Blade

I said SPOILERS...shiv?



Ok. I know there's already been some discussion in this thread (Sequel to Dark Knight Returns?), but I thought it might be nice to not have to use spoiler tags and most of that thread didn't really discuss the story. Which is what I'd like to do here.

First off, I should probably read this again before posting, but what the heck. Life's short.

I have to say I was a bit disappointed so far.

Though it does have me thinking.

Based on memory, there was a denseness to the original series. The first page is the race car scene and it had about 20 panels on it. But as the story progressed, the artwork became much broader, not as constrained. It was the contrast to the first pages of the sequel that started me thinking about this. Is there a sense of going from complicated and busy, but confused to broad, simple, yet certain of purpose. And will this one move from certain to confused? or from simple to more intelligently complex?

Also, the tone just seemed wrong to me. I liked the social commentary of the first comic. But this one is going more for the political so far. And with a very "leftist" view of things (said the conservative republican poster ). It just doesn't read as true to me. But then I wonder if that's on purpose and will eventually lead to a less biased (?...not sure that's the right word) view of other's actions or if these caracitures are just meant to be set dressing.

Nice to see Carrie all grown up. She was a cool kid and is still a cool teen. Seems a little repressed. And not much seen of Bats. And his "good soldier" seemed wrong/false this time.

And when the heck did Luthor take over the world? And the President is a video? I mean really, hasn't this been talked to death since the election? Does Miller really have to use his story to take another jab at Bush? It's been done so much already.

And didn't Superman ever see Star Trek II? "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." He's letting himself be held hostage. I thought he was smarter than that.

Finally, good fight scenes...and yes, as someone already mentioned, it's great to see Supes getting beat up by Bats again. But still the dialogue seems stilted, or forced. Nice to see the Flash though.

So, what did everyone else think?

-David

Aghama

Was 1984 a jab at Bush as well? As for when Luthor took over, I asked a similar question in the other thread and didn't receive a definite answer. I don't remember the original series enough to know if he could have been in control at the time.


I think it's pretty clear by now that Miller doesn't have an awful lot of respect for Supes. In this case, he's more concerned with saving the lives being held hostage than fighting for truth, justice, and that other thing.

Blade

There has been a consistent comments made about how Bush is just a front man and that it's really Dick Cheny or his dad or his "handlers" who are really running things. While 1984 is certainly appropriate for much of the themes of government hiding the truth from the people via the media, the "President" as a video" idea seemed like a direct jab at Bush. I did, however, mention that I may be a little biased in my views.

I definitely don't remember Luthor being in the first series. It was Regan look a like (I don't remember if they used his name) that was the president then, and though portrayed as a patriotic airhead, no indication was given that he wasn't "really" in power.

Based on one response to your question, I got the sense that there was some DC universe history that has taken place since the first series, so perhaps Miller has had to incorporate more of the DC universe mythos into his story than he did last time?

-David

TheBang

Well, in the current DC Universe, Luthor is the President, having won the 2000 Presidential election, so maybe Miller took a page from that.

In any case, I am enjoying the book. I went into it with great anticipation, but not overly high expectations (I learned my lesson from Star Wars Episode I). I enjoyed seeing many other superheroes, and we'll be seeing more of them in the series. I think he's laid some great groundwork for the rest of the series, and I can hardly wait for the 6 weeks between issues.

Al Infinitum

My local shop received another shipment of these, so I finally got to read it.

Dark Knight Strikes Again (DK2) is definitely disappointing. It has been a while since I read The Dark Knight Returns, but I have to agree with Blade here. The writing and dialogue here definitely seem more forced than they were in the original.

My biggest problems with DK2 both involve the character of Superman. While reading the Superman/Batman fight scene, I couldn't help wondering, "he's been forced to resort to this in the FIRST issue?" Seems like maybe the well has run dry; felt like Miller was throwing this in just to appease the fans. Of course, it didn't help that the battle was almost an exact duplicate of the one from DKR down to Green Arrow's role. In the earlier comic, Batman was meant to be teaching Superman a lesson. It's a bit insulting to the intelligence of both the characters' and readers' to assume that the exact same trick would work twice.

A deeper problem with the underlying plot here is that it completely undermines the relationship that Miller established between the characters of Batman and Superman in the original work. Specifically, these characters were supposed to represent specific philosophies in DKR.

Batman is a man with essentially no powers other than those he has earned for himself. His moral compass is so strong that as the rules of society change, he is unable to adapt to them. He attempts to withdraw from society, but his obsessiveness forces him to instead attempt to reshape society at almost all costs to himself.

Superman is a man who has been given almost unlimited power. Operating out of a sense of responsibility, he is afraid to abuse his powers and so, as the rules slowly change, he is unable to observe this change and winds up becoming an enforcer of the status quo.

By the end of DKR (and symbolically through the fight scene), Miller shows us that Batman is truly the more powerful of the two figures, because of his convictions.

By the end of the first volume of DK2, we learn that it was not, in fact, the nature of Superman to become the puppet of a shadowy government. In fact, all his actions were out of fear for the lives of people living in a bottle! What Miller has done here is no longer a warning about the use and abuse of power, because he's given Superman an escape route. I don't think Miller lacks respect for Superman. He's telling us that Superman isn't weak, he's only being held hostage. If he didn't concern himself with the lives of those people, he'd be a monster.

Sad, that. I'd put heavy odds on Superman figuring a way out of this by the final volume and, of course, coming over to help the good guys. If Miller has Superman save the day, at the 11th hour, you can count on me to be laughing ironically.

If I'm wrong, I'll owe you each a coke.

Blade

Nice analysis. Especially the part about DKReturns. I never really thought about it that way.

But this part...I had more of a feeling that he was being what he thought was a "good soldier" by following authority. I think you make a good point about him beign afraid to abuse his power and therefore, insists that he allow others to direct his actions (much as the miltary in the US is essentially under civilian control), but his blind adherence to authority has caused him to agree to do things that might not "right." In fact, I could see that, with Supes being in this state of mind, after a few years, any denunciation of his position (which is what Batman's rebellion is to him, perhaps) is a kind of threat to his internal logic for how he acts. If Batman is right, then he has done terrible, terrible things.

Still, I'm hoping that much of DK2's first issue is just being set up for things being turned on their head for both camps.

-David

Al Infinitum

Actually, I think you're dead on with this explanation, I just didn't think it through fully. A "good soldier" accepts what he is told to do and then begins to believe that what he has done is acceptable. What is truly important to remember in DKR is that, at its core, it is about what happens to these characters over time. Batman is virtually static, where Superman is more malleable, especially over time as the definition of "good" changes. And that, to me, rings true to the characters as they are in the "normal" comics continuum. Batman is more a creature of shadows who defines good by his own standards. Superman is the public's hero and, therefore, is more likely to accept the definition of good accepted by the masses.

DK2 appears to be reneging on these concepts, which worries me. Still, I'm trying to keep the useless cynicism to a minimum and am hopeful that the next two issues will improve on the first.