Talk:The Dark Knight Strikes Again

Image content

No reason to delete this... it just had a malformed image tag. Andre 04:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree now. Before, it was ONLY a malformed image tag with no actual content whatsoever -Frazzydee 04:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Still doesn't have any content. Except for the picture, there's even less content than a B-Movie Bandit substub. If the guy can't contribute anything beyond the fact that this is a graphic novel, this doesn't belong here, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 04:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• This could be a very good article (if more was added by someone who'd read the graphic novel). I was a comic book collector when Batman: The Dark Knight Returns came out and it was huge, I would imagine that in the comic book world this one would be too. The only reason this should be deleted would be if it's content were merged in with Frank Miller. I say keep it! Kevin Rector 05:09, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. If we deleted all the short stubs that popped up on Wikipedia, they would never have the chance to grow into what they are today. As I said in the summary when I removed the cfd tag: If anybody thinks this article should be deleted, then please add it to VFD. There are obviously different opinions out there. -Frazzydee 05:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's encyclopedic or not. All I know is that it isn't a cfd, and being the relative inclusionist that I am I would vote to keep it on VFD. If anyone wishes to list it though, be my guest. Andre 05:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Frazzydee. Andre 05:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Looks good now. It's off to a nice start, but I still think that the onus needs to be on the original poster to contribute more than the fact that we're talking about a book. - Lucky 6.9 06:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Considering the level of info added now, I'm removing the notability template tag. Kevin Rector 17:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Final paragraph makes no sense

Since I've never read the book, I can't correct it, but hte final paragraph as it stands makes absolutely no sense.

I've updated the synopsis after rereading my copy the other day; enough extra info? I've left out a couple of plot devices while still summarising the main story. Guybrush 00:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Additional Controversy

I like this section, but I've got two points:

• the heading is vague and seems non-encyclopedic
• maybe Miller's contribution to AARGH (Artists against rampant government homophobia) should be mentioned, as well as his homophobic themes in other comics (if the nazi gays in the original Dark Knight Returns, and in Ronin and Give me liberty can be interpreted as such). This topic is also addressed in 300. Maybe this should be in Frank Miller rather than in an article about a particular book. Sunnan 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just saw that this text is already in Frank Miller. Don't know what to do now. Sunnan 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I have an edited copy but I don't think it necessarily follows that Batman and Catgirl are going to embark on a sexual relationship in TDKSA. Dick Grayson calls her "the daughter he (Batman) never had" and Batman agrees with Dick's judgement on their relationship. Where does Batman declare his "sexualised" love? He certainly declares love but it is never explicitly "sexualised". Miller in an interview in a book of critical expositions on the Batman (can't remember the title but it was many years prior to TDKSA) actually described Batman as essentially asexual. He devotes all his energies, including his sexual energies, into his quest for justice. Miller notes that this is why most Batman stories with romance are weak. Miller contrasts him with the Joker as an individual who is almost entirely sexualized. Furthermore, where does it say Dick Grayson is gay in the Dark Knight Strikes Back? Certainly Miller has used gay serial killer themes before (e.g. his rendition of the Joker in TDKR) but I wasn't sure Dick was. Batman's gay-bashing isn't obvious to me either. He is definitely insulting, marked with condecension and false affection/maternalism to Dick but his insults don't seem specifically homophobic, but then perhaps I'm not up to speed on the latest phrases. Personally I judge the interpretations on this page as POV because they seem to be more based on what someone read into the text than what was actually written. That doesn't mean they're wrong of course, they just don't seem adequately substantiated. Panlane --82.38.227.22 13:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments have been removed from the Frank Miller page because they are POV, or highly speculative at best, either way it's something to be edited on this page. Logan1138 14:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting the section that refers to the homosexual tendencies of Robin and Batman. It is very speculative and not factually based.Fmandog85 00:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the name of the article was okay...

...but everything else is a disaster. Practically everything is uncited. I don't want to see this article dismantled due to uncited statement removal. It appears that just one external source is being referred to, but none of it - and I am almost being literal here - is cited. I'll check back in a week, to see what sort of improvement has edited in. If not, a lot of this article may be going the way of icecubes in Hell. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The homosexual overtones

Appear to have been a whole cloth fabrication of whoever placed the statemetns in the article. Having re-read the 3-issue set twice to be sure, it is clear that when Robin/Grayson tells Bruce he loves him, it was from a discarded child to a parent figure. Granted, that's my OR interpretation, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The statements about the implied homoxuality go bye-bye. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved section here

Giving folks here a chance to cite the material properly, turn it from bullet points into prose. It cannot go back to the article in its present state:

Trivia

The holographic puppet-President, "Rick Rickard," is a throwback to Prez Rickard, the teenage President who was elected via a constitutional amendment. Ironically, the original Prez was essentially a super-President, loved by all during his term and then (in the later 'The Sandman' story "The Golden Boy") suddenly vanishing from the face of the Earth, becoming immortalized in the process; a stark contrast to Miller's stereotypical suave but non-existent puppet.

