Talk:The Dark Knight Returns

Headline text

I removed the Analysis section from this section entirely because it was not only a fairly bad and superficial analysis to begin with, but it was based on certain faulty premises – for example, it stated that the Two-Face's return to a life of crime was prompted by the Batman's reappearance, but in the book, we can clearly see Two-Face procuring men for the bank job that will finance the larger operation he's planning before Bruce Wayne becomes the Batman again. At that point, he is already being sought by the police. Also, the analysis misses the major themes of the book entirely. It completely ignores key things, such as the Batman's overpowering, even pathological personal obsession and his unwillingness to compromise, as well as the important role the oppressive and inefficient government plays in the story... among other things.

Unfortunately, I can't turn that into a more accurate analysis simply by editing what's already there and don't have the time to write up a new one from scratch right now, but leaving false information in place didn't sit well with me, either, so I just took it off entirely. I'll try and replace it with a better one soonish.--Captain Disdain 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, "All-Star Batman And Robin" isn't even REMOTELY a Prequel to "The Dark Knight Returns". It's in a completely different continuity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.109.238 (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename Suggested to Reflect Title (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I suggest renaming this article to reflect the actual title of the book, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns because it is more accurate. Chris Griswold 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joker's Death

This article previously reported that The Joker killed himself, breaking his own neck to frame Batman.

This isn't so, I just spent a depressing amount of time looking over that page and am completely certain that it was Batman who broke Joker's neck. The Joker was stabbing Bats in the guts, and Batman had both his hands around Joker's head and neck. In fact, most of the book was leading to the conclusion that letting Joker live had always been a mistake.

It's a significant point, because Batman's mission had always been to end killing; Joker was the first person he'd ever killed (on purpose, perhaps).

Well, you may be completely certain, but I'm sorry, that's not what happens on the page. The book makes it completely clear that the Joker snaps his own neck. In the book, they struggle; the Batman grabs the Joker's head and starts twisting it, while the Joker stabs him repeatedly with the knife. Certainly, the Batman does some serious damage to the Joker's neck; he stops moving and falls down. The witnesses see this, freak out and run away. "I hear... voices... voices calling me... a killer... I wish I were...", the Batman's internal narration says.

But the Joker speaks up after that, which he obviously couldn't do if he were dead. "They're gone...? The witnesses, I mean... I'm really... very disappointed with you, my sweet... the moment was... perfect... and you... didn't have the nerve... paralysis... really... Just an ounce or two more of pressure... and... do I hear... sirens? Yes... Coming close... you won't get far... But then... it doesn't matter... if you do... they'll kill you for this... and they'll never know... that you didn't have the nerve... I'll... see you... in hell--"

At which point, the Joker starts to snap his own neck by twisting it. The Batman's narration continues: "With a devil's strength... he twists and twists... what's left of his spine goes... whatever's in him rustles as it leaves."

There's no ambiguity here. The Joker killed himself purely so that the Batman would be blamed for his death. I'm a little surprised that you would actually read the page and not come to that conclusion, because, as you say, it's a significant point. It's certainly true that the Batman broke the Joker's neck, but that just left him paralyzed. He could have lived; he chose not to.

I'm not sure what the disagreement is here. If you reread the section in question you see that Batman intends to kill the Joker and goes so far as to twist the Joker's neck until it breaks, but he can't bring himself to complete the job. The Joker's spine is damamged to the point of paralysis but he himself twists his neck enough to further damage his spine enough to kill himself. Molon Labe (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Influence?

