Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Over the last couple of days I re-read "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller. I haven't read it for years, but do you know, I am impressed again by how good it is. It's a great comic (or four comics, if you want to get technical), and contrary to the vibe I've received from you lot over the years, I really like Frank Miller's portrayal of Superman.

"The Dark Knight Returns" is old news, I suppose, but this time around I was sensitive to how Superman was presented, and I think Frank did a good job. I really don't know how else he could have done it. He was as complimentary and as respectful of Superman as could be expected, in keeping with the themes of his story anyway.

I don't think Frank did Superman a disservice at all, despite what I have read from real Superman fans on the "Superman Through The Ages" forum over the years. Bruce and Clark feel the problems of society (or many societies) in the same way, but of course their reactions to these perceived problems and their methods of dealing with their respective obsessions to interfere are quite different, as of course they must be. I guess the only loss in this is the traditional Batman-Superman team, but sometimes comrades-in-arms DO fall out, especially if the envrionment they operate in is turned upside-down.

I found it clever that Bruce was changing, but Clark wasn't, to any great degree. (Clark hadn't even visibly aged, but I'm talking about other changes as well.) This is just what I would expect of Superman. Everything around him is going to Hades in a handbasket, but the Man of Steel is still with us, still plugging away, albeit in secret, doing what he has always done, being mindful of authority and respecting the government of the day and still believing in his country, but with his own personal agenda uppermost: "No, I don't like it. But I get to save lives..."

How else can Superman operate? Because he is the most powerful being on Earth by a long way, he feels he needs to be granted the authority to do what he does, but how is that different from the Superman I grew up with? He was like that back then, because, as Frank touches on in his comic, that's how Pa and Ma Kent raised him. Superman can't, won't, and never will take it upon himself, only, to do the things he does. That's for HIS peace of mind and OUR safety. That's how I see it anyway.

What's the alternative? The Man of Steel imposing his will on humanity? People would really complain then, wouldn't they?

A great comic, Mr Miller.

That's kind of what ends up happening in DK2 at the end.

Overall, I have to say I liked DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, for the grit and toughness of the book, how fierce and uncompromising and "real" it was. There's something admirable about violence...at least in fiction, anyway...if it is "real" and visceral: a guy getting his hand broken into a car window, and so on.

Of the three big books that came out in 1986 that were noticed and talked about all over the mainstream media, Art Spiegelman says that people lump together WATCHMEN and DKR, and set MAUS off to one side, when he would say that it is WATCHMEN and MAUS that are the most like each other, with DKR off to one side.

People don't appreciate enough the sense of humor that Miller had with this work: a guy saying "I hope he goes after the homos next," or that unpleasant office man getting his comeuppance by Batman himself....and so on.

Batman was never "bigger" or more charismatic than he was here, showing up on a horse, comparisons to FDR, and so on. "That's no thunder, it's only the sound of his voice."

I have three major problems with DKR that keep me from appreciating it fully, or at least loving it to the extent I feel about, say, Steve Englehart's "definitive" run on DETECTIVE COMICS:

1) Batman is never more non-intellectual than he is here. A mystery, a puzzle...hell, even making him only change to Batman when he's sure there are no cameras around, that would have been enough for me.

2) Batman as horror figure vs. Batman as adventure figure. Batman, I think, works better as a character of "weird adventure," not unlike Doc Savage or the Shadow, solving "weird mysteries" and so on. Englehart made it clear Batman LOVED being Batman, with adventure as his first love (even over Silver). In fact, I'd say there's even an element of thrillseeking to Batman. On the other hand, Miller had Batman be Batman for reasons that are much more complicated, but I'd say much less interesting because it has Batman be somewhat obsessed.

3) Last but not least, the treatment of Superman. First: since when is Superman such a wuss that he can't dropkick one missile from here to Alpha Centauri? ONE LOUSY ATOM BOMB turns him into a creepy skeleton?

And he gets superpowers by killing plants? I don't think Superman's powers work that way.

Second:


I don't entirely agree. Superman always did have respect for things like law and order and authority figures like presidents and policemen. However, Superman is powerful enough that he essentially doesn't have to answer to anybody except his conscience (and certainly not be used as a soldier for any one country in a war).

This is why Superman assenting to being a government tool is deeply out of character. Now, I'm not saying that Superman believes that might makes right. I'm sure he believes the opposite. I am however, saying that, as Batman pointed out with irony in this book, "nobody can tell Superman what to do." If Superman doesn't like the rules to a game, he'd knock the pieces down from the board and play things his way.

Most of the best Superman stories have been about Superman not accepting the limited parameters of a situation - he thinks his way to a third answer beyond what he's been given.

I've always been a fan of Bates's Superman, who often laughed at his enemies, and pointed a thumb to his chest and said "Do you know what this is? Do you know what this stands for? It means I can mop up the floor with sea scum like you...AND THERE'S NOT A THING YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME!"


This might be interesting to see.

I am curious if someone out there might do for Superman what DKR did for Batman: namely. show that despite the intervening years of Superman getting deputized and wrapping himself in the flag, he is fundamentally, someone that brings his view of order and justice by using violence.


I agree with you here. Batman and Superman are pals, but they're not joined at the hip. It's possible, especially in a changing world, for them to have irreconcilable differences.

Superman is a respected individual that's the world's biggest celebrity.

