that whole final sequence felt a little rushed (the series should have been four issues), I think I understand why Miller did it that way: to increase the tension of the situation.

 

Call me nuts, but I really liked the series. It wasn't another Dark Knight Returns (which people seem to forget, even though FROM THE VERY BEGINNING Miller said it wouldn't be "DKR2"...it is supposed to focus more on other heroes and the DC Universe along with Batman, which it does) but it was very, very good. As always, these things eventually break down to personal opinion, and mine is that most people (not all) are slamming this out of sheer association to the first series. If you take the book for what it is, (which is a book not trying to revolutionize an already revolutionized field), then it is a complete success.

 

Oh, and think about this: the ending of DKSB practically screams out for a sequel. That should keep you guys warm at night...

[Guest J*ingus]

I seem to be in my own little minority in that I never actually liked DKR all that much. I mean, it was good, but I didn't think it was the perfect godlike masterpiece that everyone claimed it to be.

 

I wasn't crazy about the artwork in DKSB, especially the constant depictions of different TV shows and talking heads, which was REALLY overdone. But I did like the story itself, a lot.

[Guest HellSpawn]

MaskedDanger...

I understand your point, BUT lets move to another Miller's work: Sin City, everyone yarn is "almost" self-contained, I mean, there are some great hints of every other yarn in all of the series, but still you can read evryone and be happy.

And like I said, IMDO, every single Sin city story is way WAY much better than DKSB.

 

I like his appreciation for Silver/Golden age, but cm'FN'on, his art in DKSB is sometimes awful.

[Guest raptor]

Jesus, people act like this comic killed their kids, or something. It's not THAT bad, folks.

Exactly.

 

I didn't think it was classic or anything, but I enjoyed myself. I liked the fact that it was more of a JLA story, since I love Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and Plastic Man. It just seemed that like Origin, there was way too much hype attached to let it breath as a series. It couldn't have been as good as Dark Knight Returns, so to come in with that expectation was what murdered the series for the fanboys.

[Guest HellSpawn]

Hey raptor, I got your point.

Just remember one classic line in comics world...

With great power comes great responsibility.

And Mr. Miller (and DC) had great power, like I said they gave him $1 F'n million, he took more than 6 months between #2 and #3, and the story is only and just plain good.

And I dunno, but if one comic got the Frank Miller name on it, IMO it MUST BE more than just plain good.

 

Btw, I think the guy on DKSB is Elongated man, Plastic man is the one on the JLA.

 

Peace.

[Guest raptor]

I also underestand your point. I'm not a huge Miller fan, so I didn't come in with any degree of expectations due to his prior work.

 

BTW, both Elongated Man and Plastic Man are both in DKSB.

[Guest Sassquatch]

This book was terrible by any standards.

 

The art looked as if Frank let his son draw the book for him.

 

The story was all over the place and was overall masturbatory.

 

The hero's were nothing like they really would be even with all the circumstances.

 

Frank's bias towards Superman showed in this book even more by having Supes go from a government lap dog to a man indirectly responsible for the destruction of Metropolis due to him not fighting back.

 

The portrayal's of Batman and Superman were almost unrecognizable and didn't bare any resemblance to the belief's that they held in the Dark Knight Returns of their regular universe DC counter-parts.

 

This book was the *sequel* to one of the greatest comic book stories ever told. Frank didn't even try with the DKSB. This story was being pimped for 3 years and Frank himself even went on record back in the Spring of 2000 and stated how this story would help explain everything that the DKR did not but would also bring back the JLA. DC wanted the JLA in the book because then they could milk the JLA cartoon with the story and maybe make some extra cash.

 

This book was a piece of shit any way you look at it. It was supposed to be *the* next great Batman story (Elseworld's/regular DCU/etc.) to have come out since NML and the book failed in every possible way to live up to the hype it was given and the fact that it was just a bad story to begin with.

 

Even if the book was not based as a sequel for the DKR, it's still a monotonous and masturbatory story. The basis for the book was all over the place while having forced endings that connected with each little mini story which came off as brain fart's. The story does not come together smoothly and at times, half of the shit that went on in it could have been thrown out of the book.

 

A shitty book all around and goes to show you just how bitter Frank really is towards the comic book community.

[Guest BA_Baracus]

Whoa...caaaalm down Sass.

 

I think this is a classic case of people having huge expectations for the book and it just not living up to them.

