tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post8857274128848584282..comments2023-10-08T07:22:58.997-04:00Comments on Are You A Serious Comic Book Reader?: Better Than List Pt. 2 Batman: Year 100 > Batman: The Dark Knight Returnsbrandonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05331746353766612879noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post-70953026130822455972008-09-14T21:22:00.000-04:002008-09-14T21:22:00.000-04:00you know, something i think that has been missed i...you know, something i think that has been missed in the conversation here is that on a very basic level, year 100 is a well told story, whereas the dark knight returns is not. paul pope is an example of an extraordinary rare thing: a great comics writer AND illustrator. i think that the art in both the dark knight returns and the dark knight strikes again represents some of the best comics illustration of the last few decades. it is too bad that miller just isn't a writer in the same way that he is an illustrator. i think both of his big dark knight books are very difficult to read (i have yet to finish either of them), though not in the way say watchmen is difficult to read. it seems to me that miller has a lot of ideas that are not really fully fleshed out and he brings them to the page the way they appear in his mind. perhaps some people are attracted to this messy style of narrative because it seems that it is precisely not facile, but the fact is that it just disorganized and bad. pope, on the other hand, is one of the most exciting illustrators working in comics right now as well as an amazingly skilled writer. in terms of contemporary artists, maybe only michael allred does both as well as pope (admittedly, i am not really considering artists working outside of the mainstream in this calculation). the bottom line, for me anyway, is that i think year 100 is the best batman book i have ever read and i think it might be some time before i read another that is as good.david e. ford, jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530623430089464503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post-88901838215586873092008-09-12T23:03:00.000-04:002008-09-12T23:03:00.000-04:00Richard-In like 40 minutes, David will have a Watc...Richard-<BR/>In like 40 minutes, David will have a Watchmen post up, so check it out!<BR/><BR/>I think Jesse does a pretty good job of explaining the flaws of 'Dark Knight' and I think calling it "not that" is legit because it isn't. It's an attention-grabbing intro sentence that's then backed-up by a lot of examples. Hardly facile.<BR/><BR/>Miller's story is rooted in really obvious cynicism about Superman, heroism, etc. and psychologically based in like a high school level understanding the psyche. I'd say that makes it not that good...<BR/><BR/>The contrast is with Pope's comic which maintains the mythos of Batman while also giving a drastic re-vamping of the hero. Pope is subtle, Miller is not, Pope is psychologically astute, Miller is blunt and silly; Pope prefers wonder and mystery over cynicism and categorization.brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05331746353766612879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post-51413038024208044232008-09-12T14:14:00.000-04:002008-09-12T14:14:00.000-04:00jesse and richard-I love going back and reading th...jesse and richard-<BR/><BR/>I love going back and reading things I read as a child, not for nostalgia reasons but because more often than not these days I notice that comics that shaped how i feel about super heroes now just plain aren't good anymore. Constantly I feel weird and almost embarrassed when I realize I used to like Age Of Apocalypse X-books and thought they were the epitome of super hero comics. Going back and reading a comic is what REALLY puts it in it's place as the best thing ever or the worst.samuel ruleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09836770588681468852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post-21070017228646144022008-09-12T13:22:00.000-04:002008-09-12T13:22:00.000-04:00You're spot on with your comment about "dark" not ...You're spot on with your comment about "dark" not being complex. A lot of comics have fallen into that trap, and I agree even the <I> The Dark Knight </I> movie.<BR/><BR/>I think the stuff going on behind my criticisms are equally shallow though. A big thing going on behind Superman's character is the fascist-like control of the government and Superman's fear of it. The government is evil and corrupt and Superman is weak for not confronting them. There's lots of stuff going on but for me most of it has a Good/Bad mentality.<BR/><BR/>I think your personal note makes a lot of sense because a similar thing happened to me. I first read <I> Dark Knight </I> and <I> Watchmen </I> early in my comics days and were excited about them. As I started to think about them more and read different stuff they began to annoy me. I would say look at <I> DKR </I> again and check out <I> Year 100 </I>. Every since I read it scenes from it have stuck in my brain and I keep coming back and enjoying it. So, for me that's a good comic.Jesse Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08336893068628594027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post-62589121532703670222008-09-12T10:56:00.000-04:002008-09-12T10:56:00.000-04:00"all that came out of it was years of needlessly d..."all that came out of it was years of needlessly dark and disturbed characters and plots"<BR/><BR/>I think this comment is basically true. I didn't have a problem with "dark" or whatever, but dark isn't the same thing as deep or complex. (<I>The Dark Knight</I> movie suffers from this confusion.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, by "easy" I mean to say that, I think there's a little more going on behind the things you observe in <I>Dark Knight Returns</I>. (Not that Miller is typically all that subtle.)<BR/><BR/>Minor personal note, which may or may not color the effect of my comments. I was 19 when I first read <I>Dark Knight Returns</I> (I've read it several times, but not in about ten years), but like 35 when I finally got round to <I>Watchmen</I>.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post-38943289313790073312008-09-12T10:23:00.000-04:002008-09-12T10:23:00.000-04:00If my criticisms are that easy to see I really wis...If my criticisms are that easy to see I really wish people would pay attention to them. I agree with you about <I> Watchmen </I>, but I have to say it's got the same kind of shit going on that <I> Dark Knight Returns </I> does. They both are interested in deconstructing super heroes in the simplest way possible by taking them into the sewers of society. Maybe that was necessary for the genre at the time, but all that came out of it was years of needlessly dark and disturbed characters and plots.Jesse Reesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08336893068628594027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5781642913058207208.post-29430253084147174572008-09-12T09:17:00.000-04:002008-09-12T09:17:00.000-04:00I like the idea here--a series of posts attempting...I like the idea here--a series of posts attempting to show why x comic is better than y "recognized classic comic" or whatever, but... I haven't read <I>Year 100</I>. It may very well be better than <I>Dark Knight Returns</I>, but saying the latter "just isn't really that good" comes off as pointless contrarianism. Your criticisms of it are fairly facile--they are easy in the same way you are suggesting his story is sophomoric. Sometimes people think something's great because it <I>is</I> great. (On the other hand, I'd love it if someone could explain to me what the big deal is about <I>Watchmen</I>.)Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.com