The Dark Knight Returns animated movie

[The Dark Knight]

I didn't really begin to appreciate The Dark Knight Returns until the animated movies. Like I said before in my review, the plot is better off as a movie. Some people might argue with this, but I reckon the comic had a few problems that ruined it for me i.e. the messy illustration, the frankly unnecessary subplots such as the schizo about to kill an entire audience at the cinema and so on. The movies made the plot flow better, and focused a little more on Batman in my opinion.

I think the crazed guy shooting up a few people in the cinema played well in the comic. It's the precursor to Joker's gassing of the television audience. The freaks are starting to come out of the woodwork again due to Batman's presence.

I also like the bit where Batman and Robin visit Abner's apartment, which is subsequently blown up by the robot. That gave Joker a little bit more of a presence and influence from inside Arkham, even if he's vegetative.

[BatmAngelus]

Though it would have been cool if he'd been the first actor to play both Batman and the Joker.

Technically, this title's been taken by two others.  Michael Dobson did the voice of both Batman and Joker in the Night after Night segment of the Batman: Black and White motion comics (he also voiced Alfred).  Kevin Michael Richardson also did the same, voicing Joker in The Batman and Batman in the Plastic Man TV show.

As for Keaton, I suspect that since Joker wasn't really needed until Part II (aside from the closing line of Part I), Peter Weller already may have been cast (and maybe even had recorded all his lines) by the time they were casting Joker.

Honestly, as much as I love Keaton- he's my favorite live action Batman- I personally don't think he fits the Dark Knight Returns Batman, either in live action or vocally for animation. 

Keaton's Batman voice was a light, gravelly whisper which worked well for the Burton films, but I can't really hear him delivering the TDKR lines that way and having the same impact that Weller (or Michael Ironside in the Legends of the Dark Knight episode) did.  Just imagine him doing the "This isn't a mudhole" part or "I want you to remember the one man who beat you."  It doesn't hit as hard, in my opinion.  Sure, he could've changed his voice and deepened it to fit, but personally, if it were down between the two actors, I would've picked Weller, too.

Requoting the above as I completely take back what I said.

After hearing Keaton in the Birdman trailer, I think he totally could've done the voice of Batman in this movie:

[Silver Nemesis]

After hearing Keaton in the Birdman trailer, I think he totally could've done the voice of Batman in this movie:

"Let's go back one more time and show them what we're capable of." The delivery of that line is pure TDKR. Weller was fine in the role, but I think Keaton would've made this really special.

[thecolorsblend]

Guess I never posted my thoughts about the movie. So. On with the show, this is it.

I'm coming back to this.

Reread TDKR yesterday and rewatched part 1 of the animated feature. Doing so shows you the similarities. But the differences stand out all the more.

The animated film uses as a celebrity-obsessed blowhard. He's just a guy who wants his 15 minutes of fame. If Wolper was a real life person, I suspect he'd get along famously with Dr. Phil.

Miller uses Wolper as a celebrity-obsessed blowhard... who has a point. He suggests that Batman ultimately has a negative effect on society. He inspires villains to be villains while also serving as a poor example to the youth. That seems absurd and at first Miller himself seems to ridicule the idea... until you remember thinks like Carrie Kelly, the Sons of Batman, the return of the Joker and so forth.

In the final analysis, Miller's view appears to be that, yes, Batman does positive things but his mere existence is ultimately a negative... which, I think, even the character himself realizes at the end of the book when it's implied that Bruce will turn his attention away from street crime and focus instead on corruption in the government.

Ignore what does or doesn't happen in the sequels to TDKR. I'm considering only TDKR as a standalone piece here.

It would appear that Miller and Burton both have very similar and somewhat cynical views of Batman. He's not a virtuous hero on a noble quest. He's a dangerous vigilante who arguably does more harm than good.

In any case, the animated film somewhat misses this angle. It's not completely lost but it's not as self-evident as it is in the comic.

Another change is more structural in nature. Jay Olivia obviously wanted to end part 1 on a cliffhanger. The logical place, as per the comic, to end part 1 would've been Bruce staring triumphantly out his window listening to wolves howl after beating the snot out of the Mutant leader. But that's no good as a lead-in for part 2.

So Olivia set up the Joker's return to lucidity as the end of part 1.

That works well dramatically but it creates a structural problem with Two Face bombing the Gotham towers. In the comic, the Joker's lackey tampered with the bombs and activated them without Two Face's knowledge on the Joker's orders. But since the Joker isn't lucid until the end of the animated part 1, there's no choice except to reimagine Harvey's motives for the bombing as a suicide run... even though that clearly wasn't really his motive in the comic.

As I say, it's unavoidable.