 

I mean...was it as good as Dark Knight Returns? No. Was it even in the same league? No.

 

DKR was one of the top 5 superhero stories ever told in my opinion.

 

Dark Knight Strikes back was definitely a good little story in it's own right, and one of the more intriguing Batman stories told in recent memory. Although you definitely need to read the 3rd book to appreciate the story. The 3rd book was awesome.

 

The only thing I was really disappointed in was the art...and I don't think that most of the blame lies on Frank Miller's shoulders either. I think the colour was mainly to blame for the less than impressive look of the books.

 

Miller was obviously going for a minimalist approach and looking for Lynn Varley to fill in the blanks (like they did in "300") but she apparently decided that for some stupid reason she'd use DK2 as a project to help her learn Photoshop or something, because in some places the computer colour is pretty ugly.

 

Anyways, I quite enjoyed DK2 myself once I stopped comparing it to the original and just enjoyed it on it's own merits.

[Guest Sassquatch]

"Whoa...caaaalm down Sass.

 

I think this is a classic case of people having huge expectations for the book and it just not living up to them."

 

- Baracus

 

 

Frank and DC pimped this story as *the* story to buy when it would come out. It wasn't the fans who had the high expectations but rather the people behind the project. So when a story as bad as DKSB is put out with all the hype it has been given, then high expectations are going to be made.

 

I was one of the people who stated that the DKSB would be nowhere near as good as DKR which was a given back at the old Smarks EZBoard. The story was never going to be anywhere near the league of DKR because Frank has devolved as a writer and has become extremely bitter towards the comic book industry so I didn't expect a masterpiece from Frank.

 

I expected a story that did not insult the original story or the fan's intelligence when the story would come out.

 

"I mean...was it as good as Dark Knight Returns? No. Was it even in the same league? No."

 

- Baracus

 

 

Yep.

 

 

"DKR was one of the top 5 superhero stories ever told in my opinion."

 

- Baracus

 

 

You are correct.

 

 

"Dark Knight Strikes back was definitely a good little story in it's own right, and one of the more intriguing Batman stories told in recent memory. Although you definitely need to read the 3rd book to appreciate the story. The 3rd book was awesome."

 

- Baracus

 

 

The DKSB has no "right" of it's own. It is a sequel based on a story from years ago.

 

I'm curious as to how far your memory goes back Baracus.

 

Just two years ago one of the greatest Batman stories ever told with No Man's Land wrapped up with one of the most shocking endings to come around in comic books for a while.

 

Detective Comics #743 - #750 where Ra's Al Ghul and Batman have what was one of their finest fight's ever. The storyline kept fans in suspense and had great pacing in it that led to a killer ending.

 

Officer Down where Commissioner Gordon leaves the Batman fold. It had a disappointing ending but it had emotion and feeling to it.

 

The long and drawn out Bruce Wayne: Criminal and Fugitive had a more coherent storyline than the DKSB.

 

Batman: Dark Victory was the sequel to Batman: The Long Halloween. Jeph Loeb made no qualms about how this story would be the sequel to one of the greatest Batman stories ever told in the last 10 years.

 

Dark Victory as a sequel puts the Dark Knight Strikes Back to shame when comparing the two sequels.

 

Each book is based on the events of the original story. They are taking place after the events of the first story in which case you can not place merit on the book alone. In order to understand what has transgressed within the sequel you must read the first book.

 

 

"The only thing I was really disappointed in was the art...and I don't think that most of the blame lies on Frank Miller's shoulders either. I think the colour was mainly to blame for the less than impressive look of the books."

 

- Baracus

 

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

The coloring had nothing to do with Frank drawing a shitty looking Batman, Superman, Luthor, etc. The "colour" of the book has nothing to do with Frank's shitty faces, which you couldn't tell if the characters were happy or if they were sad. Superman and Batman looked like someone had taken a shit on their faces half the time throughout the book while Frank "tried" to make them look old. He could not decide on whether he wanted to make Batman look like a sleek 30 year old crime fighter or a 60 year old looking geezer. There was no consistency in Frank's character's looks or their facial features. Not to mention Bruce Wayne looks like a stumpy troll when he takes off his mask which made me do a double take to see if this was Lex Luthor's long lost brother.

 

The Dark Knight Strikes Back was a sequel to one of the greatest stories ever told.