At the same time, if that wasn't true, I can easily see Superman working and helping even if he isn't wanted. Superman always strikes me as someone that would do what's best for mankind whether mankind wants it or not. An example would be that Gerry Conway story where Superman destroys supertankers to prevent oil spills, for example, and takes active steps to eliminate pollution that certainly isn't asked for, and certainly will end up bristling a few hides.

I think that it is one of the best Batman stories ever made. But, the reason why Superman is teh way he is in this tale is because it's the Man of Steel John Byrne version.

Behold:

In the previous Superman continuities, Superman and Batman were the best of friends.  In the new continuity, as in Frank Miller's Dark Knight series, the relationship between DC's two greatest superheros is now very different.  Byrne says that he establishes "right from the start that these are two men who would appreciate each other's abilities and who would respect each other. But here are two men who are so different at every point that there's no way they can be friends.  They're on the same side, but they're far too different in their approaches and even their personalities.  Batman is obsessive and Superman is not; Superman does not need to be."  Superman works within the law, whereas the Batman does not.  Byrne agrees with Miller that the Batman represents a darker vision of the world than Superman does.  Wolfman observes, "Superman's the sun and Batman's the moon."

In fact, Byrne talked to Miller about the Batman so that in The Man of Steel "I could suggest the kind of Batman he was going to do."  Similarly, Miller talked to Byrne so that the Superman in Dark Knight could be based on his version.

http://superman.nu/a/History/end.php

I think that contemporary non-comics writers have a pretty cynical view of Superman and his place in the culture that we could characterize as Frank Miller-ish.  Deborah Eisenberg's Twilight of the Super-heroes is a good example.

My own opinion, beyond the nostalgic feelings I have for it, is that Dark Knight is about as far as you can go towards making a political, adult statement about the Batman character (although I haven't read that Howard Chaykin Bruce Wayne miniseries set in the 30s) that is also intended to be taken somewhat seriously as genre fiction.  The broad strokes used in the book make the story very appealing to casual fans (as I was as a 16-year old when I read it) and the art is enough of a departure from most people's impression of the character to make the work something of a intellectual curiosity, if a not a seminal literary masterpiece a la Maus or Jaime Hernandez' Death of Speedy or Dan Clowes' Ghost World, to name some other E.S. graphic novels from the period.

After all is said and done, I prefer the pre-70s Batman comics that were made for kids.

As for Superman's characterization in DK, I think that it follows from what readers had come to abstract-ly expect from the comics, especially, as Super-Monkey notes, post Byrne.  As well, it helps to remember that when writing a cartoon parody of superhero comics in the Reagan years, you are kind of limited to only 2 or 3 archetypes, with a few variations, to make your art recognizable to a wide audience.  Meaning that, between Batman and Superman, Superman represents the more authoritarian, superpowered, state-like side of the costumed vigilante coin, and always has, I think.  Some aspects of both hero's characterizations rang true in DK, others made them read as just silly straw men.

I think you've got that reversed: the Batman/Superman relationship post-Byrne is more influenced by Frank Miller.

WARNING: this is from an outsider's perspective here.

From what I understand (mostly thanks to his introduction to ASTRO CITY tpbs) Frank Miller is deeply suspicious of what the Comics Code Authority did to Batman and Superman, making them deputized agents of the law, and the mistake (in Frank's mind) is that the characters are essentially vigilantes and anti-authority...which is why Superman shaking hands with JFK is jarring and unpleasant.

This is true of both Batman and Superman, but most especially Batman, who in Miller's own words, "wears a cape like Dracula."

So, yeah, absolutely Miller would see a difference between Superman and Batman that is irreconcilable. And since Miller was (by all accounts) hovering so closely over the Superman reboot, his view is essentially what we got.

DKR with a rebel Batman conflicts with one of Batman's more important attributes: he works closely with the law and always obtains proper evidence before going after a criminal. Batman is friends with police officers (at least honest ones); they're on the same side. This is why stories where Batman is hunted, such as that Len Wein story where Ra's al-Ghul frames him for murder, or the Tobacconist's Club vs. Batman during Englehart's DETECTIVE, or hell, even THIS story, stand out: they're not the typical way Batman operates.

This is my problem, in a nutshell, with DKR's continued influence on Batman and Superman:

Batman is a little more law-abiding and less rebellious than DKR makes him look;

and,

Superman is driven by a lot more things than just being law-abiding.

No. I got it from here: http://superman.nu/a/History/end.php

As a reminder, the quote in question reads
I've never known any news article to be completely factually correct, nor to be spinless (that's not a typo).  The only thing we can know for certain is that Frank Miller and John Byrne had at least one conversation about their various takes on the characters.  It sounds to me like they may have been bouncing ideas back and forth and just wanted to make sure that their versions were consistent with each other's.   I don't think we can know for certain who got what from whom.

I've read the same Miller interviews Julian has, and yes it's quite apparent Miller had real issues with what Batman and Superman had become by the early 80s, namely "fat and happy", watered down shadows of their once vital selves.

That said, I think we can see that Bruce is the one who gets the sympathetic portrayal here, while Clark remains the government lackey, the willing tool of men not worthy of bossing him around.  Batman is vital, effective, indimidating...a force unto himself and a magnet for all sorts of people looking for inspiration and leadership.  Superman, despite being more physically powerful, is forgotten...relegated to working invisibly, he no longer has the power to inspire (traditionally perhaps his greatest power of all).  He has surrendered even his right to decide his own life path.  To paraphrase the Maggin quote, Superman's motto here is, "There is a right and wrong in the Universe, and I'll rely on the government to tell me what it is."