As soon as I read these books (nearly twenty years after their original publication) it seemed probable to me that this version of Batman inspired the Tim Burton films which in turn inspired a number of cartoon versions. Is this a widely held theory, and if so shouldn't it be cited here? Or is it less founded than I think it is? --Feitclub 20:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there are statements to this effect in the Frank Miller article. If supportable, they should be here as well, no? --Feitclub 20:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I added a couple of quick sentences about it -- take a look and see what you think... Captain Disdain 21:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a great edit because it doesn't come right out and say "Tim Burton was inspired by Frank Miller" but it notes the obvious similarity in the way the character was handled. Thanks! --Feitclub 05:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, glad you like it! That's that, then. If only all our problems could be as easily solved... Captain Disdain 13:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought Tim Burton was open about the DKR influence and being a fan of it. Chris Griswold 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Future?

It's oft repeated, but I have to say it's a grievous error to state that the story takes place in the future, especially given how highly topical the themes in the book are. There's numerous evidence within the story to support that it takes place in the eighties, appearances by Ronald Reagan and Dr. Ruth, references to Bernard Goetz, parodies of 80s pop psychology, etc. There's exactly one piece of evidence putting it in the future: Batman is old. Miller's intent was clearly not "What happens when Batman gets old in the future?" but "What if Batman had really been around for the past thirty years and he was old now?" If I recall correctly there's an introduction by Miller in the trade paperback collection where he states as much, but I don't have one on hand at the moment.

Sounds reasonable to me, especially considering that the Batman character has been around for more thirty years. --Poiuyt Man (talk): 12:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another hint supporting the eighties thesis: the film seen by Bruce and his parents before the latters' murder should be 'The Mark of Zorro', starring Tyrone Power, which dates back from 1940. Now, assuming that Bruce was attending the first release of the film at the theater (which is plausible), and that at that time he was no older than 15 (or maybe just that age, since previously he states that Batman was born 40 years before, and at the main time of the narration he is 55), the story should take place, if really Miller intentionally arranged for these temporal details, in the first half of the eighties, and maybe just in 1985, the year of publication. Analyticone

That's a great point. Bruce is stated as being eight when his parents were killed, but if he was 8 in 1940 and 55 in the story's setting, it would work out just about exactly with the release date of DKR. A gx7 14:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

& yeat it's still noncanon. Look at the Joker. He's an Ectomorph. It's impossible for an ectomorph to become Mezomorph, even with exercise, possibly not even with steroids. The Joker also seemed openly gay, whereas he's usually asexual. He wasn't even pretending to be crazy or laughing at inapropriate moments, like he always does. & you'll have noticed that he had white lips & applied lipstick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jason Todd

I just read the story for the first time this morning and checked the article here for some more background information. For the character description of Batman, this is listed: "He gave up the Batman identity ten years ago, strongly hinted as a reaction to the death of the former Robin, Jason Todd." If DKR came out in 1985/86 and Todd's death in the canon-universe came in 1988/89, is it just inferred in DKR that Todd had died of unexplained causes? Olessi 17:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You're right, the comic book doesn't explain what killed Jason Todd. In fact, it refuses to overtly state that Todd got killed. The most we've got is that Superman suggests Batman played some role in covering up the death. As I once said to someone, it was rather fitting that Miller thought Todd would die on the job, because that's exactly what happened two years after Returns. CanadianCaesar 00:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(I have no idea how to use Wikipedia, but thought I'd point out the following problems in the article, so that hopefully someone will fix them.) "...a major crime wave hits the city, Two-Face's rehabilitation goes awry, and a enormous bat crashes through the windows of Wayne Manor." -This is obviously supposed to be symbolic of Bruce's psychological struggle, not an actual event.

"In their struggle, Batman removes the bandages that have been covering Dent's face, expecting to find Two-Face's visage split in its classic dichotomy." - Wayne had paid for and had seen on TV the results of two-face's surgery. Furthermore, he states many times he is hoping that the criminal will not turn out to be two-face.