 

To say that fans shouldn't have high expectations for the book is asinine and ridiculous. If the fans want to put this book on a pedestal and come in thinking that the story will be one of the next great stories ever told then that is their right. It's only fair too due to the hype DC and Frank made for the book before it came out.

 

If the story had been a mini-series with no connection to the Dark Knight Returns, it still would have been a shitty book regardless of which ass it's coming out of. The art was terrible and the story was all over the place because Frank can not write a good coherent story with flow to it anymore. The pacing of the events was sporadic at best because you couldn't figure out if this was a story about how Superman was a government flunky or if Batman was trying to help the world or fuck it over.

 

 

"Anyways, I quite enjoyed DK2 myself once I stopped comparing it to the original and just enjoyed it on it's own merits."

 

- Baracus

 

 

Since you feel this way about the story then I doubt you have read all of the articles or interviews over the last couple years with DC execs or Frank that I have. They each made it crystal clear that this story would be a sequel to the Dark Knight Returns.

 

Not to mention you have this uncanny ability to separate the DKSB from its sequel the DKR. If I had this ability I would have loved all of the retched sequel's that were spawned from the original's such as the Secret Wars 2, Armor Wars 2, the Clone Saga Part 2, all of the Infinity related sequels, etc.

 

The sequel has no merit on it's own because it is a sequel. Hence it is based on a story that has already been told and in order to understand what is going on the reader must read the first chapter/part. But the DKSB was so incoherent as a story and all over the place with it's shitty premise that even the hardcore fans that I have spoken to were lost when they finished reading the story.

 

I have outlined my reasons in my post above for why the sequel was a creative bomb. I have also explained how I never did have high expectations for the book because I knew how limited and lazy Frank has become over the years. I only asked that the story be something readable and not a complete insult to the first story or a festering pile of steaming shit.

 

The question was asked above and I stated my opinion on what I thought about the Dark Knight Strikes Back. If anyone here wants to see sugar coated posts from me going along with the popular opinion of the thread then think again. I'll say whatever the hell I want and I have yet to hear a good reason for why the DKSB is a good book rather than making up excuses for why it shouldn't be compared to the original or how the "colour" hurt the book's look.

 

The book was terrible any way you look at it and until someone can come up with a good reason for why the book was not a waste of time, I will maintain my stance on the book.

[Guest gthureson]

Glad to see you back, Sassquatch.

[Guest BA_Baracus]

Fine Sass...you're allowed to think it was terrible.

 

On the other hand I'm saying I quite enjoyed the story, and that's my right too.

 

I also still maintain that is was Lynn Varley's colours that were the problem with the book. I had no problem with Miller's faces...but then I'm a fan of his style, which you obviously are not.

 

Oh...and I have a pretty good memory...

 

No Man's Land - Personally I wasn't a big fan. Seemed drawn out and boring for the most part and I easily lost track of the myriad of pointless sub-plots since I don't buy every single one of the dozens of Bat-books out there. Started with a bang, ended with one, but the middle was a whole lot of boring over-dramatic nothing.

 

Ra's a Ghul stuff - Yes...this was good. I love Ra's, and this was just a good old fashioned super hero vs. super villian story.

 

Officer Down - Crap. I read Batman for Batman, not the adventures of the Gotham city cops (which are just a bunch of g-rated NYPD blue rip-offs).

 

Criminal & Fugitive - Like No-man's land...an interesting story drawn out waaaay to long. You shouldn't feel like "phew...thank God that's finally over" when a storyline ends.

 

Dark Victory and Long Halloween - Both very good. A bit formulaic, but I would have bought them just for the great art.

 

With the exception of Dark Victory and Long Halloween, DK2 entertained me more than any of these stories.

 

And when I said I stopped comparing DK2 to the original I just meant I didn't bother thinking to myself "this story and art isn't as good as the first one. Batman isn't acting the way he does in current Bat-books" and just read it and found I enjoyed it.

[Guest Ozymandias]

raptor: Can you please trim your sig pic a bit? It's really irritating to have to scroll back and forth when reading posts.

[Guest J*ingus]

The book was terrible any way you look at it and until someone can come up with a good reason for why the book was not a waste of time, I will maintain my stance on the book.

How about, "I liked it"?

 

I wasn't crazy about the artwork, but I liked the story just fine. Then again, like I said earlier, I'm one of the few who doesn't worship the paper that DKR is printed on, so maybe I don't count.