If it's true that Miller believes the basic worth of these characters lies in their roots as vigilantes with a strong personal sense of justice, then he's obviously holding Superman up as an example of how NOT to be a superhero.  In other words, Aldous, if you think Supes comes off looking good in this story then I'm happy for you.  But judging from his own comments about the work and the characters, I don't think that was Miller's intent.

Nightwing:


There's the problem, and the difference between us, Nightwing. To find out what an artist's intentions were, you ask the artist. Me, I haven't read any interviews with Frank Miller. I interpret his work for myself. Like any good artist (pick one from history), even Frank doesn't fully understand what he has made, and I am positive he will see different things in his work as the years go by. I guarantee he will look at "Dark Knight Returns" in ten years and find something he never knew he put there. (For all of us who are creative, this is not an unknown phenomenon.)

"How NOT to be a superhero"?! What you seem to have missed in the story is that Superman agrees with you, and he hates it, but he is working with what he has as best he can. For all the prattling on about Batman's psychology, Superman is by far the richer character psychologically. He is far more complex than Batman, and that is the reason he holds my interest. Because Superman is so complex, his very character is open to interpretation; and in my interpretation of Superman's character, it is quite possible he would act in the way he does in "Dark Knight Returns", and it is also entirely possible he would hate it (as he does in the story), and here is where you also may have missed the great sadness of the man, which is also a wonderful facet of his character. Bruce had to watch his parents being slaughtered, but he is not sad; any sadness Bruce had, mutated into hatred long ago. Superman has never been twisted, and that is why I am happy with the way he is portrayed in the story. He is still the good guy. For you to call Clark the "government lackey" -- I think you must have missed so much...

Something else that has been missed by a country mile is this: with his every "invisible" action (and you use "invisible" as an insult), Clark saves thousands or millions of lives. THIS is his consolation, his comfort. He's still there for us. He is still Superman. He did nothing in that story that made me lose confidence in him.


You've gone way too far with that comment. Did we read the same comic? Use some imagination and you will realise the American government is probably VERY conscious of the fact it cannot change Superman's character. Did the President order him to destroy the country of the enemy? Did the President order Superman to kill? Have another look at the story. There are certain things Superman will and will not do, which he will decide for himself. He is doing the best he can and accomplishing his most important mission: protecting us. (That includes the "enemy".)

Every limitation placed upon Superman in that story has been imposed by Superman himself. He is not a government "lackey". He is a man temporarily at odds with himself. He has a lot to figure out. Even Superman is still a man, and occasionally he will find he hasn't all the answers. During the time of this story, I see him doing a lot of soul-searching. In the meantime, "I get to save lives."

Ripping Oliver Queen's arm from its socket?  Innovative solution, that.

Actually, I tend to agree with both Aldous and Nightwing:  Miller's Superman is a complex and tragic character, fulfilling the "American way" in a fascist state.  But Batman is the vital force, the inspirational force, the force that gets governments shivering.  Miller's Superman has lost his ability to inspire; he is still noble, but damaged.

Aldous writes:


That's a neat spin on it, Aldous.  So basically you're saying that it doesn't matter what the artist intended, it only matters how you as a reader interpret it?  Fair enough to a point; all art is subjective and one man's Rembrandt is another man's "Dogs Playing Poker."  But it shows some hubris on your part to assume that your interpretation is the "correct" one and the opinions of others, including as you say a lot of people on this board and the artist himself are wrong.

Next time I see a movie, remind me to check with you to see what my opinion of it is.


No, I didn't miss all that.  It's a story about two men with very different approaches to surviving in an impossible time.  Bruce has the will and drive to change the world (fix in, in his view) but he's only one man, and an aging one at that...there's only so much he can do.  Clark, meanwhile, has the power to fix all that's wrong with the world but he holds back out of whatever notion of non-interference has dominated his character since the Silver Age.  This is the conflict that defines their relationship in the mini-series: Bruce is frustrated that Clark refuses to make a difference (as he sees it) and Clark tut-tuts Bruce's petulant, even infantile notions of saving the world through fisticuffs.  I'll grant you it'd be possible to come out on either side of this argument, IF the deck wasn't stacked in favor of one character or other.  But in DKR, the world is so rotten, so out of whack, so obviously in need of fixing, that it's darn hard to side with Clark's viewpoint, which seems to amount to "wait this out and hope things get better."  If this is a story about Batman, which it is, and his struggle to achieve his goals, which again it is, then Superman is essentially a big fat obstacle.  He's a bad guy.

Now, the richness of the story comes in the fact that any reader with even the slightest objectivity can see that Bruce's outlook is far from a sure bet.  Depending on how you look at it, he's no hero at all, just a raving nut job and a danger to everyone around him.  This is a subtext that runs throughout the series...is he right or isn't he?  I'd argue that neither Bruce nor Clark comes off too well in this story...Bruce risks his life and Carrie's in a battle he cannot win, while Clark agrees to work within constraints he finds unfair and wrong.  Both are compromised, neither is wholly admirable.  But in the end, it's Bruce who makes things happen, not Clark. 

For me, DKR reveals the basic weakness of Superman, which in other contexts is also his great strength.  Namely, that he is not one of us.  In the end, Clark understands, I think, that he cannot fix the world's problems by himself, or change a corrupt system, because he has no right to.  He's from somewhere else and it's none of his business.  Bruce, on the other hand, is as human as any of us, and if he doesn't have a right to break the law, he does have the right as a human being to do what he thinks is right.  Even if it does him in.  And aside from questions about his sanity, or his politics or whatever, that makes him a more sympathetic and indentifiable character in this story.  He is one of us, Clark is not.  We may want to run up to Clark and give him a kick in the shin for not helping, but if he did help it'd be even more wrong.  Bottom line, he doesn't belong here.  It's an uncomfortable truth for any Superman fan to deal with, which I imagine is why a lot of them have trouble with it.