Comic Tragedy: No Laughing Matter

No doubt many will find what I'm about to say a bit nit-picky (if not a bit ridiculous), but nevertheless here goes: Wikipedians who write articles dealing with comic books might want to settle upon some term of art to use in place of the word "comic" (the adjectival noun indicating some thing's linkage to the world of comic books), so as to avoid confusion with the homophonic/homographic "comic" (the adjective indicating a thing's relation to comedy, as in, "Catch-22 is a comic masterpiece"). Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous, but here's an example of what I mean, with the relevant word bolded, from the subsection of this article, entitled "Reputation":

[Frank Miller] adopted visual styles and "tricks" from noir novels and movies. These included dividing pages into many, many frames to give the impression of slow motion (possibly the best comic interpretation of Thomas and Martha Wayne's murders is achieved by this).

Now, while it's true that anyone who's familiar with the comic book in question will be able to deduce from context that the writer isn't claiming that this is the funniest interpretation of the Waynes' deaths, or that it's the best of the funny interpretations of said death--nevertheless, a certain ambiguity (and a rather comic one, at that) remains. I'd like to remind my fellow comic book-reading Wikipedians out there that our audience isn't made up of people who are already as knowledgable on these matters as we are--otherwise, this whole portion of the encyclopedia would be nothing but a vanity project, right?

Maybe this is just me spitting into the wind, here, worrying about things that are largely beyond the control of a few encyclopedia writers. But then again I also imagine most comic book artists in this day and age would like people to take their work as artists seriously, and it's a bit hard to do that when that unfortunate moniker is attached to what they do... Anyway, I could have just edited the above-quoted passage for clarity, but it occured to me that there might be one or two people out there besides me who have thought about this issue. Anyone feel like contributing to this discussion? --Buck 02:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

'generic and omniscient narrator'

"While there is a generic and omniscient narrator, the most important narration comes from inside various character's heads: Batman, Jim Gordon, Robin, Catwoman, Alfred and even the Joker all are opened up to examination."

Having just re-read DKR, I cannot think of any instance of a 'generic and omniscient narrator'. I can't think of any place where the narrator is anyone other than one of the stories characters.

I'll double check tonight (I was just looking for an excuse to re-read, again) but I think this needs to change. JayDee 08:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, found it. One pages where the various copycats are described, and one section where you could argue that the narrator is Albert, talking about himself in the third person. I'll leave the article as is. JayDee 11:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Man of Steel#37

The mutants and the Batman from Dark Knight Returns appeared in the Man of Steel#37 during Zero Hour.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2006)

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename proposal

The Dark Knight Returns → Batman: The Dark Knight Returns – {Correct title for work}

Survey

• Support --Chris Griswold 16:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move & Comment I agree -- the "Batman:" prefix is helpful for the sake of organizing and clarity. I notice, however, that wikipedia is inconsistant with its Batman articles.

We have titles like:

Batman: The Long Halloween

Batman: Hush

No Man's Land (comics)

But also have titles like:

The Dark Knight Returns

The Dark Knight Strikes Again

Mad Love (comic)

Is there a standard syle template for comic book titles somwhere? ~CS 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found a standard style; I have just been going by the trademarked title given in the books. I edited all of the references to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns that I could find, and I will be moving onto DKSA when this move is over. --Chris Griswold 20:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Sorry about the clumsy move I did. Now, I am trying to fix it. Almost every reference to this work links to the new article location, and I also updated the article itself. --Chris Griswold 16:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relations to Religion

I am removing the recent anonymous addition of this section on religion. The author claims that DKR is "a retelling of the book of revelations" and lists "obvious references" that are, well, not that obvious. Without references to outside citations, this section appears to be a personal interpretation of the story, not an obvious act on the part of Miller. This falls under Wikipedia's policy of no original research and is therefore inappropriate for this article. If someone can provide specific analysis by Miller or a reputable comics critic, there might be room to include this idea in a different form. ~CS 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Powered Exoskeleton Referance

I beleive the referance to a powered exoskeleton to be questionable in it's terminology. Not to pick nits, but I think using a more easily understood term like powered armor might be more appropriate, as exo-skeleton often assumes a more medical reason for use. I won't change the referance myself if anyone wishes to discuss it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Grey (talk • contribs)

