I recently read it and liked Miller's artwork , but I'm not sure why people consider it one of the greatest all time comics.
all how did you feel about how Snyder adapted parts of it for BvS and how TDKR influenced the characters of Batman and superman in the film?
I think the idea that carried Dar kKnight Returns was "what if superheroes aged just like everyone else" and showing older batman returning to a greatly different world.
It also had some nice narrative tricks like how the reader got to follow the public discussion in about the events of the comic in form of those short television screen panels.
like a few of the "greatest of all time" comics, its simply a case of right time right atmosphere of release. its timeframe was right during the whole re-imagining and deconstruction of the superhero genre, that with compelling art and storytelling that has that right amount of edge that was still a fresh thing to cape comics at the time, and it has just enough deeper themes like heroes that got too old and too far away from their younger more just selves and are lost in the system of the modern world just made it the talk of the town and a hot seller. its frank at his best, but still contained within the rules of dc, meaning he had to try to actually achieve what he wanted
You don't know how to read comics
Could you give some more detail on why you like it?
I could but I'm tired of the same thread every five days, and I'm not autistic enough to make pasta
because the art is an actual masterwork and the writing is pretty good too
Like any other form of media you need to understand its significance at the time of release, and all the other comics that came before it. There was nothing like it at the time. It may seem like nothing unique now because of all the imitations it spawned afterwards.
>how did you feel about how Snyder adapted parts of it for BvS and how TDKR influenced the characters of Batman and superman in the film?
Not a fan. If he wanted to make DKR he should have made DKR, not some convoluted mess that has to rip off iconic shots from a far superior work with none of the actual story, themes or character beats that made them great in the first place. You're left with a superficial imitation of the real thing trying to bolster itself up by cribbing from an actual masterwork.
Also Snyder claimed to read DKR and somehow thinks Batman kills people in it, despite the crazy unhinged Dirty Harry Batman of DKR STILL being so no-kill the Joker has to snap his own neck just to die. So either Snyder has no reading comprehension beyond looking at pretty pictures or he's a fucking moron.
I could storytime TDKR and break down something I love about it on every single page. Of course, I first read it at just the right age (12-14) and when I finally got around to reading Year One almost a decade later, it kinda underwhelmed me the first time, but then I realized that was because my expectations had been shaped by all the media "inspired" by Year One. When I reread it knowing it was a character study and not a full-on epic crime thriller, I appreciated that more, and I think you'll enjoy TDKR a lot more upon re-reading it, OP.
both can be true
The animated movie is better than the comic
but the movie's pretty good
>Also Snyder claimed to read DKR and somehow thinks Batman kills people in it, despite the crazy unhinged Dirty Harry Batman of DKR STILL being so no-kill the Joker has to snap his own neck just to die. So either Snyder has no reading comprehension beyond looking at pretty pictures or he's a fucking moron.
I once argued with a lifelong comic fan that insisted the "rubber bullets, honest" was Batman lying/being sarcastic... even though there's literally no one there for him to be lying to, other than the audience, and they explicitly have him say like ONE PAGE LATER that "killing [the Mutant leader] means crossing a line I drew for myself decades ago.", right before he decidedly chooses NOT to just shoot him.
People are stupid.
The only flaw with Year One to me is that the Gordon stuff is way more interesting than the Batman stuff, with the exception of that one scene Kevin Smith did his best to ruin and the SWAT team battle. It's still an incredible piece but it feels more like Commissioner Gordon: Year One than a Batman comic.
It's hard to say that Year One is really about Batman. It's not an origin story and it isn't an extended globetrotting training montage. I feel like the purpose is how it sets up Gotham in response to Batman.
Yeah, I'm fine with that now, but the first time I read it, it surprised me that it showed so little of Batman's first year from his POV. I was expecting a lot more of him trolling the Falcone mob or details on where his gear came from, but honestly now I don't mind. There're plenty of stories about where Bruce got the first Batmobile or ripping off the Godfather, but I've yet to find anyone who writes Gordon quite as well as Miller.
I like how it set up Gotham before all the weirdos moved in and how it all led up to the Joker.
Bruce's internal narration in TDKR is second to none.
Impossible because of what I just mentioned.
BUT YOU SEE THE MUTANTS BEING FLUNG INTO THE AIR BY FUCKING EXPLOSIONS.
THEY AREN'T RUBBER FUCKING BULLETS.
"Seinfeld isn't funny" trope.
Because when he rescues the kid and shoots the mutant their clearly appears to be blood splatter behind him.
If Batman killed anyone in the second chapter then why didn't they put murder on the charges to begin with, or have Lana argue Batman killed in self-defense? We know that the DKR world is filled with implausible weapons.
This is not ambiguous, he shot her in the arm
There is also a bullet hole in the wall.
But he says the "rubber bullets" line opposite a panel of what would otherwise appear to be machine gun fire. He DOES fire explosive rounds a page earlier, but since the news mentions plenty of Mutants injured but none DEAD (the fact that he leaves them all alive is why the jail is so overrun even though half the gang stays on the streets and reforms into new gangs), I think we're meant to assume that they're those perfectly-trajectorized-to-only-stun-the-bad-guys explosions, like The A-Team.
More importantly, it would be really shitty if Batman murdered Mutants and then refused to kill the worst one of them all, even after he ripped the Mayor's throat out with his teeth. Or refusing to kill the Joker even after he mass poisons children. No, any Mutants who got blown the fuck up in this scene did it to themselves, bouncing military-grade ordinance off the Batmobile.
This is a little more ambiguous, because they could've assumed that
To be fair, it's KIND of ambiguous, inasmuch as if he DID kill Grace, the police would just pin it on the big guy who DID shoot the shit out of Spot anyway. Assuming that Batman turned him in after dangling him from the Not-WTC.
I fall on the "he shot her in the shoulder" side though, both because it doesn't contradict Batman's refusing to "cross the line" later, and because I love the idea of Batman taking an automatic weapon, designed solely to kill, and using it deliberately, surgically, to fire a single, non-lethal shot.
Because he's a surgeon, like his father, not a murderer like the man who took him away. He even SAYS he's a surgeon, as he decidedly DOESN'T kill the Mutant Leader!
OP, sounds like an movie producer right?