Well, he does what he's told, whether he likes it or not.  Maybe a better way to put it is that he's not true to himself.  He disagrees with government policy and he's not happy about his role in it, but he figures that's "the best he can do," so he compromises.  He has the power to change it all, which is what bugs Bruce. But as I said, and as Clark knows, he doesn't have the RIGHT to change it all.  Which means he's emasculated as a character, really.  Or at least as a superhero.  He's gone from Jerry and Joe's social avenger knocking down slums and coercing confessions, to a bureaucrat who has to ask permission before doing anything.  At least Hal had enough self-respect to leave the planet rather than give in.

My point is that while you may value a man's ability to compromise, it's not held up as a virtue in this story.


So those people are alive.  To live in the misery that is the world in this book.  Thanks for nothing.


It's been a while since I read the story, but do we not see Superman holding an enemy tank over his head?  Maybe he was careful not to kill the occupants, but it's hard to imagine our boys didn't win the battle that day with Superman on their side.  Just having a Kryptonian trooper in your outfit pretty much ensures victory every single time, and that's kind of cheating, isn't it?  If the US can get whatever it wants in a battle...land, oil, a puppet government it can run, etc...then I don't think the President would mind if the body count's a bit lower. 

Who knows, maybe Superman considers each assignment on its own merits and there are days he says, "No way."  But we don't see that here.


Exactly, and for a good reason.  He doesn't belong here.  If he wants to save lives, good for him.  But historically superheroes are about more than that.  At their genesis, anyway, they were about empowering the powerless, about cutting through the red tape and doing what's right regardless of the "justice system."  Bruce Wayne, Don Diego, Brit Reid, Ollie Queen...they all have the right to do that.  Kal-El of Krypton does not.  He has the power to change the world, but he doesn't have the right to. 

Now, now, Nightwing....


....be nice.



You seem to be agreeing with me, which is a disturbing state of affairs, but there we are. That is exactly what I am trying to say. Superman has imposed limits upon himself because he has always worked with the authorities  (I am not even considering the Golden Age Superman because he is not my favourite version, and I doubt he's yours either), and now he is in the very uncomfortable position of realising he is at odds with those authorities, ie. the American government, and now he is right on the edge of what they can get him to do and what he can stand to live with. You understand this, yet you are still critical of what I said in my post. He KNOWS he hasn't the right (as you put it), but he SO wants to do it (ie. change the system) he can hardly stand it. Can you see that? I think so.... and that is why I say, he is still our Superman in that comic.

As to what the artist intended, well, I have a view on that and I've expressed it. But there's more. You will not like my opinion on this, but I have always felt that if an artist NEEDS to explain his work at length in order for it to be understood, it's poor art. I don't need any explanation from Frank about his comic because I read it, and it's a VERY good comic. The catch is, my interpretation is mine alone and no one else's, not even the author's. That's strange, but that's what you get with good art. I could read a few interviews with Frank and find out exactly what he intended, but I do not believe that would be as true an interpretation of the comic as my own when I read it for myself.


Nightwing, you seem to have become cynical lately. That's an observation, not a criticism. There is great misery in our real world also, and societies worse than what is presented in the comic. Yet there is always a flipside, and that is where you will find the "triumph" of the human spirit, even if you gag on such ideas. Superman is the one character that would believe "where there is life, there's hope", and I totally disagree with you that to be alive in a decaying society is worse than being killed by bombs and released from the nightmare -- for that is exactly what you're implying. "Thanks for nothing"? I think you're wrong. Furthermore, Batman is not the only ordinary person who makes a difference in the world. Now, Bruce (arguably) has trouble understanding that, but someone like Superman would never doubt it.


Except Superman is not operating to ensure his President's victory. Take another look. Here's where Superman's belief in "The American Way" becomes interesting. Superman, I am sure, in working with the authorities, being brought up by Americans, and adopting American culture, saw something he liked in the culture; that is to say, he came to "The American Way" and stayed with it, even after he became a super-enlightened being who has travelled the universe and understood many alien cultures. Now, in the comic, "The American Way" is no longer something he would have gladly adopted (and Pa and Ma Kent wouldn't have liked it either), except for the fact he was already American.... So where does that leave him? Confused; see my previous posts. My interpretation of the comic, coming from what I know and like about Superman, is that Superman is not happy about the culture anymore, yet it is HIS culture, and of course it will take time for him to reject it. Who knows when that point will be.....


.....and if that point is reached in the sequel, then I would like to read it. I actually once had the chance to buy the sequel, but I looked through the book and what turned me off was what I thought was terrible drawing. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to what the drawings are like together with the story, because it may have been too far outside what I'm used to and it scared me off. Who knows.

Nightwing wrote:


Don't come the raw prawn with me, Nightwing. Please use the Superman we grew up with to back your argument, not some "historical" version that is far removed from the characters I'm talking about.

Superman was involved in DKR? Could've fooled me. All I saw was a shell of a loser who decided to quit being a source of inspiration to become a stooge for the government.

The loss of that inspiration (and hope to go along with it) may have played a large part in the decay of society portrayed in the story.

I don't know why it's disturbing, I think I usually agree with you.  Just not on this subject.