Sign your comments, add new topics to the bottom of the page, et cetera, et cetera. I can agree with your points, but I've come to learn that not everything should be dumbed down for the reader. "Exoskeleton" is the better term as that's what it truely is. This is Batman, not Steel. He's worn armor in some cases, but the robatsuit is totally different. ACS (Wikipedian) 16:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about the breach of protocol. My concern is that, technically speaking, any suit of of protective casing can be termed an "exoskeleton"; so what is it that truely defines one? Should the exo-skeleton worn by Bruce Wayne in the Kingdon Come series be regarded with the same terminology as the "Robatsuit" (a term which I LOVE, by the way)? Or take the charecter Steel; his armor is closer in application to the Robatsuit, so would that also be considered an exo-skeleton? Sicne I'm new I have no real wish to make controversial alterations, this is merely a matter of academic debate as far as I'm concerned. Violet Grey 20:41, 15 May 2006

Of course. Sorry if I was a bit a short. I see what you mean a little better now, too. I checked the Exoskeleton article and it helps make my point, sorta. It lins to artificial powered exoskeleton. That's, apparently the accepted terminology and I tend to agree. My point in relation to John Henry Irons, was that an exoskeleton is full body predoction, whether it be artificial of natural. Hower, "armor" can just be separate pieces of a material attached to certain parts of the body. Neither is perfect, but Exoskeleton implies full body production and if the proper term and link are used, it should be fine. Still the robatsuit—I just thought of that on the fly, BTW. Glad you like it so much—reference does require editting. I'll go do that now. Thanks for bring it up. One of the best things a Wikipedian can do is consult others. ACS (Wikipedian) 09:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point regarding the differance between a full body suit and simple plating. I'll concede the point to you. Violet Grey 14:30 16 May, 2006

An exoskeleton is somethings that provides some sort of protection and is worn on top of a creatures insides. Hence how bugs have exo-skeletons. By the way, Batman defeats Superman. Woot Woot. Batmans the greatest DC charecter...in my opinion.

Other Media Addition

I'd like to petition that the entry regarding the Animated rendition of the Mutant leader battle mention that Michael Ironside (the voice of Darkseide on JLU and superman) provided the voice of Batman for that segment. I just thinks it's cool and worth mentioning. Violet Grey 14:32 16 May, 2006

Joker's Accomplice

What is the name of the Joker's accomplice? His name is not mentioned in the article, but he plays a fairly important role in the story, first sabotaging Two-Face's bombs and later aiding the Joker. I'm not an expert on the DC Universe, and all I know for sure is that he's not a really well known villain, and that his trademark seems to be making dolls that explode. I currently don't have access to my copy of DKR, but if someone could check to see if his name is mentioned, I think it would be worth mentioning in the article. Smooth Nick 04:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find mention of a name with a quick scan of DKR. But that sort of thing is typical of DKR, he might be a regular Batman character with a name mentioned somewhere else.--DCAnderson 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it Humpty Dumpty? It certainly looks like him but there is nothing in the book to actually say either way or the other. 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, never mind I had just stumbled upon that and was struck by the resemblance. I didn't think to check the date of his first appearance. Hamptor 13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could it be Toyman? (JGH) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.242.19 (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Reputation: Banishment of Superheros

When you talk about the way in which superheros are reffered to, i.e. their alter ego's names, you don't make much mention of how this is tied in with the idea that were "banished", for lack of a better word. This "banishment" is mentioned in other graphic novels, e.g. DK2, Watchmen, ect., and is an intregal part of the story. This is a very important theme that come up not only in DKR but the sequal and other graphic novels (Watchmen, Kingdom Come, ect.). This is also very important to Batman's Character in DKR because it shows why he has such a disdain towards Superman. This theme also shows a move in comics in general towards that darker and grittier side where superheros are less idolized, something that was fairly new in DC comics. I would consdier adding this to your article.--Fmandog85 13:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Crossfire?