At one point during the chaos at the end of the book an "orphanage" is blown open and hundreds of misshapen children escape who are very similar in visual and dialogue description to the "wireheads" from Miller's "Martha Washington" series of comic books.

During the last part of the story, one of Miller's characters uses several throwing stars shaped like swastikas. The same weapon was used by his character Miho in the Sin City novella, The Big Fat Kill. The weapon is also used in the film version of Sin City.

The idea of a Robin becoming a new Joker had previously been explored in the animated film Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. Another former Robin, Jason Todd, took up an identity which the Joker had previously held; the Red Hood.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Sections

The following sections were partly removed from the article before being restored. I've since removed them them to here. This is a compromise to wholesale deletion; the remarks need to be cited and referenced before they can be included back into the article. I have a feeling that they all came from one or two articles, and that isn't enough for the space they are being allocated.

Analysis

Political Themes

The graphic novel contains caricatures of several prominent members of the first administration of President George W. Bush, including John Ashcroft, Ari Fleischer, and Donald Rumsfeld. The president is revealed to actually be a hologram controlled by Lex Luthor, a satirical commentary on the controlled media image of modern politicians, as well as the common perception that Bush is somehow subservient to either Vice-President Dick Cheney or to the "corporate elites".

The general public is depicted as ignorant and childish, varying between condemning the superheroes, and demanding that they save them from evil. Many of the characters have strong political views, such as Green Arrow, a Marxist revolutionary, and the Question, a radical libertarian. Green Lantern quotes Batman as saying that the superheroes "have to be criminals".

Superman also comes to agree with him at the end of the novel. He sets about destroying military gunships and feels good about it. Although he still cherishes the memory of his human parents, Superman decides that their insistence that he respect human life, law and authority is wrong. In fact, it is his own daughter who persuades him that a Man of Steel should be allowed to feel above the mere humans rather than just serve them.

Batman also says that he has been ignoring the real problem, going after petty criminals while the real monsters rose to government power.

In sum, the novel contains themes of individualism, personal freedom and advocates a strong ethical viewpoint, rather than modern, relativist views of right and wrong.

The graphic novel's conclusion can be interpreted as anti-democratic. Superman asks his daughter, "What shall we do with our world?" In other words, Luthor's dictatorship is replaced by a non-democratic oligarchy of heroes from the Silver Age of DC Comics.

As a Satire of the Super Hero Genre

The Dark Knight Strikes Again can also be viewed as Miller's satire of the very 'grim & gritty' movement which he helped set into motion with Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. He parodies various trends that were abundant in making post-1980s comics more 'realistic' and 'adult' such as costume changes, cybernetic limbs, and extreme violence. Miller himself, on the recent re-release of the 1989 Batman movie, refers to the direction comics have taken since DKR as "stupid."

The book can also be seen as Miller's direct rebuttal to another graphic novel which satirized similar trends in the superhero genre, Kingdom Come. Where Kingdom Come has a more optimistic perspective on DC's heroes and superhero comics generally, Miller is far more cynical. (Dark Knight Strikes Again raises the Superman/Wonder Woman romance that featured in Kingdom Come, including WW's pregancy.)

A key theme is Superman's transition from his foster parent's morality to a more Nietzscheian sensibility. This is because of Lara, who convinces him that he is above man's rules and ethics (a direct reference to the Nietzscheian theory of the uber-mensch and to Superman's origins). Much like Superman, Batman has also made a transition in terms of ethics (cheering on the Hawk's murder of Luthor).

One of the themes is the older generation (Batman, Superman and the Flash) "giving the torch" to the younger generation (Carrie Kelly, Hawkboy and Lara). For example, it is Kelly who comes up with the idea of utilizing the Superchicks concert to create a revolution, and Lara who destroys Braniac. However, it is also implied that this generation has a different morality and code of ethics, as many younger heroes kill or are willing to, such as the son of Hawkman killing Luthor (to Barry Allen's horror) and Lara's destroying Braniac. Notably, it is Lara who suggests that it would be better to rule the humans, as they are incapable of ruling themselves (a suggestion similar to Nietzsche and also to Watchmen).

Another view is that Miller has spent so long on his creator-owned series Sin City, it has caused him to use that style of writing as his default mode of storytelling. One of the major criticisms of his latest Batman project, All Star Batman and Robin, is that it reads more like a Sin City story than a Batman book.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The delayed third issue

There probably should be a mention about the delay of the third issue. The third issue was delayed for months without explanation by either DC Comics or the creative team. While I have no proof, I recall on the DC Comics forum speculation that since the first two issues were panned by both critics and readers that DC forced Frank Miller and his team to reformat issue three to a more standard layout. Again, pure speculation but it was an incredibly unusual that it was delayed for so long, so long, in fact, that people in the DC forum began drawing their own version of the final issue. It was very strange. - Throw 10:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)