 

This is entertainment and art, not algebra. There is no one "right" opinion, it's all based on different individuals' subjective tastes.

[Guest Sassquatch]

"I mean, it was good, but I didn't think it was the perfect godlike masterpiece that everyone claimed it to be."

 

"Then again, like I said earlier, I'm one of the few who doesn't worship the paper that DKR is printed on, so maybe I don't count."

 

 

- Jingus

 

 

Could you elaborate on that for us Jingus?

 

I mean, you can say as many times as you want how you did not like the book. But at least give us some examples/reasoning for why you didn't like the book.

 

I'm just curious about what you didn't like about the story.

 

That's all.

 

Oh and your opinion DOESN'T count Jingus so shuddit.

 

[Guest J*ingus]

Well, for one thing, I didn't like the artwork in DKR either. No particular reason, it just didn't click with me.

 

For story reasons? Well, completely leaving out all the various Robins made me feel weird. If Gotham was that big of a riotous shithole by that time, why weren't any of the old superheroes trying to help Bruce? (It was one of the main things that bugged me about Death Of Superman too, where the hell were all of the real heroes? Why were the B Team the only ones to show up?) DKSB made sense on that point, he got together as many of the old gang as he could. But in DKR, all he had was a one-armed Green Arrow.

 

Also, the whole thing where he recruited a gang of psychotic rampaging murderers to be his army just seemed incredibly out of character, Batman never makes compromises. (And their faux Clockwork Orange wannabe street lingo annoyed the hell out of me.)

 

In short, I thought it was pretty good, but far below some of my all-time favorites like Watchmen or Sandman.

[Guest Ozymandias]

There were only 2 Robins at the time of DKR, one was dead (Jason) and the other (Dick) had his own city to worry about (also, Bruce told Gordon they hadn't spoken in near a decade).

 

Bats recruiting the gangs was great because it was a really cool character development - the fact that he realized that a lot of the things he'd done and stood for (like you said: not making compromises) hadn't been the most practical in the long run, and that he'd need to start his own army because he was just too old. It makes sense too because of his guilt earlier in the story over all the times when he should've just bitten the bullet and killed the Joker for the good of society.

[Guest J*ingus]

That's another thing I never understood, even after rereading that page a dozen times: did Bats kill the Joker at the end, or did Joker somehow kill himself? It wasn't made clear at all.

[Guest Sassquatch]

Batman tried to break the Joker's neck when they fought in issue #3 of the DKR. The Joker escaped Batman's wrath but the damage was done and the Joker's spine was hanging on by a thread. When Batman at the end of the issue cornered the Joker, the Joker was trying to snap his own neck. After twisting and turning his broken neck, the Joker succeeds in finally snapping what is left of his neck.

 

The Batman started the job but the Joker finished it.

[Guest BA_Baracus]

The Joker breaking his own neck...

 

...coolest scene ever.

 

Well, one of the coolest scenes ever.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

I didnt read it because when I opened it, the art was SO FREAKING BAD I put it right back down. It looks like he drew it all in 5 minutes a page. UCK. The first one was so beautiful you couldnt put it down, this one looks so bad you dont even pick it up.

[Guest Sassquatch]

Cletus did a wonderful job of answering Jingus' questions but I thought I might add a bit more to Cletus' answers.

 

"For story reasons? Well, completely leaving out all the various Robins made me feel weird. If Gotham was that big of a riotous shithole by that time, why weren't any of the old superheroes trying to help Bruce? (It was one of the main things that bugged me about Death of Superman too, where the hell were all of the real heroes? Why was the B Team the only ones to show up?) DKSB made sense on that point; he got together as many of the old gang as he could. But in DKR, all he had was a one-armed Green Arrow."

 

- Jingus

 

 

The heroes were either missing or else they had taken on a different line of work. In issue #1 it was mentioned how Bruce did not keep in touch with Robin and as you could piece together Bruce was retired from the hero job and did not keep in touch with the other heroes. It wasn't really a matter of the other heroes not wanting to help Bruce out but rather they had either become recluse's or else they were scared off by Superman.

 

Superman becoming a government lap dog ushered in a new era where the super heroes were no longer independent with their own terms but were rather part of the government. Superman was the first to join the government and he sent the message that if you do not join you will be an outlaw. Some heroes like Green Arrow went against what the government was preaching at that time and he paid for it by losing his arm in a fight with Superman. Other heroes like Batman retired and settled down instead of taking the chance of dealing with Superman and the government.