Numerous public figures were blatantly lampooned, including Ronald Reagan, Dr. Ruth, David Letterman, and the hosts of Crossfire,

I'm not entirely sure what part of the comic this sentence is referring to, but I don't think there's a spoof of Crossfire in DKR. I think maybe whoever wrote this mistook a parody of 60 Minutes' "Point/Counterpoint" segment (the title of the segment in the comic is given as "Point vs. Point") for Crossfire. Bgruber 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Homage section

In Batman: The Animated Series Season 2, Episode 06 is a child telling a story that heavily references this Frank Miller graphic novel, even direct quotes, and it is very cool. I just wanted to let everyone know, and recommend it strongly. 65.185.115.143 04:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, this was me. Forgot to login, sorry. Dumbwhiteguy777 04:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

history and literature

I am going to add a section that deals with the historical and literary aspects of the dark knight; primiarly the comic book crack down of the 50s and references to stories like fall of the house of usher and clock work organge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.131.65 (talk • contribs) on 20:04, November 9, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

If it'll be anything like your comment to this talk page, I'd rather you not. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research before you make such edits. ~CS 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Heads Up

This section is likely to get busier over the next year. Rumors have strongly suggested that the next movie in the Batman Begins franchise is "The Dark Knight". Whether or not this has anything to do with the comic however, other Wikipedia users are likely to make relevant modifications to the page.

I recommend a link to an article on the second movie to prevent their "good intentions".--MrDopple 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Damn...you're behind. I give you The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight (film). BTW, TDK is Batman's nickname and somewhat ambiguous in general. Though Begins definitely took notes from DKR, as, referenced in that article, TDK (film) won't be much like this miniseries. Ironically, only comics fans will even consider a connection, and very few are likely to mistakenly edit the article because of it.

Simply put, thanks for the thought, but Batman isn't Spider-Man. Things'll be fine. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Never underestimate an idiot. --MrDopple 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait: Who's the idiot?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even want to ask. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that comment was innocent -- He's just saying Ace shouldn't underestimate the hypothetical idiot who'll put movie-related content in this page. I agree that this page will need vigilant watching for such things, but Ace is right, there is a DAb link at the top of the page already, and it does not require a second one directly to the film. ~CS 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the generic idiot who just joins Wikipedia and hasn't read the starting guides yet. Sorry if that statement came across as though it had a target, I'm not out for blood.--MrDopple 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest some heavy editing of this article...

I think we're getting way too bloated in the synopsis: too many instances of interpretation w/out citation. A synopsis is supposed to describe the story, not be a section for random analysis of why the bat crashes thru the window of Wayne Manor prompting Bruce to re-don the cape n' cowl. Unless there's a reasonable objection in a few days, I'm gonna do some heavy editing... Tommyt 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally shrunk the syopsis down to what's necessary, and another user reverted it. I know from discussions both here and at WT:CMC that the smaller summary has community support. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- an encyclopedia article should not be a detailed description of an entire book; it should be and article *about* the book, not a reproduction of it. The previous version of this summery had three problems: it was too long and detailed, it was poorly written grammatically (beginning repeated paragraphs with "but," using shorthand instead of prose), and it was poorly written stylistically (vague statements, rambling, floating parentheticals, including interpretation as summary). The rest of the article is still weak, but eliminating some of the bloated summery improves it dramatically. ~CS 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Robin

Okay it expalins why he wears the target on his chest but someone on a forum said the DKR also expalis why Robin wears all those bright colors...Does it?

No such thing appears in the book. 24.187.77.211 20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Corto Maltese

Not a word about the "corto maltese" island ? Clearly named after Hugo Pratt's Character Corto Maltese as Miller stated he was a great admirer of Hugo Pratt's work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.250.140.180 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Silver Snail's Pork Knight

I see Gnat Rat was mentioned but Silver Snail's Pork Knight was a published parody well before and is very faithful in terms of composition. It has the painfully small TV captions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.187.77.211 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Two articles?

