The Dark Knight Strikes Again

I was well away from comic book news and outlets at the time, but I heard the news: Frank Miller was going to release a sequel to one of the definitive comic book stories of all time. A sequel to one of my favourite stories (and you can add that I loved it as much as ANY story in ANY media). Yessir, Frank Miller was going to follow up The Dark Knight Returns. And I was excited.

Fortunately, I was well away from fanboy forums, comic shops so when I bought a Trade paperback in 2003 from Waterstones in Aberystwyth. I was able to read it without any influences upon my opinion. I was expecting more super intense story-telling, glorious plot points. I was expecting another game changer of a book. I was expecting the second coming...

Of course, I was gloriously disappointed.

I got something that I wasn't expecting, something that I actually started to hate.

A lot.

That book got lost three years later in a house fire in Bristol, and it took another five years (and a lot more comic reading) to summon the bravery to have another go at it. I tracked down the three issues on the Bay and paid next to nothing for them. And after the second reading, I started to Get It.

So what's to Get? Spoilers exist from here on in...

The first thing you have to understand about DKSA is that this is a totally different Frank Miller that wrote DKR. As an artist and writer he'd simply moved away from the superhero comics he'd influenced during the eighties. Sin City was finished and in this crime-noir baby, his art and storytelling evolved into what we have in DKSA. There were also all manner of 'dream-team' combinations with other comic heavyweights (the Martha Washington series with Dave Gibbons, Spawn with Todd McFarlane, and my personal favourite, the one that no-one talks about: Robocop versus Terminator with Walter Simonson), these also affected Millers storytelling in DKSA. Basically, Miller experimented a lot to get to where he did by the point he wrote DKSA, and I now understand that he must have decided that the super intense, frame heavy pages were now no longer needed, as he'd done it; and he must've wanted to do something different. Because creative people need to move forward, therefore the sequel to DKR needed to be different.

The other major thing about DKSA is that Miller is not necessarily trying to create a classic, he's actually trying to make a commentary on the comic business all the while including politics and social commentary. He's also doing this a lot more blatantly than he had done in DKR. Yes, the Frank Miller Goddamn Batman is there, but it is a work that is definately more preachy and sure of itself. Miller continues this trail of thought in other creative endeavours around the time (DKSA follows '300' and precedes 'Holy Terror', for you continuity junkies out there).

Influences on this book are subtle. But they are there. Miller is aware that the Dark Age, as Grant Morrison calls it, that he helped usher in is slowly coming to an end, and maybe that is why he attempts a Team Book. Therefore, Grant Morrison's JLA run is definitely an influence here, and I also sense a touch of city-destroying, we're-obliged-to-save-everyone-regardless-if-they-want-saving-or-not-Authority.

Artistically, I see a lot of Simon Bisley influence on the art. Miller makes some panels intentionally messy, chaotic and anarchic in places. There's a direct reference to Manga (remember manga was supposed to lay seige to the American comic book market at the turn of the century!). There are cool references to The Great Wave off Kanagawa during the Sexual Acts of God Superman/Wonder Woman scene. This, in itself, is proof that Miller is still thinking about what he is drawing and why he's drawing his pictures. Hell, to give me my monies worth, and make me grin cheesily, he even references himself, redoing a splash from Sin City: instead of a car knocking over the bad guys we get a Bat-Plane!

What really impresses me about this work, and this has been noticed by others is the social media contexts, questions and that Miller raises. The Superchix thing is all about celebrity without being much else other than being a celebrity. He successfully parodies all superflous reality TV shows where beautiful, un-original people throw tantrums for no reason... There loads of numerous internet and blogger references (although, Miller isn't entirely certain what to make of them). The political rants that are featured in DKSA, are less political debates (which are seen to be more developed in the original DKR, even if a bit one-sided) but are featured as a series of very SHOUTY sound-bites. There are plenty of in-jokes, and these only really exist simply to be picked up by sad bastards like me: I mean, have you actually been to www.scifigeeknews.com (and please don't click there on my account, as no one owns this domain)? In fairness, I feel Miller had more fun writing this than he did the original. That's probably why it couldn't be anywhere as near as intense as DKR.

And I'm not even commenting upon the satire of an American President being just a computer generated sprite yet be considered a true American.  Lets face it, this is cool concept, and a scathing attack on modern day politics.

Of course, this is still a sequel, and sequels often retread some of the same things. Done differently, and in DKSA's case better. The Bats/Supes rematch is better executed than the first fight. The 'talking heads' stuff that dominates much of DKR, returns, but has a lesser significance. Again, the story's flow is better for it. When the super-intense storyboard layouts make an appearence, they actually have bigger significance (hell, that's what should happen). I'll also argues that the splash pages in DKSA are much cooler that the splash pages than DKR- true, there are a shedload more of them! The scope of DKSA's plot is also way bigger than just Batman and Gotham, and Miller should be applauded for his ambition.

It's still Millers' Batman, the Dark Knight, which is the main draw though. Miller revisits the Batman mythos, with a nod to Zorro. And it is done in a startlingly fresh, yet chilling way. Yes this is a grimmer Batman (even grimmer than Miller's original Dark Knight), but it's not yet a superhero that abducts children in order to keep them in a cave without food...

Erm...