 

You *really* had to read into what happened with the super heroes and draw your conclusions from there. Frank was originally going to make a 3-issue mini-series explaining what really did happen to all of the super heroes after the DKR was finished. Frank gave hints about how the life of a super hero went down the shitter but it was not easy to see.

 

Either join and become a tool of the government or else you can kiss your freedom good-bye.

 

I can also answer you Death of Superman question:

 

- Batman was still recovering from a broken back at the time of the Doomsday attack and he was preparing for his return with teh cape and cowl.

 

- Green Arrow and the Black Canary were busy fighting a drug cartel in the South American jungles and were tied up.

 

- The Flash was involved in an emotional heart breaker when he learned that the returning Barry Allen was really Professor Zoom who had left Wally West for dead. Wally was unavailable.

 

- Green Lantern had troubles of his own with the Darkstar Corps and was in space and could not come to Superman's aid.

 

- Wonder Woman was in space at the time of the Doomsday attack and did not hear about what was going on in Metropolis.

 

- Aquaman was in the middle of a civil war with Atlantis and was unable to help Superman out.

 

- Hawkman was in limbo at this point and was dealing with Hawkworld matters.

 

- The JSA was either retired or else they could/would not go up against a monster that they knew they could not beat.

 

- The Starman family was in shambles due to David giving up the mantle for the time being during the Doomsday attack.

 

- Supergirl had her clock cleaned easily by Doomsday when she went up against him and was in critical care during the rest of the fight.

 

- Swamp Thing was involved in a mystical journey and had no way of helping out (he might have not done anything anyways).

 

- The New Teen Titans were dealing with ex-member Raven at the time of the battle and the team was in no condition to take on Doomsday.

 

- The other heroes that were not mentioned or did not show up to fight Doomsday either were unable to fight or else they chose not to because they believed Superman and the Justice League were enough to take Doomsday down.

 

"Also, the whole thing where he recruited a gang of psychotic rampaging murderers to be his army just seemed incredibly out of character, Batman never makes compromises. (And their faux Clockwork Orange wannabe street lingo annoyed the hell out of me.)"

 

- Jingus

 

 

I made a detailed post back at the old Smarks board about how the Batman from the Dark Knight Returns was NOT the same Batman from the regular DCU. This Batman was older and on the verge of having a heart attack at any moment. The DKR Batman was a man that could not leave anymore-loose strings in the event that it might bite him in the ass when he is finally unable to fight anymore.

 

Batman had to start preparing for the future now and that meant he had to compromise his old values system, which would enable crooks to come back another day.

 

The Mutants were the next step in de/evolution. Batman might have been able to take a large number of them out permanently but at some point he would have been overcome and defeated. Instead of trying to go balls out on the Mutants he made the decision to try and make them see the error of their ways and get them on the side of goodness. The 30 something year old Batman might have not done this but the DKR Batman had no choice. He was getting older and he wanted to make sure his city would be standing 20 years after he would die. If he had not made the deal with the Mutants then the chances of his city burning to the ground would have been high.

 

Just to give you another example about how this Batman was not the same as the regular DCU one; he broke his cardinal rule and tried to kill the Joker. Batman was on borrowed time and he had to make sure all the loose ends were tied up when he would finally be forced to settle down. The Joker was a always a constant loose end and Batman was finally forced to make sure the Joker never murdered another innocent victim because he might not be there the next time the Joker would kill again.

 

Batman was planning for the future when he recruited the Mutants. They were young and Batman would no longer have to worry about picking up the cape and cowl if he had a new generation of crime fighters who could pick up where he would leave off.

 

Kelly (Robin) would have been his leader of Batman's Mutants group and he could finally rest easy knowing that he had a group of people willing to go out and save his beloved city.

 

The language the Mutants use was funny at times. Lines such as "Ballz rad" which I thought was funny considering Miller wrote the DKR in 1986 when the vocabulary for back then was just as odd in the DKR. The language the Mutants used also demonstrated how they were not part of the status quo and had their own unique world which was what made them outcasts in the world.

[Guest BA_Baracus]

"Frank was originally going to make a 3-issue mini-series explaining what really did happen to all of the super heroes after the DKR was finished. Frank gave hints about how the life of a super hero went down the shitter but it was not easy to see."