Why does this article even exist? Chapters in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns article is also about DKR. Aside from it's questionable title, the article has no current editing talk. I suggest that that article be renamed and replace this one.Djtron 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comics Project Improvement Drive

This article is the current focus of the Comics Project Improvement Drive. The aim is to focus the eyes of the project here and help bring the article up in quality.

The first step is to run through the article and throw and see if there are any minor fixes that can be done and then throw in thoughts on areas to address. There is also a sub-section below for people to add useful resources that can be added to the article to help flesh out the real world aspects. (Emperor 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Resources

If you know of any useful articles, interviews, studies, etc. then add then in here and we can work on integrating them into this entry. NB if they aren't easily accessible then drop in a note if you have it and a precis of the important and relevant bits would be a great help. It'd also be best if the references are templated before being put in the article. (Emperor 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Books:

• Daniels, Les. Batman: The Complete History. Chronicle Books, 1999. ISBN 0-8118-4232-0
• Pearson, Roberta E.; Uricchio, William (editors). The Many Lives of the Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media. Routledge: London, 1991. ISBN 0-85170-276-7
• Wright, Bradford W. Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America. Johns Hopkins, 2001. ISBN 0-8018-7450-5

Websites:

• "Bang!" (Time, 1986) - Minor blurb
• "BATMAN AT MIDLIFE: OR THE FUNNIES GROW UP" (The New York Times, 1987) - Negative review WesleyDodds 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• "The Passing of Pow! and Blam!" (Time, 1988) - DKR and the term "graphic novel" WesleyDodds 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See also?

Batman (Dark Knight Universe)? -- Robocoder (t|c) 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Reputation" section

Pretty much the entire section constitutes original research unless some cites can be added, stat. I see that the citation flag has been up for months- if nothing happens soon the section should be removed. 206.218.218.49 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The analysis it provides is interesting and I agree with most of it, especially the comparitions between Miller's version and that of others such as Neal Adams, Adam West or Bob Kane. --Marktreut (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is selina?

Selina, She shows up halfway through 'Hunt the Dark Knight'. I think she is cat woman, but that was just a guess. Who is she, and can you prove it?

She really let herself go. lol. :D

Ok, since the Catwoman wiki does list her as catwoman, please link to that page.

Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanearlyaug (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

minor characters

Seveal minor characters should be well noted. Lois Lane or her sister appears as a newscaster. Several of the 'talking' heads are pictures or parodies of famous people or cartoon characters. This information is missing.

Sean

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disumbug?

Do we really need a disumbuguation for Dark Knight, the name of the article is the Dark Knight 'Returns. --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 17:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Series title

Strictly speaking, the series was called simply Batman: The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Returns was the title of the first issue.—Chowbok ☠ 04:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

plot

Despite Wayne's funding the rehabilitation of Harvey Dent (Two-Face), Dent returns to crime. Wayne puts on the Batman costume again to apprehend Dent, but the populace debates whether Batman is a savior. This is not right looking at the first issue - he's wearing the costume when he finds a coin that leads him to suspect that Dent has returned to crime. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted that plot summary from an earlier version of the page. Feel free to edit it, but we should try to keep it around the same length. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The article also fails to note that "The Sons of the Batman" was around before and during the "Mutants", Batman even encounters one of them with a sawed off shotgun about to kill someone, when he intervenes. I think that's right? I haven't read it for a few years. on top of that it makes no mention of any of the work he does tracking the mutants or about the police chief at the same time.'''Aryeonos''' (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam West

the original live action batman, adam west actually showed interest of doing a DKR movie with him as bruce if I remember correctly just though it should be looked into and added to the article-76.21.106.232 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Blast

If I remember right, it's not the nuclear winter that causes the chaos, it's the EMP. Batman complains that the Russians had researched the effect of detonating it in the atmosphere.--Eckertbt (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reception and Reputation

