The Dark Knight Returns

[BatmAngelus]

Saw there wasn't a thread for this and thought I'd open one.

I don't always agree with self-proclaimed "Batmanologist" Chris Sims of Comics Alliance, but I thought this article was quite insightful on how The Dark Knight Returns is meant to serve as a "darker future" of the 1960s Adam West-type Batman, whose new, brutal tactics contrast his past, lighter days:
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/07/23/ask-chris-114-the-dark-knight-returns/

Year One and The Dark Knight Returns are bookends, but not to each other. They're in the other order: DKR is the ending of everything that came before it, and Year One is the start of something new, the version of Batman that we have today.

It's almost exactly the same setup that you get from Alan Moore and Curt Swan's Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow clearing away the Silver Age so that John Byrne can start fresh with Man of Steel, except that Miller orchestrated it all himself. The publication dates even match up, with DKR being released first, kicking off during Crisis in early 1986, with Year One debuting in Batman the following year. That's part of the key to really understanding DKR.

To me, this makes a lot of sense, especially if you put it together with the timeline presented in the comic:
1940: Bruce is 8 years old when his parents are killed (according to the last volume, he was 6 when he fell into the cave and his parents died "two years later).  Tyrone Power's The Mark of Zorro, which was released in 1940, is specified as the version the Waynes saw before their deaths.  Now this could've just been a theater screening a classic movie, but let's keep going and you'll see how this matches up.

1941: Jim Gordon is implied to be a WWII veteran, when talking about Pearl Harbor, which happened in 1941.  Let's say Jim is in his thirties at the time.

1957-1977: Bruce Wayne starts actively fighting crime as the Batman in his mid-twenties and we're in the Pre-Crisis era.  Gordon is the police commissioner.  Batman and the Dick Grayson Robin fight off the classic villains- Joker, Catwoman, and Two-Face.  Batman joins the Justice League, with Superman and Green Arrow.  Dick Grayson later becomes Nightwing and Jason Todd takes over the mantle of Robin.

1977-1980s: Jason Todd is killed.  The government outlaws superheroes and puts Superman in their employ.  Bruce hangs up the cowl as Batman, feeling responsible over Jason's death.  Green Arrow attempts to keep fighting, prompting the government to send Superman after him and Oliver loses his arm.

1987: Bruce is now 55, as specified in TDKR.  Gordon's in his seventies.  Ronald Reagan is President.  We're in the Cold War.  The Dark Knight Returns happens.

There's also a couple of things that make sense in this context:

- Miller illustrates Bruce Wayne as huge and barrel-chested.  While the first splash page of Batman (in the blue and gray) is reminiscent of Neal Adams, I personally think he looks like an aged, darker version of the Dick Sprang Batman for the rest of the story, particularly in the later volumes when Batman emerges from the Batmobile to fight the Mutant Leader, etc.  Frank Miller even lists Dick Sprang among the creators in his acknowledgements section at the end (at least in the Tenth Anniversary edition).

- Look closely at the phone that Alfred picks up in the "Wayne Infirmary."  It's the red Bat-Phone from the 1960s show.

Of course, this would later get contradicted by Miller's later work, with All-Star Batman and Robin, but...let's not get into that.

[Silver Nemesis]

The theory about the TDK Batman following on from the Pre-Crisis version – specifically the Earth-One Batman from the Silver and Bronze Ages – seems fairly sound to me. It couldn't be the Golden Age Batman, because we already know what happened to him: he got married, had a daughter, was widowed, became DA, became police commissioner, got cancer, and finally got killed at the age of 64. And it wouldn't really work as the Modern Age Batman either because far too many things have happened since TDK was published that aren't referenced in the book (Damian Wayne, Tim Drake, etc). But it could work as a hypothetical continuation of the Earth-One Batman. A kind of 'what if Crisis on Infinite Earths had never happened?' scenario.

Of course, this would later get contradicted by Miller's later work, with All-Star Batman and Robin, but...let's not get into that.

I've never bought into Miller's assertion that all his Batman stories take place in the same universe. That would mean acknowledging The Dark Knight Strikes Again as part of the canon. And who wants to do that?

[BatmAngelus]

Indeed.  The Earth-Two Batman had his send-off, so I see TDKR as the Earth-One Batman's send-off.  Heck, you could even say that the Jason Todd who died in TDKR continuity was the red-haired acrobat whose parents were killed by Killer Croc.

