Just out of curiosity what was changed in Dark Knight Returns?

And therefore. . . ?

==

Just because it is not my fight does not mean that i am not allwed to point out that a cheap shot weakens your arguement.

**

Indeed it doesn't!

But it does rather weaken your own argument to POINT OUT that it's not your "fight".

========

DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is a book that came after WATCHMEN. Frank was working on it around the same time I was working on MAN OF STEEL. Jenette was handing out xeroxes of WATCHMEN as the work came in. I was unimpressed. Frank changed direction halfway thru DKR. The WATCHMEN effect was that fast, and that early.

++

Really?

••

Yes, really.

++

Since the first issue of watchmen came out 3 months after Dark Knight, I find it hard to see how much of an effect it had on Frank Miller's work.

••

"Frank was working on it around the same time I was working on MAN OF STEEL. Jenette was handing out xeroxes of WATCHMEN as the work came in."

++

How many issues had Mr Miller done on Dark Knight when the Watchmen Xeroxes were shown?

••

"Frank changed direction halfway thru DKR."

...but this isn't my fight, so please disregard my comment.

@Brian:He just said Frank was "halfway thru" the series. Surely you can do the math.

==================================

Brian I am fully calpable of doing the math as you say, but thanks for the snark.

Its appreciated as a new poster, but at least i have established that you are some one I have no beed to talk to

Indeed it doesn't!

But it does rather weaken your own argument to POINT OUT that it's not your "fight".

===================r=====================

Actually it does not, just because rudeness does not directly affect me does not mean I should not point it out or address it when it happens.

Much like many of lifes other issues, or should people only do something about problems that affect only them?

=========================================

@JB"Frank changed direction halfway thru DKR."

====================================

You know what, I understand what halfway thru means, my point was that since watchmen came out in september and the third issue of dark knight came out no later than april may, i wonder how much of watchmen would have been finished by then, and how much of an affect it would of had on the way Mr Miller wrote Dark Knight.

JB this really since this is an honest question on my behalf, so i would appreciate an honest answer.

Thanks in advance.

I wonder if Frank changing gears halfway through Dark Knight Returns was one of the factors of the increasing lateness of the final two issues? At the time I thought it was similar to Ronin - he just failed to meet the deadline but now I wonder.

There is, without doubt, a shift in issue 3, in tone, content and art style.

Been a long time since I've read Dark Knight and I have to say, I don't recall a stylistic shift in it, but then again...it's been a long time since I've read it. Will have to revisit sometime this week.

I do know Frank made some notable changes in DK2 midway through because 9/11 occurred smack dab in the middle of it. Made the final volume decidedly late as I recall.

••

Not stylistic (tho Batman does go thru a Marv-like metamorphosis, starting out as a regular sized guy and ending as the Hulk in a Bat-suit). I'm talking about a TONAL shift.

DKR opens with a TV anchor reporting on the tenth anniversary of the last public appearance of the Batman, and going on to say that no one knows what happened to him, but that she hopes he's happy and "sharing a drink with a friend" (or some equivalent).

Then Frank read the WATCHMEN xeroxes, and abruptly we found out that, as in WATCHMEN, superheroes had been banned and Superman had become a government stooge. (It's actually a bit earlier than the halfway mark in DKR -- more like halfway thru the second issue.)

These kinds of shifts are not uncommon in Frank's work. Most of the time they are invisible, and you really need to know what was going on "behind the scenes" to even spot them.

In WATCHMEN, Moore inverted -- I might say perverted -- pretty much everything the superhero genre is all about. He was not the first to do so, but WATCHMEN was the first time we got it all in such a concentrated dose. Largely, this seems to have happened because Moore is very much a one trick pony. The one trick works for him and his fans, so no problem there, I guess. But this got me to thinking about who would be a suitable candidate to produce another round of WATCHMEN.

The thought began to take shape in my head that any revisiting of those characters should be a continuation of the "tradition" of WATCHMEN. That is, as Moore trashed everything superheroes were all about, the next go-round should do the same with WATCHMEN itself. So the ideal candidate for doing the project should be someone who is equally a one trick pony, but from the opposite end of the spectrum. Immediately, one name sprang to the forefront: Rob Liefeld.

No, I'm not kidding. Liefeld would be to WATCHMEN what Moore was to superheroes in general. And it would be such fun to watch a whole flock of retailer's heads exploding, as they tried to serve two entirely different faces of mammon!