The Dark Knight Strikes Back... so, was it any good?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

ok so laugh if you want but despite being a fan of the dark knight returns since i got a LEATHERBOUND edition of it for my BAR MITZVAH, i only last week found out there was a sequel!! a MAJOR wtf moment for me.

so was it good? should i get it?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 8 August 2005 15:48 (twenty years ago)

it's something.
You should definitely READ it, I wouldn't necessarily recommend BUYING it, though.
It's very, very different. In a lot of ways, it's even better, but in a lot of ways (often the very same), it's the worst piece of shit ever.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:03 (twenty years ago)

I liked it, tho I haven't read it in a while. It's totally off-the-wall, a LOT more colorful (& boobtacular), so don't expect DKR II. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to batten down my hatches before the naysayers come by and blow me house down.

[xpost]

TOO LATE!

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:04 (twenty years ago)

i think it's the best thing frank miller's done

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:12 (twenty years ago)

how interesting!!

i think the only way i can read this is by buying it... i don't really have any comix buddies anymore... well, non-"indie cartoonist" comix buddies that is

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:13 (twenty years ago)

dl it s1ocki (i did), it's alot more colorful than dkr, some topical gestures, lots more superheros pop up and play big roles. the closest analogy i can think of is dkr : dksb :: watchmen : 1963 (note: this doesn't really hold up).

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:19 (twenty years ago)

will i look like a chump if i don't know what 1963 is?

i've never downloaded comics!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:24 (twenty years ago)

Like a chump, yeah, like a chump. (j/k)

1963: Alan Moore's fun and frilly homage to groovy 60's Marvel-esque super-heroics, complete w/ Kirby & Ditko homages (by artists like Rick Veitch & Dave Gibbons & Stephen Bissette) & Moore's Lee-like Affable Al persona; 6-issue mini-series published by Image back in the early 90s; not sure if it was ever collected in TPB, but it's available wherever hi-quality funny books are sold.

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:29 (twenty years ago)

i feel like i've been in a coma since 1990

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:31 (twenty years ago)

There was a brilliant parody of the Marvel Method in 1963, the highpoint of which was Affable Al giving his artist a script which read: 'Some kind of fight. Maybe a space monster.'

― chap who would dare to thwart the revolution (chap), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:33 (twenty years ago)

But, yeah, Blount's right re: the sketchiness of the comparison. DKSB is like 1963, if 1963 had A Really Important Point To Make About Society In General By Featuring Ditzy Blondes w/ Ginormous Gazongas Being Pseudo-Super-Heroic, instead of just goofin' on comic conventions and history.

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

Visually, it's the most exciting thing Miller's ever done. But it's pretty, um, wacky. The explorations into the DC characters is super fun (like who else would make the Flash look like a French bike courier!), but the narrative has some pretty significant weaknesses. Not the least of which is the ending.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)

yeah i was thinking more corrective/response to previous gritmove by author in question, but i'm not even sure if that's what was happening here really, it may have just been a result of miller focusing more on superman and adding the atom, flash, etc. to the stable and hence figuring 'i guess i'm going to need to buy some blue ink and red ink, and um yellow'. it definitely seemed alot funnier than dkr or any other miller stuff. i should note i'm not a big frank miller fan (so usual miller drawbacks for me - libertarianism, sexism, laffable notions of 'dark' or 'adult' (which he tempers here more than anywhere else, hence this = my fave) - might not annoy you nearly as much and, on the flip side, the possibility that the sun shines in this miller u might be anathema)(haha in summation ymmv).

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 8 August 2005 16:56 (twenty years ago)

one thing i think is in it's favor is that it's basically just an extended raspberry at bushco and an overcomplicated robin joke instead of 'redifining/reimagining the batman mythos' or convincing yourself that a madonna/whore complex should be embraced. the ayn rand on his shoulder gets a bit creepy with superman (it was inevitable) but doesn't completely go to town or derail the whole thing as with batman.