I know why Clark fails to act, but unlike you I don't see any reason to laud him for it.  My point is that Miller bends over backwards to present a world that's in really bad shape, and the clear implication is that when things get this bad, it's up to the stand-out people of this world to step up and make a difference.  Bruce meets the challenge; Clark does not.

You won't like me referencing a Miller quote again, but he once said about DKR that superheroes in general, and Batman in particular, work best in a world that's gone rotten.  Otherwise, why do you need a guy in a mask who operates outside the law?  If the cops and judges were doing their jobs, Bruce could relax and play polo all day. 

Here's where we get to a big difference between Batman and Superman, at least in my view.  Batman is most effective in situations where he can make a difference; specifically, where his extra-legal tactics bring about the resolution to problems bureaucracy and "the establishment" cannot fix.  Slinking around at night conking baddies whom the law can't touch is the kind of thing that gets us cheering.  But the minute the world becomes safe, as soon as the police get control of the city and it's safe to go out at night, Batman becomes just a fool in a silly costume.  Thus, Batman works best for me in the era of organized crime...I think his Golden Age was the best.

Superman, on the other hand, works best as a defender of the status quo, in stories where the happiness and well-being of society are temporarily (if gravely) challenged by some evildoer or natural disaster, and Superman through his great powers defeats the villain or stops the disaster and happiness and tranquility are restored at story's end.  Thus, Superman works best for me in the 50s and 60s, leading parades and opening museums between missions, whereas Batman in the same period doing the same things becomes a pathetic clown.

Miller's goal here was to tell the ultimate Batman story, and so he created the bleakest, most out-of-control world he could imagine.  This allows Batman to shine, but it points up the utter uselessness of Superman in his Silver Age permutation.  He is not able, by his own ethics, to fix anything that matters.  He can stop a bomb from falling on a city.  He can save a few GIs from being blown up.  But he cannot improve the quality of life for anyone.  He cannot make the world one worth living in.

When I say Superman hasn't the right to fix the world, what I mean is that Miller makes us hate him for it.  The world needs help and he is useless.  For the sake of the character, I'd rather see him leave Earth and go somewhere he might matter.


Well, here you're assuming that I went to the interviews with the attitude of "Tell me what to think, Frank."  The fact is I was totally fascinated with the story at the time and I wanted to know all about it.  I came away with the impression that Miller was going for something, and his comments reinforced those beliefs...turns out what he intended is pretty much what I took from it.

If you think you know more about Miller's work than Miller himself does, that's your right.  But in my book, if Miller went in with an agenda and you took away something totally different, that just means he failed, not that he's an even better writer than he thinks.


What do you mean, lately?   :D

No, I wasn't implying that it's better to die than to live miserably.  What I'm implying is that it's better to give your best effort than to give half measures.  Bruce tries to do more than he's capable of; Clark refuses to live up to his potential.  If a man has the power to make the world a better place, then what is he if he doesn't do it?

I know, I know...he has a code against interfering...he wants us to find our own way.  Those are traits I've lauded in other threads, but here, again, Miller has created a world where those virtues become vices.  As the old saying goes, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.  And that's pretty much what we can count on Clark for in this story.

As I said before, I think Miller manages to make both characters likable yet unlikeable, good and bad.  In the Silver Age, a guy who did the things Bruce did in this story would be a villain, period.   But in this story, a paragon of Silver Age ethics...as Clark is...becomes a useless clod.


But that's my point...how bad does it have to get before he does something?  Miller creates a situation where we as readers are desperate for someone to take action.  We want some kind of vicarious release...we want to see someone kick butts and take names.  Ultimately Batman provides all this and Superman does not.  You are satisfied with seeing Superman wrestle with his inner demons and resist the temptation to break his code.  But most readers just see a guy who failed to give them what they wanted.  Let's face it, Ghandi is a great movie and Dirty Harry is a great movie, but put Ghandi in a Dirty Harry movie and you'd lose patience with him fast.



If you read that one and like it, then I give up.



See above.  Miller has created a world to rival the one Batman was created in.  In 1939, we had Hitler's armies on the March, rampant poverty and social injustices at home, organized crime running amuck.  It was a world that needed a Batman.  Or a Joe/Jerry Superman.  No I'm not a big fan of that kind of Superman; I think it's just too pat for him to knock down straw men every issue and solve problems in 10 pages that we can't really solve in decades.  I prefer the Silver Age Superman, defender of an idyllic world where even Luthor is more misguided than outright evil.  But in Miller's world, like 1939, we NEED the guy who takes charge and gets things done.  We don't need a god who sits on his hands.

Do I think Miller hates Superman?  Honestly I have no idea.  Do I think he sees no merit in the character?  DKR isn't enough to judge that by.  But I do think he understands that in a story where Batman is truly being what he was designed to be, Superman can't come off well.  And vice versa.  It just so happens this is a Batman story.

Good to see an old fashioned dang argument around here.  One thing I would say is that I don't think Aldous is saying that he should tell anyone what a movie means, just that the screenwriters, producer, or director shouldn't either.

As for the DKR, I enjoy it as a future "imaginary" story, one that could occur if certain aspects of the characters are emphasized at a writer's preference.

And I really think the idea of Golden Age heroes as dark vigilantes outside the law gets over-emphasized, neither Superman or Batman really stayed in that character for more than a few issues.

All art is meant to understood on many different levels, in fact if it can not understand on many different levels, then it's not really art!

So what are the levels? 1st of all this is based on my findings, so feel free to disagree with me here.

These levels are not in any order.

