The Dark Knight Returns, Opinions?

Whooboy this is gonna be a controversial one.
What do you think, overrated? Underrated? Justifiably hated?
etc. etc.

I think it's hard to ignore the easy comparisons to Watchmen and The Killing Joke.

I will say, the hospital version of Joker is one of my favorites, and even though "The Joker's gone truly insane, he's breaking his own rules!" is now kind of cliche, I think it still works here.

It's incredibly cynical but balances that out by being incredibly hopeful. It shows the best and worst of both sides of an argument.
People may bitch about "batman doesn't use guns", but he never actually kills anyone or shoots to kill. That's batman. A light machinegun is an improvised weapon and nothing more.

Only real issue I had was Selina Kyle is definitely a strong "lady in the refrigerator", but given her age and where she has gone in life I doubt there is much that could be done with her.

It’s good. It’s impact on the industry as a whole and Batman in particular can’t be understated. It’s only overrated in that you get retards quoting it or copying it without putting in the work like Frank did.

Watchmen definitely has that problem too.
I love it to death and how every plot thread is tied up if you look for it, but the fact that there are multiple more comics with Rorschach in them shows how little some people understood the point of a character.
Rorschach feels like the comics equivalent of Omar Little: A compelling vigilante character who also shows why vigilantism is a terrible idea. But that did not stop people from idolizing the character and quoting them.

>A compelling vigilante character who also shows why vigilantism is a terrible idea
Paul Kersey from Death Wish would be another example.

Novel version or Charles Bronson killing creeps non-stop for five movies?

I think the Joker chapter is easily the weakest. Not sure if anyone will fight me on that. The other three issues are perfect.

It's very, very good, it's definitely reshaped batman for ever, or atleast for a long, long time anyway. That said its certainly over rated, similar to Watchmen in that regard.
My biggest problem is that batman will forever be a loner edgelord who can't relax for a bit and is far too brutal, especially when the movies keep pulling from this batman.

Say what you will.

But those panels slowly closing in on the catatonic Joker learning the Batman is back, suddenly grinning and focusing only on his wide smile, and then finally panning back out showing he's looking around already contentedly plotting are fucking gold.

Novel.

It's a really good book, one of Miller's best artistically. It's similar to All-Star Superman in that it's about taking this character to the end of his lifetime, what he would look like after decades of further development, and really embodying the extreme end of what the character represents. Artistically it also serves as a snapshot of where exactly Miller was in his life at the time, something you don't see a lot in cape comics-- they rarely reflect the person making them to such a degree.

I wish it hadn't started the trend of making Batman such a grouchy asshole, though (and yes, this is absolutely where it started-- even the Burton movies had Batman as more like he was before TDKR than he was in the comics at the time).

Also everything involving Superman in the book should have been done with someone like Captain Atom (who admittedly was not yet his modern incarnation at the time) or another stand-in. Miller has to bend over backwards to justify why Superman and Batman would fight.

>Only real issue I had was Selina Kyle is definitely a strong "lady in the refrigerator"

>Also everything involving Superman in the book should have been done with someone like Captain Atom (who admittedly was not yet his modern incarnation at the time) or another stand-in. Miller has to bend over backwards to justify why Superman and Batman would fight.
I don't think so user you only say this because of the impact Superman's depiction in the book have on how he is perceived after the fact I think he was just fine. He didn't work for Reagan willingly he did it for the greater good and let's face it he was kinda objectivity "right".

It totally got lapped by it's own fame & media pilfering elements of it. It's also arguably the most misinterpreted GN of the last century.

I'm an Oldfag and when this came out it really fucking blew everybody's brain. It's my favorite comic of all time, its the most important comic ever printed to me & there is no way in hell I'd ever expect anyone, especially now, to read it and not be confused as to why its considered such a big deal.

>Gets Batman wrong
>Gets Superman wrong
And I absolutely hated the art. It would've been better if it was drawn by a good artist like Jim Lee.

Why go to the effort of shitposting?

Low energy.