 

Hmmm...3 issues eh? That sounds a lot...in fact exactly like Dark Knight Strikes back.

 

In fact if you read all 3 issues of DKSB, you know exactly what was up with the original Robin.

 

Oh, and why do you complain about Batman's character in DKSB not being consistant with that of the regular DCU's Batman, but are okay with what he did in DKR?

[Guest Sassquatch]

"Hmmm...3 issues eh? That sounds a lot...in fact exactly like Dark Knight Strikes back.

 

In fact if you read all 3 issues of DKSB, you know exactly what was up with the original Robin."

 

- Baracus

 

 

Completely different storyline than what we read in the DKSB. This story was devoted to the super hero trials that took place during the time when super heroes were being forced to become government lackeys.

 

It was not going to just cover the fallout Batman had with Robin years earlier. Hell, Robin was still on good terms with Batman in the story which was going to cover *all* of the heroes affected by the government recruiting period.

 

The story in the DKSB is completely different than the one that Frank was originally going to do in 1987/1988 right after the DKR.

 

Do your homework before you make a smart-ass comment. Or am I asking too much?

 

"Oh, and why do you complain about Batman's character in DKSB not being consistant with that of the regular DCU's Batman, but are okay with what he did in DKR?"

 

- Baracus

 

 

Well Baracus, let's see what I really did say earlier:

 

"The portrayal's of Batman and Superman were almost unrecognizable and didn't bare any resemblance to the belief's that they held in the Dark Knight Returns of their regular universe DC counter-parts."

 

- Sassquatch

 

Where the fuck did I mention the word "consistant" in relation to the two Batman's?

 

I am "okay" with the Batman in the DKR because this was Batman's final run with the mantle (or so we thought). This Batman was an old man who was trying to bring his city back from the brink of total chaos and crime. The Batman in the DKR gave a damn about what was going on in the world and he started at home by trying to fix everything he possibly could. The Batman couldn't even bring himself to finish snapping the Joker's neck. Fuck, the man even told a shopkeeper that if he killed a Mutant when Batman had beaten it up that he would come back for the shopkeeper. Yet right there he could have gotten rid of two more trouble makers that Gotham did not need.

 

There was no fucking connection between the two Batman's. The Batman in the DKR was trying to save his fucking city. The Batman in the DKSB couldn't decide if he was going to fight the government or bitch out the Flash for wanting to save innocent people.

 

The Batman had to alter his code in the DKR because he was on his final romp as Batman. But he still stuck by with his codes and rules that he followed when he was younger. This Batman cared about his city and in his mid '50's he got off his ass and helped save his city. Bruce did not have to do anything and he knew what the consequences would be if he would don the cape and cowl again. He took the chance and gave his city some fucking hope again. They had their protector back after the long time away and he was more than happy to oblige.

 

The Batman in the DKSB was more concerned about himself than the people in his city.

 

That speaks volumes about how different the two are especially when Batman tells the Flash to stand down from helping Superman save thousands of innocent lives in Metropolis during Brainiac's attack. The regular DCU Batman and the DKR Batman would have not thought twice about helping save lives even if it meant they were endangering themselves.

 

Yet in the DKR, Batman is willing to take on the entire GCPD even though he might die or get captured and he realizes these things. Fuck, even putting the mask back on at his age has a high risk of death alone. The man knew what the score was and he was *willing* to take the risks he did. He even went to a police scene disguised in the DKR. Not to mention that there were over a dozen cops who would have loved to put a bullet in his head for the drumming he gave them all the night before. Yindel included. Then when Batman is discovered as a phony and he escapes the scene with gunfire everywhere. He takes a bullet to the arm that does not even phase him because he has a fucking job to do and that is to save his city.

 

So to sum it up for you’re selective reading skills Baracus:

 

The Batman from the Dark Knight Returns cared about his city and innocent people and is willing to take risks that might cost him his life and endanger Kelly's as well.

 

The Batman from the Dark Knight Strikes Back does not care about the innocent people or his city because he is more concerned about his own welfare than the people who he swore to protect. The Batman also tells the JLA to stand down from helping save thousands upon thousands of lives all because Batman is afraid that he might get captured.

 

Instead of trying to mend up your bruised ego and play selective reading with my posts Baracus, how about you actually present the real facts?

 

Oh that's right, you just want to catch me wrong on something and twist around what I really said so you can save face in this fucking thread.