But in a broader sense, the voice acting is mostly spot-on, the movie makes sense out of a lot of confusing stuff from the comic (the abstract art is sometimes incomprehensible), the score is INCREDIBLE and this was obviously a labor of love for everybody involved.

Of all the Batman animated features I've seen so far, TDKR is probably my favorite.

This is surprising since I thought I was burned out on TDKR. What I've come to understand is that the story is fine. It's very enjoyable. It is for the Pre-Crisis Batman what Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow is for Superman. Except TDKR is actually enjoyable while WHTTMOT isn't. But you get the idea.

What I'm sick of is the adulation TDKR gets and has gotten. It's good but NOTHING is THAT good.

But when you remove TDKR from TDKR's reception, it's a good story. And the animated feature is amazing. In fact, I daresay TDKR is a better Batman story than Year One.

Guys, give this two-part animated feature another look. The actors are mostly awesome, the filmmakers obviously love the material and IT'S FREAKING TDKR! And it's not compromised or watered down. Well, not too much anyway.

And that score...

[The Laughing Fish]

I for one loved that Part I ended as a cliffhanger with the Joker coming out of his vegetable state when he hears Batman is on the news again.

When comparing the two popular Batman tales from the 1980s adapted into animation, I prefer The Dark Knight Returns animated adaptation than the comic itself, but The Killing Joke made me realise it's best appreciated as a comic only, as it doesn't quite work as a feature film.

[Azrael]

the score is INCREDIBLE

Agreed. Most scores for these 2000s-2010s animated movies usually lack "personality" - they're just some serviceable action music to accompany the visuals. This was different, and a great listen on album.

[Silver Nemesis]

My favourite track:

[The Dark Knight]

Guys, give this two-part animated feature another look. The actors are mostly awesome, the filmmakers obviously love the material and IT'S FREAKING TDKR! And it's not compromised or watered down. Well, not too much anyway.

And that score...

TDK Returns is hands down my top Batman animated movie. And truth be told, it's probably my number one Batman movie overall. I didn't really comprehend just how good it was until I saw the underwhelming Killing Joke. With TKJ, they fumbled a great story and made me wish they kept their hands off it. That's not the case with TDK Returns. It has everything that makes the comic great, but simply translated into animation. I can't imagine the movie being any better than it already is. TDK Returns Batman is everything I want in the character.

[The Laughing Fish]

I was thinking about the "I believe you" hostage scene today, and kept comparing the obvious differences between the ambiguity surrounding how Batman shot the Mutant in Frank Miller's comic, to the animated version's more safe approach. A reason for this is because the question whether or not Miller's Batman had killed the Mutant had been a hot topic for years.

So I did a bit of digging about the thought process behind it, and I found these tweets by Jay Oliva from last November. He believed Batman did kill during that moment in the comic, and changed the scene in the movie to suit the storytelling.

My interpretation was that he shot the thug in the head. I noticed the times Batman loses his s*** is when children are involved. He won't break his rule but if it would mean a child would be killed then I think he'd make an exception. Remember his parents died when he was a kid

We changed it in the movie to the hand to keep it simpler and to drive the narrative forward. That sequence needs a lot more exploration and deep dive into what Batman is willing to do or not to do for justice. I didn't have that luxury in the film to explore.

We barely had enough time to fit everything into 2 films as it was!

But I do find that concept fascinating. Especially in the context of a DKR Batman.

Source: https://twitter.com/jayoliva1/status/1197982683608993792

When Zack Snyder referenced this moment in the comic while talking about the end of the warehouse scene in BvS, he got some backlash and ridicule because he described the Mutant "getting shot in the eyes". But considering Oliva thought the Mutant got shot in the head, there's no denying the interpretation over the Mutant meeting her demise is very common.

I, for one, always thought the moment in the comic was ambiguous at least, and felt inclined to believe Batman did kill the perpetrator. We can debate where exactly did the Mutant get shot, but the fact is if Miller really wanted to convey that Batman didn't kill her, he would've done exactly what the animated film did. The fact the scene looked deadly must have been done on purpose - to make you question whether or not Batman is a reliable narrator. If the splash of grey on the panel isn't an obvious metaphor to how morally grey Batman is in the story, then I don't know what is.

For what is worth, I must admit that I prefer the animated film's interpretation of the scene. Simply because it shows off Batman's coolness as he easily disarms the Mutant with near-superhuman precision.

[thecolorsblend]

I never doubted that Batman blew that mutant into the next life. I understand why Oliva fudged that scene a bit in the movie and made it a bit safer. And I do not condemn his decision. It was probably the right call to make considering the format he was working in. But let's be real, that chick was a goner.

It's a great moment in the comic and... eh, a decent moment in the (otherwise awesome) movie.