There's nothing about the absolute impact that the comic had on the readers and the DC Universe. I mean, the reception section only has one New York Times review (negative, by the way) and one contemporary IGN review, very thin for a comic so important and highly regarded. It actually makes it seem like the comic book generated mixed reactions, which is not true, it was a critical success. George qwerty (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Swedes can learn more from "Guda-Skymning" by Claes Reimerthi (Bild & Bubbla Nr. 186, March 2011, pg. 26-39). Asteriks (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article not moved ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The Dark Knight Returns → Batman: The Dark Knight Returns — It's the official name of the work. Just look at the cover in the infobox. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the WP:COMMONNAME is the current title. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose not only is it the common name for the mini, the proper title by the indicia would be "The Dark Knight". Each issue had a different lat word onthe cover and spine. - J Greb (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wayne's age?

It says in this article that Wayne is 55 in this comic, but the Batman article that he is 50. What is his actual age in the comic? Jedi Striker (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Priced at $20.95 an issue" I don't get it, was this more than the normal price at the time? (I'm thinking above average but maybe it was very expensive, but it depends as much on the print foramt as much as anything else) If so then the text should say so, without proper context or explanation this is meaningless. This needs proper clarification. -- 109.77.128.167 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Issue - Batman Gets Quantumechanical - The Dark Matter-Energy fraud

Entanglogravitational Spring

---

entanglogravitatioal theory demands from all particles be partially entangled, even with virtual particles, and very few one to one entangle -but that is rare.

The angular momentum of that ensembles, acts like a spring, that forces all particles alling with more accuracy their mean angular momentum by killing virtual particles.

So gravity slays space, and virtual particles of the partially entangled groups. The energy of the dead particles is transformed to speed, that's why gravity attracts things, but also heat because of entropy.

We know that speed is angular momentum from particle measurments. A particle alone has a rotating spin to all possible angles. It is like a fan, but with a more delicate rotational mode. If you want to cut your finger by a fast fan, you have to interact with it, and touch it at some degrees. So you the observer define the degrees of touching, but a different observer may touch the same particle at different degrees, without

changing it's fundamental properties, only the data we record.

What we choose is the angle of measurement, what we do not know is if it spins possitively or negatively. Also, if we twist the particle there is a probabilistic chart of how much spin gets affected.

We can though affect the measured spin data, if we measure twice, without tilting the measuring apparatus, only we move the device at the second time at a fraction of the light speed. Then we have a chart of how spin gets affected.

dark matter is degrading partial entanglements but the virtual particles partially entangled die.

dark energy requres vast regions, so quantum noise of the void exceeds relativistic death of particles, there fore we have a runaway universe.

This is entanglogravity - Entanglement degradation gravity

most scientists connect mathematically entanglogravity with chromatogravity

Chromodynamic Gravity = Chromatogravity = Chromogravity

Remember, the average spin of a group should cancel, also small partially entangled spin groups, are connected in bigger groups.

The particles that form a group at eatch "quantum frame" changes. So not the exact same particles of a Planck scaled region cancel each other all the time, this is a chromodynamical probabilistic effect, and the larger the scale [more afar from Plank sizes] the more stable the group linkages are.

Tiny Planck scale entalogravitational groups, tend to exchange partners.

---

there are not that old kind of gravitons,

gravitons are normal real and virtual partialy entangled particles

that belong to groups that change probabilistically at every frame of motion

[we have to average near beholders opinions]

---

gravity is a probabilistic phenomenon [probabilistic pressure, probabilistic spacetime consumation among particles] that fades with distance. So galaxies are more compact than they should be, because their particles relativistic positioning is the result of all infinite [or simplified Feynman's] paths interference pattern. The relativistic paths that leed to the core of the galaxy are a lot more compound and their wavefunction consists of infinite probable field oscillations of higher frequency and so energy. The outer relativistic paths of a solitary galaxy are very stretched and composited of lower energy and frequency infinite probable oscillations. Also there are suggestions that most relativistic paths that started from the galaxy as positioning defining paths to outer space, even those during the long trip to exit all stars, statistically most rebound [bend] backwards, to higher probabilistic positioning pathways, and higher probabilistic density regions. Only few relativistic positioning [gravitational] pathways of the overall wavefunction choose to escape.