Not only does it make sense to think of it this way in the context of its publication (the Earth-One Batman WAS Batman for most of the years leading up to TDKR), but I also find the story far more dramatic this way, too.  Batman's brutal tactics are more shocking if you think of his younger self as the Adam West Batman of the 60s.  His big fight with Superman has a ton more impact if you think of their younger selves as the ones from Superfriends.  If Batman's this brutal from his first night out and his relationship with Superman has been this contemptuous since their first meeting, then this is a rather boring way to end things.

Not to mention, it just wouldn't make sense in the timeline.  If the Modern Era and/or New52 Batman is leading up to TDKR, then does that mean we're going to have ANOTHER Cold War with the Soviets (and a Reagan lookalike as President) in the future?

And while it's true that there are connections between Year One and TDKR, with Sarah Essen, Merkel, Bruce only pretending to drink while putting on his act for Gordon, etc., I agree with Sims that Year One is not meant to be a prequel to the other.

If it was, this would mean that Year One is set in 1957!  (Bruce is eight years old when seeing The Mark of Zorro (1940) and twenty-five when he returns to Gotham.)  From the East End sequence alone, I doubt this is true.

[thecolorsblend]

Indeed.  The Earth-Two Batman had his send-off, so I see TDKR as the Earth-One Batman's send-off.  Heck, you could even say that the Jason Todd who died in TDKR continuity was the red-haired acrobat whose parents were killed by Killer Croc.

That's more logical as the Post-Crisis Jason couldn't be said to have been a good soldier (he probably killed a man) or honored Bruce (nonstop back-talk).

Not only does it make sense to think of it this way in the context of its publication (the Earth-One Batman WAS Batman for most of the years leading up to TDKR), but I also find the story far more dramatic this way, too.  Batman's brutal tactics are more shocking if you think of his younger self as the Adam West Batman of the 60s.  His big fight with Superman has a ton more impact if you think of their younger selves as the ones from Superfriends.  If Batman's this brutal from his first night out and his relationship with Superman has been this contemptuous since their first meeting, then this is a rather boring way to end things.

Here here.

[BatmAngelus]

That's more logical as the Post-Crisis Jason couldn't be said to have been a good soldier (he probably killed a man) or honored Bruce (nonstop back-talk).

Fantastic point and even more proof to the argument.

I think a lot of people forget the fact that The Dark Knight Returns was written and published a year before Year One and two years before A Death in the Family.  The Diplomat's Son story that you referred to was published two years after TDKR as well.  I can see how readers these days can get confused without looking at the publication dates since Miller carried over TDKR's aspects into Year One and eerily predicted the death of Jason Todd years before DC did it.  But to me, it's very clearly an ending to the Silver Age/Bronze Age Batman.

And yet, we constantly see writers trying to line up the current continuity to it, whether it's bringing The Mutants in or, more recently, incorporating the Carrie Kelley Robin.  (Understandably, the Robin costume in the glass case was too good a visual to pass up when it came to Jason's death in Post-Crisis)  We also see writers, including Miller himself, trying to duplicate moments under different contexts, most notably the Batman vs. Superman fight. 

But these aspects just don't have the same impact that they did in this comic. 

For example, the whole point of the Mutants was to see the type of criminal who'd rise up and thrive when Batman wasn't around.  They also serve as a contrast to the more harmless Silver Age/William Dozier-style villains that Batman was fighting in his prime.  So having them actually show up during Bruce's career, and in our already-violent Modern Era, completely misses the point, in my opinion.  In this new context, they're just another gang.

In another example, Carrie Kelley Robin was a Batman fan who became Robin.  She didn't need to become an orphan in order to don a costume.  She wanted to make a difference and help out The Dark Knight, who was mourning over the loss of the past Robin. 

If that description sounds familiar, it's because this all got incorporated into Tim Drake in A Lonely Place of Dying in 1989.  I know that Tim's origin has changed in the New 52, but still, bringing Carrie in now feels repetitive to me.

And then, there's the Batman vs. Superman fight.  These days, it seems like Batman fighting Superman happens all the time.  It usually starts when Superman gets possessed or corrupted by the real villain and the fight just comes across as trying to show how much "cooler and smarter" Bruce is over Clark.  Sure, there's an element of this in the original comic, but there's also a level of tragedy to Miller's version that you don't feel in the other fights. 