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 8 August 2005 17:05 (twenty years ago)

I was so disappointed by DKSA that I remembered neither the ending nor the Ditzy Blondes to which Dave refers. And the art is bad-ugly. And I still stand by the assertion that DKR is filled with yucks, or at least great one-liners.

― Leeeeeeee (Leee), Monday, 8 August 2005 18:35 (twenty years ago)

don't you mean the art is BAT-ugly?!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 8 August 2005 18:40 (twenty years ago)

ZING.

― Leeeeeeee (Leee), Monday, 8 August 2005 19:25 (twenty years ago)

It felt like an insult to fans of DKR. It felt like Miller had written it as he went along and drawn it in about 2 days. It felt like he was taking the piss out of superheroes but not in an interesting or original way.

I didn't like it all that much, by the way...

― David N (David N.), Monday, 8 August 2005 22:21 (twenty years ago)

I really liked it, but accept that I am alone in this. I thought it had loads of fun superhero stuff in it, like the Flash being in a mouse wheel powering the entire Eastern United States. It maybe helped that I've never read much DC universe stuff, so many of the characters were new and exciting to me.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 8 August 2005 22:27 (twenty years ago)

I actually went and bought this in chapbook form.
Anyhow, it covers some of the same philosophical ground as "Kingdom Come" and occasionally actually manages to be even more self-consciously portentious. Miller's art ranges from lovely to "I want to pluck my eyes out" often on the same page. Lynn Varley's colours are gorgeous but there is the odd hamfisted computer effect glitch.

It's worth reading. I'm not entirely sure that I'd recommend that anyone actually buy the thing.

― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 09:26 (twenty years ago)

I liked it a lot! Miller should try to have fun more often, it seems to work better than him taking everything so seriously. It was definitely better than Dark Knight Returns.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 09:36 (twenty years ago)

can i reiterate my dream casting of apocalypse-now-era brando for fantasy DKR movie?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 13:26 (twenty years ago)

DKSB is utterly wretched…poorly written, spectacularly ugly, completely needless.

now 1963…that is some sublime shit. Which is better, 1963 or Supreme?

― veronica moser (veronica moser), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 20:02 (twenty years ago)

what's up with supreme?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

just as 1963 is Alan Moore's loving tribute to Lee/Kirby/Ditko Marvel, so is Moore's Supreme for 50's/60's DC, mostly (but not limited to) Superman comics.

While 1963 has never been collected in a trade, the entire Supreme run by Moore was, in 2002 and 2003. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, particularly if yr down with golden/silver age comics.

― veronica moser (veronica moser), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 20:14 (twenty years ago)

i was just looking at that book. is "supreme" a superman stand-in?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 20:18 (twenty years ago)

precisely. It began as a very shitty Superman stand-in by the infamously terrible artist Rob Liefield for his hyped-up Image company. Then he gave the book to Moore, who turned it into a very Meta but very sweet look back on comic book history.

Get it. It is wonderful. Although, again, if yr not up on yr golden age/silver age mythos, you may not get what Moore is on about.

― veronica moser (veronica moser), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 20:25 (twenty years ago)

I just went to the library to read TDKSB and veronica knows what she's talking about. Man, what a stinking pile.

1963 is the best thing ever, though. And as much as I want the finishing touches put on it (although it'll never happen) what I want even more is the Mavridesed up thing 1963 1/2.

― Austin Still (Austin, Still), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 22:37 (twenty years ago)

the Supreme trades are very very shit, because a) they were printed from low-res jpgs and have moire patterns all over, b) they left out all the back-ups from the 80-page giant and slapped THE END on a to-be-continued scene at the end of the last one rather than get the last Moore scripts drawn, and c) they aren't paying the writer and artists any royalties or reprint fees whatsoever.

plus Rob Liefeld refuses to return Veitch's art from the Kirby tribute issue.

― kit brash (kit brash), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 00:11 (twenty years ago)

veronica, you are vocal and opinionated. Welcome and introduce your geeky self, you nerd!

― Leeeeeeee (Leee), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 04:22 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.