 

It's all making sense now.

[Guest BA_Baracus]

"The Batman from the Dark Knight Strikes Back does not care about the innocent people or his city because he is more concerned about his own welfare than the people who he swore to protect. The Batman also tells the JLA to stand down from helping save thousands upon thousands of lives all because Batman is afraid that he might get captured."

 

Really?

 

Did you just read past the part where he purposefly allows Lex to capture him and beat his face in, in order to make sure the plan goes off correctly?

 

Batman's fighting to save the world from tyranny in DKSB. He clearly says many times that it's a war they're fighting and it's obvious he realizes that people are going to have to die in it. In DKR it's just one guy trying to save single city, but in DKSB he's trying to bring down the entire government.

 

He tells them not to help Superman, because it's an obvious trap and if they were to be killed the liberation of the planet would be finished. Oh...and he didn't tell the entire JLA to stand down...just the Flash. What could the Flash and Batman really have done? Would saving a few dozen people and having Lex continue to rule the world have been the right decision?

 

I guess it just depends how you read it. The Batman in DKR had become much darker in the 10 years since he retired. He was brutal, violent, came within an inch of killing a man, beat his once friend Superman half to death and used a gang of crazed killers to achieve what he wanted.

 

Personally the way I read DKSB was that Batman has become even darker in the years that passed since DKR. The stakes are much, much higher in DKSB, so he's forced to be even more brutal, violent and seemingly uncaring to achieve his goals. I mean...leaving Superman to battle Braniac is a compromise very much in the same vein as using the mutants as his army in DKR, just on a larger scale.

 

I agree, the Batman in DKSB was a bit too hard-assed for my liking, but I read DKR shotly before DKSB and I don't find it to unbelievable that the Batman in DKR would do the things he did in DKSB.

 

Heh...I hope no-one I knows sees this argument, or my nerdish-ness will be out of the closet.

[Guest Sassquatch]

"Did you just read past the part where he purposefly allows Lex to capture him and beat his face in, in order to make sure the plan goes off correctly?"

 

- Baracus

 

 

Nope. I did read that part.

 

It was just one of the examples of Batman putting his own interests in front of his duties as a hero.

 

"Batman's fighting to save the world from tyranny in DKSB. He clearly says many times that it's a war they're fighting and it's obvious he realizes that people are going to have to die in it. In DKR it's just one guy trying to save single city, but in DKSB he's trying to bring down the entire government."

 

- Baracus

 

 

It was a war in the DKR as well.

 

Batman was up against huge odds and was being attacked at all sides. He did not have the JLA like he did in the DKSB and could have been killed at any point. If you want to downplay Batman's fight in the DKR then open your eyes. Both men were fighting wars in each of the stories and neither war was tougher than the other was. But the Batman in the DKR did not out his own welfare in front of what was the right thing, which was saving lives at the risk of his, own.

 

"He tells them not to help Superman, because it's an obvious trap and if they were to be killed the liberation of the planet would be finished. Oh...and he didn't tell the entire JLA to stand down...just the Flash."

 

- Baracus

 

 

I'm sorry, but wasn't the Atom and the Green Arrow part of Batman's JLA as well at this point?

 

Yes they were. Batman was telling ALL of them to stand down from helping save Metropolis whether they were in the room or not. The Flash just so happened to be the voice of reason during the attack on Metropolis.

 

"What could the Flash and Batman really have done? Would saving a few dozen people and having Lex continue to rule the world have been the right decision?"

 

- Baracus

 

 

A few dozen?

 

Try a few thousand or so innocent people.

 

Just for starters they could have saved the goddamn city from ruins.

 

If you believe they could have only saved a few dozen people from Brainiac's attack then you are either a comic book rube or else you are trying to be a smart ass and downplay what Batman and Co. are really capable of doing. This Batman let thousands upon thousands of people die while being slaughtered and forced to watch Superman stand back and watch. He put his own welfare before the people and that is not something that you do in a war like that. Metropolis was in ruins after Brainiac was finished attacking the city and there was death and misery everywhere.

 

By just putting on the cape and cowl he was endangering his life again. So for Batman to tell the JLA (not just the Flash) to stand down from helping save Metropolis speaks volumes about how diluted the DKSB Batman really is with the duties he has as a hero of the innocent.

 

Batman sure didn't have a problem sending Kelly out on a dangerous mission to rescue the Atom.