The Literal Level – Anyone can understand any work of art, in this case a comic book, on this level. All you have to do is read it. In this case, that would be the plot, aging Batman beating up villains, and the rest of what happens within the story.

The Metaphorical Level – This is what the artist was trying to say with the story, the reason for creating the art in the 1st place. This could be allegorical or simply a political, social, or personal view or all four.

The Symbolic Level – This level is about particular things within the story and what they mean besides what they are on a literal level, the happy faces in Watchmen for example.

The Interpretational Level – This level is the viewer own personal take on the work of art, it does not have to agree with what the artist had in mind. In fact even the artist themselves will reinterpret an earlier work of art later on in life.

What -I- don't understand is WHY Superman, who tries to keep up the status quo, would LET the world get to the point it did in DKR. 

Why did they weaken Superman so much, too? 

As Julian noted previously, one atomic(?) bomb will NOT slow down Superman in the least!  And why didn't Superman disarm Batman's armor before the fight started?  One heat vision blast from Neptune's orbit would have taken out Batman's weaponry (not to mention Batman himself!). 

What happened to Batman's "body" between the fight and his "funeral"?  Wouldn't the government do about 2,000,000,000 autopsies on Bruce Wayne? 

And what happened to the HOMES that were destroyed during their battle?  Sure, they were slums, but people LIVED in 'em!  I'd guess Wayne's fortune went towards rebuilding the apartment buildings, but Wayne was shown to have been rich enough to have equipment capable of tracking Superman in the sequel, and that would've been VERY expensive!  ;) 

There are so many things wrong with that story it's not even funny.  :( 

Certainly quite a few wholes in the plot --which explains why many people have been tempted to read the story solely as metaphor.  But since there is so much in the story that strives for verismilitude, be it Miller's attempts to capture the rhythms of conversation, our experience of tv news, etc, the metaphorical view is constantly intruded on.

I always wonder about the use of heat vision in so-called "adult" versions of Superman as well.  I understand that the conventions of the genre demand actual physical confrontation and fisticuffs (although most Silver and Bronze Age Superman stories dispensed with this), but when I try to imagine Superman as an adult science fiction concept, the first thing I think about is the heat vision.  I wonder what the range of Superman's heat vision is --does it function like a laser in which case it would be like light (?) and only mildly subject to physical forces like gravity/thermodynamics?  or is it some other form of radiation/heat?  The second thing I would imagine Superman doing with most foes (especially robots or weapons/machinery) would be to sneak up behind them at the speed of light and throw them into the sun.  How a robot ever gets the drop on Superman is a puzzle to me...

Interesting discussion on the levels of meaning in Superman.

Nightwing:


No, he didn't fail, and I'm not saying I know more about the comic than he does; that's ridiculous. Remember I'm talking about how I see Superman in this story.

Your thoughts on Superman and Batman, and which version of the world they are better suited to, are very interesting. Yes, I can see exactly where you are coming from, and there's no doubt Superman doesn't belong in the world of "The Dark Knight Returns". But then, if he doesn't fit (which is painfully obvious), doesn't that give you a big clue that he IS Superman, and not a "loser" who isn't Superman (to quote DBN).

I would say to DBN, OK, fine, the guy in red-and-blue in "Dark Knight Returns" is not Superman. So, who is he? Or, to pin you down a bit more, if the Superman we know and love (Silver Age/Bronze Age) was faced with that world and those circumstances, what exactly would he do, and how would he behave? If not how Frank Miller has suggested, then how?

Did anyone ever see that creepy "Twilight Zone" type of TV show where the little boy has the power to do very nasty things to people who do not behave how he wants them to, and who do not maintain the status quo? How, exactly, would you like Superman to change the world of "Dark Knight Returns"? He could use his super-speed and super-strength to force everyone to behave how HE chooses, and if you misbehave, what then? The jails are already overcrowded and the system is in utter chaos, and the government cannot help. What will he do with you? And how can even Superman watch everyone all at once, peering into your living room to make sure you are not breaking his rules? An alternative would be to overthrow the government. (That's what you all would like, I'm supposing.) Great. Now what? Back to square one. Can he watch everyone? Can he be the politicians, the police, the lawyers, the judges, and the prison guards? (Super Monkey, is my detailed review still around of that crazy Bob Haney "Big Brother" comic, in which Superman's supposed brother does just what I'm talking about? -- takes over the whole country and imposes his will on the population. The Prisoner of the Kryptonite Asteroid.) I guess he could make himself President, but President of what? He would have to be mad -- making himself President of a corrupt system. And who is comfortable with Superman being the dictator of the country? What problems are solved? He couldn't solve them. Even Superman is one man, with one brain and one pair of eyes.

So I come back to this: our Superman, faced with THAT world, would act something like he does in "Dark Knight Returns". And that's why I say he's still Superman, not a "loser" Superman or a "Byrne" Superman, or whatever.


Agreed. Which is why he is screwed up in this comic. For the time being, in that story, he's in a kind of holding pattern. He really doesn't know what to do; the real Superman wouldn't.


All right. Then what is his potential? What would you have him do? That particular story may be harder to write than you realise.


This is what I'm saying! That's why he's still Superman, even if you don't like how Frank is presenting him. Maybe he has presented a truthful aspect of Superman that is uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it's not really Superman in that story.


OK, everything I'm reading from you shows you agree with me. Superman is Ghandi in a Dirty Harry film, which means he really is Superman and not some Miller-Universe version. You can't argue it both ways. And that's why I say Superman could well act like this under these circumstances.


