Animation supervisor Wes Takahashi, who then was the head of ILM's animation department, worked heavily on the film's time travel sequences, as he had done in the original film and in Part III. As Part II neared release, sufficient footage of Part III had been shot to allow a trailer to be assembled. It was added to the conclusion of Part II before the closing credits, as a reassurance to moviegoers that there was more to follow.
Second part of the animated adaptation of Frank Miller's classic comic book miniseries, The Dark Knight Returns. This part deals with the return of the Joker, Batman continuing his war on crime with a new Robin by his side, and Superman being sent by the President to stop Bats. As with the first part, it's pretty faithful to the comics. It does draw out some scenes longer. I can't help but feel like that wouldn't have been necessary had they just combined parts 1 and 2 into a single film. Also, as with the first part, I have problems with the animation not being stylized enough and the voices of Batman and others not being handled by Kevin Conroy and company. I said with my review on the first part that it's hard to really capture what made the comic work so well with a cartoon made nearly 30 years later after countless imitations and knockoffs. I do think some of the reviews giving this 10's are mainly fans of the comic rating it super high because they love the books. This is a good cartoon but it's nowhere near the boundary-pushing work of art fans are making it out to be. Again, that was the comic but this is the cartoon and the two are just not the same. It's still a fun movie, particularly for fans. I enjoyed it even more than part one and it's especially interesting to watch now after having seen this year's Batman v Superman, which borrowed heavily from this story. Whatever problems I have with this animated film, I do think it's far better than that disjointed glum mess. Best viewed with part one as a whole.
When versions of the movie's title came out translated into other languages, it's completely plain that they're using the plural of Jedi in a way that English (and the marketing department) left ambiguous. On purpose? That was Gabriel's question. I am terrified to think that someone could purposefully create this kind of two-tier narrative structure hung off something like this, because I can't even conceive of conceiving of a play like that. I have psychic bulwarks, inscribed with runes, to defend me against ninety percent of marketing rays. But something like this is Inception tier, puncturing the channels I use to think normally and sucking greedily. God, I hope it's not intentional. Because I've been thinking about it for a week. 2b1af7f3a8