In TDKR, Superman goes into the fight with a clear conscience.  He's not possessed or under a villain's control.  These are two friends having to fight to the death due to their opposing views on authority.

That's a ton more emotional and meaningful to me than, say, Hush where Batman punches a Poison Ivy-possessed Superman with a Kryptonite ring.  Or, worse, The Dark Knight Strikes Again that spends pages and pages of Batman and other DC superheroes beating on Clark and calling him an idiot.

[thecolorsblend]

Hey, from your mouth to God's ear. Elevating/praising a character shouldn't require editorially lambasting another one. Like, back in the 90's after Ollie died and DC was trying like hell to convince us Connor Hawke was Green Arrow, they put him up against Lady Shiva and he either won the fight or else fought her to a standstill or something... not because it made any motherfvcking sense and not because anybody should be able to survive a fight with her but because they have set up Hawke's badass cred. You could argue that if it ever truly came down to it, Shiva could probably take Batman himself out... so I'm supposed to believe this little upstart would last two minutes with her? Please. If you need to establish how tough someone is, throw him against King Snake. He's tough stuff but still gets beat around fairly regularly. You could make it work, Mr. Hack Writer.

Or here's another one, turning Darkseid into a brawler (rather than the conspirator and shadow operator he'd always been) so that any jerk looking to make a name for himself can beat the snot out of Darkseid to show how tough they are (because I guess Mongul has something better to do). Oy, I've got a million of 'em.

Anyway. Batman is a cool character. He shouldn't need to beat up on Superman every other month to prove that. I realize the biz is different these days but if I was the Superman editor and some punk from the Batman office told me he wanted a Superman guest appearance so that Batman can beat the hell out of him yet again, I'd tell him to go piss up a rope... and if he felt all bothered about that, he can meet me and my broken beer bottle in the parking lot after work.

[The Dark Knight]

I get the appeal. The height of human potential vs the height of alien power. But the 'Batman beats Superman' thing has become a cliche. An overused one. And I'm over it. Batman and Superman have differing views - sure. But these can definitely be exaggerated. Superman isn't entirely this dumb, reactive and unsubtle bowling ball do-gooder. Which makes me dislike Superman more than I should, because those things aren't exactly attractive to me.

I'm not saying it's time Superman handed out a flogging that leaves Batman on life support. I'd just rather they not go there. Call me whatever you want, but the two are heroes (well, Batman is a crimefighter) and I prefer to see them interact as such. An uneasy alliance that manages to work when the time comes. The fights are gimmicks and fan service. They're not proof one is better than the other. A writer can plot any story he wants to.

[Silver Nemesis]

Here's an excellent post somebody else wrote on another message board. This basically sums up my views on the matter.

When people say: "Batman can kick Superman's ass" they really mean one of three things:

1. I like Batman more and think he can do anything.
2. I think Batman can win a one-sided battle where he's prepared and Superman isn't; and I've read comics like that.
3. I think Batman can beat Superman under specific circumstances, but all things being equal, Superman will almost always win.

With Case 1, there's no arguing with them. With Case 3, I think the individual is reasonable enough and there's no need to force them to say Superman will ALWAYS win unless we're suffering from a bit of Case 1 ourselves, but with a Superman bent. I think a mixture of Case 2 and a little bit of 1 is the predominant viewpoint of people who say it.

The thing is, they typically don't acknowledge the inequality in preparation or technology... it's almost always a contrived circumstance to bring about a Bat-victory by the skin of Bruce's teeth. Even if they do, they put their faith in Batman's preparation and planning (and sometimes technology) to rule the day. The following addresses that (reposted):

Despite the incredibly presistant and wide-spread belief that Batman has a dozen plans up his sleeve to take out Superman, historically it's been proven otherwise again and again. Let's take some examples:

DKR - Bats, after 20 years of planning, gets his ribs broke, his fancy suit torn to shreds, suffers a heart attack, and ends up in the ground. His entire plan relies on Superman holding back and NOT simply unplugging Bruce from his lamp-post or disabling him from space (if Supes really just wanted Bruce to turn himself in, rather than getting into a dangerous fist fight)... in other words, poor writing for Supes (out of character motivation, out of character intellect/tactics), who could have undid the Bat's plan easily.