The probabilistic dencity of a particles wavefunction avoids to degrade it's speading mode by entering a space chunk that consumes probabilistic positioning [relativistic] energy. Therefore the light bends to choose a space chunk that time passes faster and has less gravity, because compression of spacetime takes energy, and particles always choose the easiest posible relativistic pathway, exactly like gravity behaves in the space chunk of a solitary galaxy. An yeah. We have all the math for it. We must organise better some types though and build better mechanisms, we must build Calculus 2 or Relativistic Calculus, all with existing maths. Keep in mind particles have inner spin time/inner perspective external speed, infinite beholded spin times and external speed ratios, also inner perspective space chunk spin time[ = constant ]of the place they are, and zero inner perspective space chung motion,beholded space chunk spin times and beholded space chunk external speeds. We must take all in account and use Feynmans method to avoid infinite calculations. Today we have all the math and we can measure all the data. We just need the 4 great mathematicians to organise relativistic Calculus - or Calculus 2 in a way that schoolchildren can use. We need standardization well written like Leibniz did, not an egomaniac Newton's same system but written like shit, therefore problematic for teaching.

---

the sectet formula was stolen by a nazi theorist, that wanted to destroy the world with Dark Matter,

Batman almost wins the Battle but a girl that is supposingly on his side, betrays him with an electic shocker!

Batman gets entangled in a radioactive mucus, and the Nazi professor forces Batman to watch the end of Earth

from a spaceship, he is no willing to slay Batman for he is of higher blood, olny to "reform him" with his

100 years electoshock method.

Finaly the professor presses the button to destroy the world, but nothing happens because he miscalculated.

Batman retuns not a saviour but ridiculed by people and media altogether, even the president.

He tries to stop a robbery, and the thieves leave after making a deal with police officers,

not because they are afraid of Batman, but to show to the world that he is useless.

At last, Batman retrieves the correct theory of entanglogravity and the importance of varius time space chunks and

also the importance of virtual particles.

He becomes a hero again, but he founds out that the physicist that discovered the correct theory and formulas

of Calculus 2 or Quantumenchanical Calculus, is in the hands of a VERY SEXY new heroine, that used to work

for the Nazi professor that now had suicided. But that is on the next album.

[After many pages we discover that the sexy girl is the grand-daugher of the nazi professor, she hates Batman for helping the world, but she wants his on her bed - [on her bed for sex, in the bed we use for sleeping so here we use on because she wanted action]

Wayne's age continued

In the opening stages of The Dark Knight Returns, Bruce Wayne goes to the place where his parents died and says that Batman was born there forty years ago. This would make Bruce 15 years old when his parents died, which seems unlikely. Was it officially stated in the book that he was 55 years old?. Aassdddai (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it does say at the end that he is 55. But he keeps reminiscing about thirty, twenty, forty years ago in the book that is doesn't make much sense. Aassdddai (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Roy Harper

Does Roy or anyone else named Harper appear in this? I remember that Ollie does just not sure bout Speedy.

Reason I ask is in the Girl Meets World episode, the teacher Harper Burgess mentions to Riley "My father gave me my love of books, he's why I became a teacher. It's why he named me Harper. You'll figure it out."

I don't know if she meant to imply the answer to her name was in TDKR or if more broadly that introducing them to DC Comics would lead them to encounter Roy Harper. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Dark Knight Returns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123992364819927171
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123103849/http://www.darkknight.ca/storylines/tdkr.html to http://www.darkknight.ca/storylines/tdkr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)