 

Or endangering his life by fighting Supes in his cave when Supes could have gotten a lucky shot in and put Batman down for the count.

 

He also didn't seem to mind putting his own life on the line just so he could watch Lex be killed and personally see his plan through.

 

When the moment came to save lives, Batman acted like a hypocrite and balked at the idea because he did not want to endanger himself or his team. That is being selfish and in doing so, he is indirectly responsible for the thousands of deaths in Metropolis due to him having the ability to do something about the attack and knowing about it. Yet in other cases in the past, he did not have a problem risking his life or putting other's lives in danger as I mentioned above.

 

That's not being a hero.

 

That's being a goddamn selfish and hypocritical coward who did not have a problem endangering himself or his team earlier on. Batman knew the risks when he put the cape and cowl on and he also knew the risks he was involving his team in when he summoned them to help him out.

 

The Batman from the DKR would have NEVER been this selfish about his own well being.

 

"Personally the way I read DKSB was that Batman has become even darker in the years that passed since DKR. The stakes are much, much higher in DKSB, so he's forced to be even more brutal, violent and seemingly uncaring to achieve his goals."

 

- Baracus

 

 

As I stated above, Batman was fighting a war just as tough in the DKR, which you seem to think otherwise. Just because the DKSB Batman used the word "war" several times in describing his actions does not make what he did right when he had the power to stop whole-sale slaughter.

 

"I mean...leaving Superman to battle Brainiac is a compromise very much in the same vein as using the mutants as his army in DKR, just on a larger scale."

 

- Baracus

 

 

This is one of the dumbest statements I have read during our exchange Baracus.

 

Batman letting INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE is not the same as helping a group of troubled kids turn to the side of good. Batman was able to get these kids to REFORM and take up his fight against tyranny and crime. Instead of wasting what little time he had and possibly being killed as a result, the Batman was able to help turn the kids into good people and did not let them go down the same route as their parents. That's not a fucking compromise. That's a fucking victory for the side of good because Batman helped stop a potential crime spree that could have engulfed the city. Batman went out on a limb and risked his life by asking the Mutants to join his fight and he did not make a second thought about it. He was risking his life and his goals by being taken down by the GCPD or taken out by the Mutant Leader.

 

Yet the Batman in the DKSB tells his team to stand down from helping save INNOCENT PEOPLE FROM BEING MURDERED like he should have. Funnier how the Batman in the DKR went head on to take on the GCPD and risk his life along with Kelly's during that fight.

 

"I agree, the Batman in DKSB was a bit too hard-assed for my liking, but I read DKR shotly before DKSB and I don't find it to unbelievable that the Batman in DKR would do the things he did in DKSB."

 

- Baracus

 

 

Read the story again.

 

And again.

 

And again after that.

 

Then HOPEFULLY you will be able to see the differences between the two characters, which are BLATANTLY obvious.

 

"Heh...I hope no-one I knows sees this argument, or my nerdish-ness will be out of the closet."

 

- Baracus

 

 

What the fuck does this have to do with the topic?

 

If it bothers you this much then don't fucking post in this thread or anywhere else where your "nerdish-ness" might show.

 

I'm damn proud to be a Comic book fan and if you are afraid to let people know you are one then you are in the wrong folder.

[Guest J*ingus]

First of all... both of you calm down. Geez, it's just paper with pictures printed on it.

 

Secondly, I did think that Batman's seemingly cruel or selfish actions made sense in DKSB. I thought it was explained best when he said something like, "I was out fighting muggers while they took over the entire world!" Like you said, this is a Batman who is ready and willing to make compromises. This time, he had to sit by and let Metropolis be destroyed, because otherwise his scheme to save the entire world wouldn't have come off as planned.

[Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly]

Well, I read it the other day to see what the fuss was about, and it didn't rule. I didn't like the artwork at all and I didn't think the story was that great (then again, i think I read an abbreviated version). As far as the argument going on before, I guess it was kinda stupid for Batman to let Lex Luthor (why the fuck did he look like that) beat on him just so that he could personally see Luthor defeated. Since he was old and broken down, it seemed stupid to do something like that, but for that seem reason I guess I could see why he not save Metropolis in favor of saving the world. I don't think I got to read the entire story, so that's just my two cents. If what I read was supposed to be acclaimed, I think it's a safe bet to say that it was a letdown because I was unimpressed.