Hush - Bats breaks his hand & resorts to thug-level hostage tactics, while admiting he doesn't stand a chance. Honestly, he just gets in one good punch (that breaks his hand) shortly after, Supes smashes through the street and effortlessly lifts a car in each hand, no worse for wear. His plan needlessly puts himself at risk and relied entirely on Clark holding back/being good, which he had no logical grounds on which the make that assumption... having a "gut feeling" that Clark can resist mind control does not constitute a good plan.

Red Son - Dies. Despite all his prep, he didn't account for Superman's allies, which he has in spades and certainly on a different power-level than- say- the Bat Family. If anything is true of Supes, it's that he has many friends that would readily risk life and limb for his sake- heck, in the regular universe, Batman considers himself one of that number... any plan meant to take Supes out has to take into account his allies, friends, family, robots, pets, etc.

Babel - Years of planning on how to stop a rogue Superman... result: an expensive synthetic rock that makes Superman MORE powerful (and doesn't even prevent him from using his powers with surgical precision). Wow. Brilliant.

Superman/Batman #2 - Owned. This is in Batman's home turf, the ideal situation to combat Superman and to enact all the theoretical plans his fans have long believed he has against a rogue Superman... but the result? Bruce isn't even Future Supes's target yet he's a breath away from death if not for a save from present-day Supes.

Lex Luthor:Man of Steel - Batman with kryptonite and prep, defeated handily by Superman. Arguably one of the most realistic portrayals of how Supes could still defeat Batman without instantly killing him regardless of Bat-prep.

Superman: King of The World - Batman with prep and kryptonite fails to stop Superman from being able to crush his throat... only with the intervention of Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter is Supes stopped. Here we see danger of Superman with limited prep, the legions of his similarly powered Superman robots.

Sacrifice - Again, Batman, king of protocols, the man entrusted with the Kryptonite ring as a symbol of trust and the express responsibility of stopping Superman should he go rogue by Superman himself... finds himself in said situation and instead of pulling out "always prepared anti-Supes plan" finds himself beaten to near death saved only by the Plot Gods.

Infinite Crisis - After the last beating, you'd think Batman would create more comprehensive plans for taking out Superman and/or Superman-class enemies. Granted Kal-L is probably levels above them, but in terms of Anti-SuperBrick Planning, once again, Bruce fails... his entire defense the Kryptonite ring. Even if it were Kal-El and not Kal-L, it's highly questionable whether the ring alone would have been able to stop a motivated rogue Superman considering Supes has wielded the ring himself when fighting other Super-persons. If Batman were truly the master of planning and prep, this certainly should have been taken into consideration.

Final score: Bat Plans Zip; Supes nine of nine.

The only cases where Batman has been able to possibly get a leg up on Supes are when he has acted like a villain and held hostages or lead an assault against an unsuspecting Supes- hardly a feat (consider: who amongst us, with Batman's fortune and training, intimate knowledge of Superman as an ally, and even express consent from said target, WOULDN'T be able to come up with an attack plan against an unsuspecting Supes?). In any case where Supes has had the opportunity to fight back he has either won or been defeated by bad writing.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?135727-The-end-of-the-quot-Batman-could-beat-Superman-quot-debate

Gotta love the blood on Superman's fist in the lower picture there ^.

[The Dark Knight]

Let's face it, Batman wouldn't beat Superman. Superman is literally Superman and beats practically everyone and everything. And really, the fact Batman wouldn't is part of the appeal. Batman is human and defeating a God isn't easy. It's impossible.

He is constantly trying to find a way, but it keeps coming back to Kryptonite. If Batman is the last stand against a rogue Superman, really, there aren't many options apart from that. And I'm sure it troubles an already dark, strategic mind.

Knowing Batman would lose, but when the time comes, he simply has to win, is quite thrilling. Like the last scene of Dead End, with those Predators lining up to take on a wounded Batman.

This God ruling the skies, and this low level grit avenger clinging to the shadows, surviving, and hoping to take him down one day.

[BatmanFanatic93]

Knowing Batman would lose, but when the time comes, he simply has to win, is quite thrilling. Like the last scene of Dead End, with those Predators lining up to take on a wounded Batman.

Oh man i loved that fan film it was well made & just awesome.