Everyone that has read this book, knows that DKSA is a divisive piece of work. More than most think of it as an incoherent, self-indulgent mess, but there are people like me that now appreciate it as an failed masterpiece. Regardless of the merits of the work, DKSA is not DK2, it's no where near as immersive and intense as DKR, and I think that this is the core of all the books criticism. Truly, for everyone, DKSA should be read as a stand alone work to be liked. Trouble is because of the importance of The Dark Knight Returns, which is standard issue on every comic book shelf, it cannot be.

To bottom-line this blog. I'd like to make a point, that appears to be lost amongst the comicarrati. Frank Miller, one of the most visionary, revolutionary comic creators, is now lost to the Hollywood machine. Its happened slowly over twenty years and that is a great loss to the hobby. As a result, every and any piece of Frank Miller work is now equally important. From Daredevil to DKR to the Dark Horse collaboratives to Sin City, we-as readers- have witnessed Millers' progression as a writer and an artist. And frankly, we should be thankful for the experience.

And it's always been a privilege for me to read his stuff.

I, for one, miss him. I selfishly want to see him producing more comic work. I know it isn't going to happen too often now, so I'll take DKSA for being simply a Frank Miller book. Dark Knight Strikes Again might be an extreme example of Miller's glorious creator independence (And he'll do anything with the Batman he goddamn pleases) but it does deserve a place on my shelf now.

At present, I don't hate it like I used too....

Mini Series: Year 100

What's not to like? Paul Pope is becoming comics answer to Stanley Kubrick. I've never gone out of my way to find his Manga stuff (which if I'm honest I ought to), but whenever I see Paul Pope on a cover of a comic book my interest peaks. For me, it's like a trademark of a very individual style and substance. For me, he's the new Frank Miller, a guy who's stuff is always interesting and worth checking out. Thing is, that he isn't as productive as my appetite demands (which is no bad thing!). Like Miller his work on the Bat is quite limited, but always very interesting. Sadly this book never gets the wide appeal I have always felt it deserves. So, if you're not sure when you see it: buy it, and experience something marvellous!

The beauty of this book is the sheer inventiveness of it all. No concept is half baked, everything is thought through, designed to make sense. We get vampire teeth, psychic investigators, a totally different approach to introducing a Robin, a different take on the batmobile. The roughness of Pope's artwork actually is perfect to the grubby dystopian world he has created. Yes, Pope scratchy lines may look messy, but so is the Gotham City that he created around the stories key protagonists. All the while, the core 'Batman' support team is de-constructed in a way which allows a totally new, fresh team all the while retaining the same characteristics of the support team that exists in modern age, continuity Batman. These characteristics are familiar, but aren't necessarily where you would expect to find them. Paul Pope is a clever geezer.

Also, Pope fully utilises the full history of the Batman lore. There are constant references to 1939. Indeed, the Batman costume owes more to the original Bob Kane look, that any recent 'looks'. There are nods to Batman Year One, DKR amongst others. There is also an assumption by Pope (and he's right) that the regular Batman reader will readily accept other men under the Batman cowl (Jean-Paul Valley and Dick Grayson, for example) and that the reader will just get on with it. Truthfully, this book really feels like a logical continuation from the Year One rebirth, and is clever enough to accept the history to incorporate it into its own as cloudy, mythical history.

The pace of the first few pages is a testament to a true master of storytelling in comics, we are immediately engaged in the chase, and before we even wonder what the hell is going on, we are dumped with information. Hell, you could even argue that Pope knew what that the reader and the 'evil government watchers' are thinking the exact same thing. When the 'evil government' see the 'Bat-Man of Gotham' footage, it is the first time, they're world has seen him, and know as little about this character than we do!

The storytelling is also brilliant. Pope expects you, an intelligent reader, is clever enough to understand the intricacies of a thoroughly engrossing plot- which makes Pope's Batman less of a caped crusader and more dark knight detective... And the plot twist is brilliantly executed. And like all great works of fiction, leaves you with questioning what happens next. This is what I like to call Clever Comics!

The genius of this series has seems to have slipped under the radar by the fanboys. What is even stranger here is that this story won the Eisner for best series in the year of it release, this is an important point as the only other Batman story to appear as a winner is DKR. However, you can regularly see a complete NM set of this story on eBay slip through at a bargainous rates. Even more interestingly, you rarely hear anyone rave about it on forum boards.

Therefore, the only reason I can muster is this: that the title itself is 'Batman: Year 100'. In an industry were 'Spiderman 2099', 'Detective Comics One Million' and other future incarnations of classic, contemporary comic book heroes tend to dilute an already cool concept (regardless how well they're done), I think that most readers were deeply suspicious of the book. In comics books there are way too many alternate takes on any big name superhero, and I have read Batman used as an old man, as a vampire, and as a robot. It's true: it is possible to be jaded by too much variation. Especially, when a lot of it was full of half-baked concepts and poorly executed world views. In short Numbers in a comic book title are usually a Bad thing.

Shame, as I think that this is a book doesn't deserve a reputation just as a critically lauded Batman that punters won't risk stumping up their hard earned cash like they would if it were DKR or Watchmen. For those people, I'll categorically state that it really is up there with DKR, Arkham Asylum and Killing Joke! Maybe this fact can be quickly changed.

So spread the word, Batman Year 100 is that Brilliant. If I was in charge of DC, I'd wine, dine, threaten, beg, and bribe Paul Pope to give me a sequel.