>you only say this because of the impact Superman's depiction in the book have on how he is perceived after the fact

Which still is a valid reason to think it was a horrible idea

Too young to appreciate its impact; liked the films better. I usually like Miller's art, but a lot of this was pretty messy.

I think it's past time for a Superman Returns with Batman being the antagonist getting served. Would be a good commentary on the current state of comics.

I think Miller said he plans to do a Superman story with Batman as the antagonist.

if today's Miller wrote it, it would be bonkers

>you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain
I dont give a shit what you fucking idiots say, this is some rick and morty tier fucking 2deep4u bullshit philosophical mish mosh right here. Fuck this quote.

What the hell are you talking about, that quote wasn't in the comic.

Besides that quote is really only applicable to holier than thou people on twitter.

It's garbage.

That page is a good example of why this book is one of the best (THE best for me).
The genius or lack thereof of the book has nothing to do with characterization of batman or superman - it always boggles my mind how people use story fluff as defining point for quality.
OMG Batman uses guns shit comic! isn't even remotely qualitative.
If you don't agree with the depiction of batman, that doesn't change the fact that the storytelling is masterful, you just don't like the story that is being told, it's not your flavor. That is fine but it doesn't detract the least from the actual quality of the book.
(This is obviously true for any other work of art of any medium)
Miller chooses to tell THIS story, and you should judge how he tells THIS story, not how it diverges from your expectations.

So back to the page- gorgeous art, with dynamism and motion dripping from the panels- nobody can convey it in simple shapes like Miller does.
I can see every panel as a little sequence of action captured in 1 frame instead of gif/webm.
It just flows, in rhythm with the narration boxes.
The pattern in which the narration is used by Miller has the same quality to it. It is trimmed and elegant, not bursting with superfluous words, quite poetic in fact, very characteristic of him.
CBA to write more, it's already a long post.

BTW notice how (even on this page) the conflict between Batman and Superman is basically the same that occurs in civil war, vigilantism vs working within confines of public mandate.

Why are retarded people allowed to post here?

Ultimately, DKR elevated the character narratively, with it’s 16 panel pages and by giving the worlds greatest detective the speech and thought patterns of a grizzled, crazy noir detective. I think this was the key to the success of the book and interestingly enough, this style was not substantially recreated in the sequels or in current DC Batman books. I think batman should be politicized as he was, but i feel like the plot of DKR overall was a clusterfuck. Miller’s art was terrible but had some interesting moments. Overall the good moments overwhelm the bad moments, and that’s what makes DKR the best comic ever made in my opinion.

Not really user, don't get me wrong I am not trying to be a dick but this is a standalone book Miller isn't responsible for people intimidating his work and not understanding the context. To Kill A Mocking Bird didn't kill John Lennon and the DKR isn't responsible for Superman's decline as a character it just acts as a lightning rod for people on both sides to rally behind, folks like you who want to blame it and equally people on the other side of the fence.

>and yes, this is absolutely where it started-- even the Burton movies had Batman as more like he was before TDKR than he was in the comics at the time

No, it started with dixon, miller's bruce isnt an assholes

>Also everything involving Superman in the book should have been done with someone like Captain Atom (who admittedly was not yet his modern incarnation at the time) or another stand-in. Miller has to bend over backwards to justify why Superman and Batman would fight.


Reminder that superfags in Sup Forums don't represent the normal superman fans, they are all just insane manchildren that have Superman as a father figuure.
Plebs don't understand why the establishment is represented by superman and Batman is both anarkist and fascist

It's ugly. A lot of moments that would be god tier if they were just drawn better. I just don't really feel like this particular style suits the story very much. Everything is way too cartoony and over-the-top. When people talk about other famous comics, they can discuss how visuals complement the story to make it work in a unique way. With TDKR, the visuals seem not as much as an artistic choice, but as a result of poor drawing skills as a whole.

