"Batman in this story is his Marv from Sin City"
Not even close. Batman in this is a hardened vindicator of crime. Marv is a murdering self-righteous psychopath (albeit a charismatic one).
"the comic as a whole was meant to be a satire of graphic novels at the time"
The term "graphic novel" didn't come about till after this and Watchmen. Even more, to say that this is a direct parody of other comics at the time is utterly wrong and purely non-sensical. If you've ever heard Miller talk about TDKR's, he's very passionate about it and utterly believes in it. Saying that THIS is a satire of Batman/other comics is a slap in the face to both Miller, comic books, and the fans, since it's not and borderline idiotic. The Batman he made for this comic was very much in line with his Year One origin story (which is canon by the way), the ONLY satire in this book is on politics, the media, and psychology in general.
This is straight from the wiki (which I can confirm since I've read the original comics from the 1930's), "The Dark Knight Returns helped to re-define Batman and portray the character as he was originally conceived during the 1930's."
This version of Batman is NOT a satire of comics, nor a satire of Batman, as I stated before, which I will state yet again, ANY interpretation of this as such is utterly wrong, and questionably idiotic, as it's based on how the character (both Bruce Wayne and Batman) was ORIGINALLY intended. And no, the original intention of the character wasn't as a "satire" back then either. Quit applying your hipster/liberal ideologies to this character to try and make him appeal more to you, because he's not, and he won't. This was a LITERAL interpretation of Batman and his iconic philosophy, without all the mundane, childish, light-heartedness that arose in the 60's/70's (which nearly ruined the entire comic book industry). This comic was, in essence, an attempt by Miller (which succeeded) in telling a more adult, dark, and human super-hero story, a style/theme which he mostly started back in the 70's with Daredevil.
Miller almost single-handedly brought comics back into the forefront with Dark Knight Returns, Elektra, his extensive work on Daredevil, and Wolverine. Why? BECAUSE OF HIS COMPLEX, ADULT, GRITTY STORIES. So please, quit insulting us by pretending to be ahead of the curve and instantly assuming based on literally nothing, that this was a "satire of other graphic novels at the time". You know absolutely nothing about the medium.
P.S. As for all the complaining about the "stupid things" in the movie, you guys are idiots. The police don't fire indiscriminately at someone, and they don't all open fire while they are all pointing guns at each other/in each others general direction. For the Batman vs Superman fight, Bruce and Clark were friends, Superman was going easy on him/holding back, which Batman even SAYS. I should complain more about the "stupid things" posted on this forum rather than in the movie.
reply
share
JMPesce
11 years ago
Thanks, bud.
"Everybody lies." - Gregory House
reply
share
bud380
11 years ago
I don't like people claiming something to be what it's not. It gives others the wrong impression and continues the false ideology surrounding the work. I was simply as blunt and straight-forward as I could be.
I don't know if you (or anyone else who thinks it was a satire) is a hipster/liberal, but generally those people which say that what happens in the novel is "extreme" usually fall in line with that sort of thinking, as I've observed.
Some people may not view referring to it like you did as an insult, but I (and probably many others) do, because of many various reasons (most of which being because of the kid-friendly version that is so widely marketed, when the actual content of the comics, aside from the campy era, was extremely dark and gritty):
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i477/batmanonfilmdotcom/BATMAN%20IN%20COMICS/robindiesatdawncover.jpg
^ Issue 156, from the 1950's I believe.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20111_the-6-most-brutal-murders-committed-by-batman.html
The very first one listed is from 1940, where Batman GUNS DOWN a driver and continues to HANG the survivor from his bat-glider.
He was anything but kid-friendly (he even carried a gun with him when he first started out).
I'm simply sick to my stomach of Batman being portrayed as he is/was in the campy era. That's NOT what he was. Nor was Dark Knight Returns a parody of other "excessively violent/gorey comics at the time", since there practically WERE none. It was a return to the characters roots, and away from the ATROCIOUS garbage that is this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dpO74B7dHQo/T9lzq0ez_NI/AAAAAAAAAMI/nHe4ywv24UA/s1600/bat+mite.jpg
reply
share
JMPesce
11 years ago
I was only insinuating that the "over the top stuff" was done for effect by Miller, much like his deaths in Sin City were over the top for effect. Not attempting to say Batman should be kid friendly, just reaponding to a post.
reply
share
bud380
11 years ago
It depends on what you mean by "over the top". I was perfectly fine with a lot of what was shown, mostly because this is animation, and I feel that with animation, you should use everything as best/much as you can to make use of the unique style that was chosen. Things can be over-the-top, but that's not to say they are satire's/parodies, sometimes they're done simply because they're cool, or because of style, or to pull attention/accentuate certain elements. Splash pages in comics are a good example, where entire pages are devoted to very dramatic/important events within the comic and are often times "over-the-top", simply for effect. (Anime/Manga are also a good example in general of that style, to a much higher degree though)
If you're talking about Bruno (the nazi chick), I could definitely see where people are coming from, but, then again:
http://forward.com/workspace/assets/images/articles/w-neonaziapp-120613.jpg
Overall, the "satire" just doesn't work for the animation, nor for the graphic novel, because it all takes itself very seriously, which it rightfully should, it's dealing with very complex situations and deep problems.
I mean, can you honestly tell me that this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0mHUlxWq7g
Looks, or is portrayed, as a satire of other comics/Batman? It just doesn't fit. The characters may be exaggerated in some way or another, but again, neither the script nor the acting fits with that interpretation.
Could it be a satire of the government? How such a rabid, fanatical lunatic is capable of going on such a bloody rampage without being stopped other-than by someone who is almost as equally insane as them? Well, yea, sure, but then that falls out of touch with the original point you had of it being a satire of other comics at the time.
I'm not saying that there is NO satire in this. What I'm saying is that it's neither a satire of the character, nor other comics. A point which is backed up by a plethora of evidence.
Sorry if I insulted you.
reply
share