Hello, Gernot.

How could he prevent the world from getting to that point? I'd like to know. Actually, the world of "Dark Knight Returns" is not really so extreme. That world is on our front step and has one foot in the door.

Yes, of course, as soon as you read the scene in which Superman burns the word "WHERE?" into the ground in front of Bruce with his heat vision, you think, "Well, he could have just burned Bruce to ashes right then and there." (I know I did.) So why didn't he? That's part of the story.

I'm quite sure the government got their "body", and the Bruce Wayne of that future era is easily ruthless enough to provide them with one.

And you answered your own question: the homes were destroyed. I don't see that as being something wrong with the story.

Well, he actually IS the Byrne Superman, Frank Miller and John Byrne talked to make sure that it was. That is not an opinion but a fact.

Now you can say that the Pre-Crisis wouldn't have acted any differently anyway, but that is something different. However, the Pre-Crisis Superman wouldn't ever let the world to get to that point in the 1st place, IMHO. The Bryne Superman however, well he actually did (SEE IC, if you dare) but he's gone now so it doesn't matter anymore.

This is the only hunchback reference I could find:

http://superman.nu/smf/index.php?topic=2887.0

Super Monkey, by that logic, is the Silver/Bronze Age Superman guilty for letting his world go to oblivion by not pulling out all stops to defeat the Anti-Monitor?

Throughout the buildup to IC and IC itself, the Post-Crisis Supes is still out there saving lives and serving as an inspiration for the people. Something, the lackey in DKR failed to do.

Aldous writes:


Let's make sure we're participating in the same argument here.  I don't share DBN's view that Superman is not Superman in this story.  In fact I agree with you that Miller understands the Superman of the Silver and Bronze Ages and does a good job of plopping him down in a world he can't handle.  Compared to what other writers would do to him in the years after DKR -- making him a whining victim, a morally conflicted doofus and a murderer -- Miller's Superman is almost as "on model" as Maggin's or Hamilton's.

The point I'm trying to make -- apparently without much success -- is that Miller was telling a story about a world where Superman's strengths become weaknesses.  And it is not intended to be a wholly fictional world.  Miller sets the tale in an unspecified future, but the talking heads of the media, the appearances of Reagan and Letterman and so on tie the tale solidly to the 80s.  Miller isn't projecting some possible future, he's commenting on the here and now.  And that means he's saying that Superman is as useless and irrelevant to us in the real world as he is in the DKR world.

And the part I don't like about all that is he's absolutely right.  Miller takes an objective look at both characters and sees that Batman resonates in the modern world; he has a purpose.  Superman does not; he's an anachronism at best and a fraud at worst.  He nails down something we all knew on some level already, but it's uncomfortable to have it pointed out so starkly.

Consider: Superman was at the top of his game in the Golden Age when he tapped into a need for heroes who could take the law into their own hands, inspiring tons of imitators.  He adapted to the post-War years by becoming the defender of the status quo, and stayed on top through the mid-60s with the same approach.  That's not to say the 50s and 60s were a perfect era, but they were the last time we allowed ourselves to believe we could achieve perfection.  Superman's world was not our world, but it was our world the way we liked to imagine it.  Then came Vietnam, race riots, Watergate and a never-ending parade of troubles and our illusions of an idyllic America were gone.  It's no coincidence that Superman began losing popularity just as the Marvel crowd took off, and in fact from the late 60s on, it was all downhill.  By the 80s, Superman had little if anything to offer comic fans which is why he was rebooted.  I think this is what people are really getting at when they say he was "too powerful."  It's not about how much he can lift or whether he can move a planet, really.  It's about whether he has any relevance to our lives, our world, our problems and our hopes.  1980s Superman was pretty much the same thing as 1960s Superman, but the audience grew up when he didn't.

This is why I, along with everyone else, rooted for Bruce to pound Clark's face into the pavement in issue 4, and why I cheered when he did.  Which in my book, makes this a great Batman story but a hard read if you like Big Blue.  Miller doesn't make Superman a bad guy here by having him kill or maim or anything like that; he makes us furious with him because he's the same guy he's always been, and it's not good enough.


I know that's directed at DBN, but I'd like to chip in a thought.

This is the same reasoning people use in defending Byrne's decision to have Superman kill the Phantom Zone villains.  "What else could he do," they ask, "Under the circumstances?"  The problem with that argument is that Byrne is the one who created the situation.  Byrne decided he wanted Superman to kill and so he moved heaven and earth to create a story where it could happen.  So the complaint is not that Superman does a terrible thing; it's that Byrne orchestrated it so that he "had to."

It's the same with Miller.  He has a comment to make about Superman here and creates a situation where he can make that comment.  So yes, Superman might do what he does here given the circumstances.  But why did Miller set it up that way?

There's two answers: one, Miller is making the argument that to be true to their roots, superheroes need to work outside the law and be bigger than life...certainly bigger than government approval.  By the time the book came out, that had been lost for decades.

The second reason is that if you're going to tell a story where Batman...or any other hero...matters at all, you have to deal with the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and that is Superman.  Green Arrow's outnumbered by the Royal Flush gang?  No problem, call in Superman.  Batman can't stop the Joker before he blows up the reservoir?  Call Superman, he can stop him in the blink of an eye.  If Miller was going to sell the notion that ONLY BATMAN can fix things, he has to account for why Superman and the rest of the League can't do it.  Thus the removal of Diana to Paradise Island and Hal to space, and the neutering of Superman, who as you say will never abandon us, even if he won't go all the way and fix what really needs fixing.