What you said is the exact opposite of my impressions, this is one of the best art in comics you can find.
Miles above all the shit house-style faggots who can't draw without use of million motion lines and still fail to represent an actual sequence.
Millers art isn't an illustration, it's integral with writing, it wouldn't work the way it works with anyone else on pencils.
It's easily better than anything published today, better than year one for that matter.
He is simply not interested in typical aesthetics.
Revolutionary paneling aside, Miller can make a character move by drawing a simple outline of his silhouette and nothing else. Consider how it is forever elusive to a guy like Alex Ross, who is beloved by casuals, but all he is capable of drawing is a petrified statue.
But yea, the faces aren't handsome, guy can't draw.

I don't know, the poses at the famous Batman punching Superman panel never seemed that expressive to me. Perhaps because both of the characters looked like big baloons and I don't know how to convey this, but instead of an actual punch it always seemd like Batman's fist was just artificially put near Superman's face if that makes sense.

>GN
leave. It's a comic.

>Superman being Superman was a horrible idea because brainlets couldn't comprehend superman doing the "bad" for the greater good

Couldn't be less valid, famalam.

>they can discuss how visuals complement the story to make it work in a unique way
You see, that's exactly what Miller does. What you're describing is people saying the art is pretty and then say that it compliments the story because they liked the two.

Technique is something that almost NO artists display much anymore. They have skill but "technique" comes from crafting the story with the writer, which is why writer/artists can create masterpieces like this. Like Miller and Mazz on Born Again with all of the paneling techniques (the writing) and the layouts as well as details (like the trianglular shapes in the paneling/layouts coming together as the story lines converge.

Pretty art doesn't make it great. user mentioned Ross because he's the greatest example of craft over technique. Normies marvel at how pretty the paintings are. But great line art, to me, is so much more stunning. Even if I think Ross is a phenomenal artist. Just not as great "sequentially" or in conveying energy.

I like Ross' stuff but I definitely agree with you on Miller. Even better example: Find the Frank Cho take on the DKR fight, the one he did for a commission. It's anatomically accurate (and basically trashing Superman as a joke; Miller had more respect for Superman by comparison) but it doesn't even have a tenth of the power and impact Miller's sequence does despite being pretty and accurate. I like Cho's art, but he definitely isn't in Miller's class even if his technical surface skills are better.

That being said, Ross' and Cho's art I'm okay with but there's so many "realistic" artists in the last two decades that don't have much impact in their storytelling.

I like Ross as well, love KC and his books with Dini. I think Cho has his spots too when he's allowed to go as far as he likes with anatomy.

The thing with frank, evidenced with his work with mazzucchelli, is that he's a super intricate writer who thinks of the art as part of the story. The sequence of Matt going to see Kingpin in Born Again, as the backgrounds fade away all around him to super simplistic environments while the other story liens and shot include VERY detailed backgrounds, is stunning. It leads up to Matt waling down flat color backgrounds through the hall in Kingpins building.

It's stunning. It portrays the angst and scatterbrained feeling he would be experiencing perfectly. Little things like that take a writer and artist understanding the story they're portraying at a very high, and similar, level.

A full on Wagnerian opera take on Batman shouldn't look cartoony and over the top? Should Batman mud wrassling with a cannibal who calls himself the Mutant Leader look like a George Perez comic?

It was great.

Too fucking right. People who didn't get it aped the forms without the substance.

Making more past Death Wish was a cynical cash-grab.

Catcher in the Rye was the book John Wayne Gacy was carrying when he shot John Lennon.

>John Wayne Gacy
>shot Lennon

Don't be like that, user. The 'graphic novel' distinction was made to differentiate it from standard spinner-rack fare.

I don't know, why are you?

DKR is good
DKSB went a bit too far.

it's a meme comic that was taylor made for reddit

>DKSB

Was a different type of story, tho.

One of the greatest comic stories ever written. It made both Batman and Bruce Wayne great characters. Human, yet mythical, admirable yet repugnant.

The art... could have been better. The panel layouts and storytelling are top notch, but the draftsmanship leaves a lot to be desired. I am not a fan of the cartoonist, grotesque aesthetic at all. I wish it would have been illustrated by Bolland!