Superman cannot live up to his potential in this story.  That was Miller's intent.

Superman lived up to his potential in many stories by Seigel, Hamilton, Coleman, Schwartz, Maggin, Bates et al.  But then they were paid to make him look good.  Miller was paid to write a Batman story.


Aha, then we are on common ground aren't we?  It's not that I think Frank's version is WRONG, it's that I don't like seeing Superman put in a situation that points out his irrelevance.  Again, Miller isn't just saying Superman is useless HERE, he's saying that Superman as a character passed his sell-by date a long time ago.  The fact that I agree doesn't make it fun to comtemplate.  I like to see Superman in his element and at the top of his game.  That doesn't make this a bad story, but it doesn't make it a good Superman story...for me anyway.

I get the feeling we're going in circles, but anyway what it comes down to in the end is a matter of taste.  I like DKR and I respect Miller's frankness (no pun intended) in pointing out Superman's failings.  But when I make my list of favorite Superman stories, I'm not likely to ever include the one where we learn just why Superman doesn't work anymore.  Intellectually, it works, but emotionally it don't make me happy.

Merry Christmas, Aldous, and everyone.

He would had, but he was being mind controlled by some wolf person of Earth-Prime ;)

The guy in DKR? He's a sellout in a blue suit and a red cape. Or if you want somewhat of a modern comparison, he's Ironman in Marvel's Civil War to Batman's Captain America. Even then, Tony Stark is still working out in the open.

The Silver/Bronze Age Superman would never have let the world get to that point. In the face of an act passed by the government to ban Superheroes, he would not comply and would remain out in the open doing what he always did.

I can't see the world ever getting to that point as long as there is a "real" (silver/bronze-age) Superman in it.  The idea of a ban would never occur.  If you can't picture it happening in a George Reeves episode, then it would never happen.

Superman is immune to cynicism and is also cure against it.

The trouble with that idea is I don't believe he would be the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman anymore. Would Superman really do that? I have my doubts. Everything about the way he operates would have to change. What would he do with criminals? He can no longer arrest them. He can no longer give evidence in court. He wouldn't be able to visit schools or open supermarkets.

Far from being "out in the open doing what he always did", he would be doing things quite differently; perhaps like he does in "The Dark Knight Returns".

That's a big compliment to the George Reeves show, and fully justified as far as compliments go.

Except that George Reeves' Superman is not exactly the Silver Age/Bronze Age version. He's the George Reeves version. If you have watched and liked the first season of George Reeves' version (and I know you have), you will see that (in my view) he's the version best-suited to the world of "The Dark Knight Returns". He would fit right in there, probably embarrassing Batman with his two-fisted clean-up of the underworld and government corruption. George Reeves' Superman would probably be in his element. He would give the mutant leader in the mud-hole a worse beating than Batman gave him, and break a couple more bones besides.

George wouldn't go clandestine; he would be out there, slugging away and inspiring the man in the street.

The Silver Age Superman is a whole different kettle of fish. Not so different that they are not equally admirable, but one thing the proponents of the Silver Age Superman forget is what sort of a world he lives in. The public, for one thing, are as fickle as the most popular girl in high school. They can and have turned on the Man of Steel for the shakiest of reasons. With government propaganda in overdrive (assuming Superman bucked the system), how long before Silver Age people are throwing rocks at Superman in the street?

And that's what this is about. Superman transplanted to an unpleasant society where his own assumptions about his popular influence are thrown into doubt; which means it's also about what I said before: Superman's self-imposed limitations. George's Superman would not take half of what the Silver Age Superman put up with from the general public.

It was -so- obviously intended to be jarring that I wasn't losing sleep over edge-less Superman.  I saw it "truth, justice, and the American Way gone wrong", clearly a product of its time.  Look at what would happen if Superman carried the flag through the Reagan '80s.

It's certainly a product of Miller's view of the Superman character. Wich is different from Elliot S! Maggin's view. He created the situation in wich Superman would hide and follow american government, with the intention of deconstruct the hero, just like Byrne did in the Pocket Universe saga. Because tha's their worldview.

Maggins's Miracle Monday, Waid's Kingdon Come, Joe Kelly's Manchester Black stories are all samples of Superman stories where the character would fail in some way, in most of the cases, by killing the enemy. The story is constructed to reach a point in that the only solution for Superman would be to compromise. But Superman is Superman no matter what he is facing. Read the end of Miracle Monday? Try to put that character, with Maggin's confidence, in Miller's DKR and the result would be diferent. As Peter David said in one workshops recently, a story when Superman compromises is lazy wiriting, because he is Superman and always find a way no matter what.   

Actually, the Bronze Age Superman was designated as a citizen in every member country of The United Nations, wasn't he?  Seeing as how almost every country on Earth would welcome him to set up shop there, I don't think The United States would actually throw away their "mightiest weapon!" 

My vision of DKR has always been only for the metaphor,
Miller has used a comic book story in order to criticize the behavior the of his government and the public opinion in a determined historical moment, and in order to make this he has used the two heroes who more better than anyone other incarnate the ideals of the America, therefore it is not only the atmosphere in which they move to seem extreme, but also the protagonists are forced to become it, arriving to the excess, until becoming parodies of theyself.The first time that I have read it sincerely I have found nearly annoying Superman because in fact not only prevented  Batman to make the right things but also he had "forced" himself to accept the absurd demands from the government to continue its “job”,now after many years I'ts still hard for me to appreciate this version but i can understand it much better.