The images were posted on Adams' website, where he quasi-explained,

I have never been able to bring my "A" game to Batman, to my satisfaction. Oh, a little here and there, but all out? Never, never. On this project? Yep. This is the Batman I believe in. So what do I, and of course the incredible Frank Miller bring to Batman after all that's gone before? Well it better be something that's pretty darn hot, Jocko, right?

He's actually been more descriptive before; two years ago, he revealed that Odyssey is planned as a six-to-eight issue series plotted and drawn by Adams, who defined the look of the Dark Knight in the 1970s, with dialogue from Miller, whose The Dark Knight Returns redefined the character in the 1980s.
Officially, the series doesn't exist; asked this week about it by Newsarama.com, DC Comics Executive Editor Dan Didio only offered a non-confirmation confirmation,

[S]ince it's never been officially announced, I can't really say if anything's going on with it... And if I had 80 pages in my drawer of it, right now, I still wouldn't be able to talk about it.

With Bruce Wayne rumored to be returning to the pages of Batman comics early next year, don't expect to see this before mid-2010 at the very earliest.

(Via)

Perhaps the most damning part of the decision document was the revelation that executives at Warners shared fans' cynicism about Superman's potential (Remember, Warners and DC were the defendants in this case):

Defendants' film industry expert witness, Mr. [John] Gumpert, termed Superman as "damaged goods," a character so "uncool" as to be considered passe, an opinion echoed by Warner Bros. business affairs executive, Steven Spira... Indeed, Mr. [Alan] Horn [Warner Bros. President] admitted to being "daunted" by the fact that the 1987 theatrical release of Superman IV had generated around $15 million domestic box office, raising the specter of the "franchise [having] played out."

Almost as surreally, DC and Warners apparently argued to the court that

Superman was equivalent [in terms of public recognition and financial value] to a low-tier comic book character that appeared mostly on radio during the 1930s and 1940s and that has not been seen since a brief television show in the mid-1960s (the Green Hornet); an early 20th century series of books (Tarzan) or a 1930s series of pulp stories (Conan) later intermittently made into comic books and films; or a television, radio, and comic book character from the 1940s and 1950s, much beloved by my father, that long ago rode off into the proverbial sunset with little-to-no exploitation in film or television for decades (The Lone Ranger).

And these are the people in charge of the character?!?

There was, of course, legal value in downplaying Superman's status for WB and DC. But it's hard to shake the sense that even the character's owners don't understand the value and potential of Clark Kent's alter ego, or who (and what) he is and could be. But should we really be surprised, considering that these are the same people behind the pedestrian Smallville and almost-there-but-what-the-hell-is-with-the-stalker-thing Superman Returns?

Superman should, by rights, be up there with Batman. Certainly, he has the longevity and the high-concept, if not the moral ambiguity - and maybe that's one of the problems, that Superman's "goodness," his moral character and status as a reminder of our own potential, puts people off - to match Gotham's broodiest citizen. But what he lacks, and not necessarily for want of trying, is the pop cultural impact that Batman has had; it's not that Batman is necessarily a better character, but he's definitely one who has, at four specific points in the last decades (and, for the most part, in different ways), perfectly synched with the cultural zeitgeist to gain a weird standing as some kind of cultural avatar with a cape.

(Those points, for me, in case you're wondering: The 1960s TV show, which was less to do with Batman as a character as comic books as a medium, taking the "low art" trappings of the character and milking them for all their worth as pop art was doing the same. 1986's The Dark Knight Returns and 2008's The Dark Knight, which both used the character to embody and express paranoia and fear about politics and society in the real world, and 1989's Batman movie, which showed the power of branding, making the movie and the character foremost in everyone's minds by sheer force of making sure that no-one could turn anywhere without seeing a reminder of it.)

Superman, by comparison, is almost never allowed that level of contemporaneous value by the people telling his (mass media) stories, instead finding himself portrayed as either an anachronism due to his values or a naive outsider who doesn't fully understand the darker side of human nature (I have to separate comics from this; many comic creators such as Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek and Grant Morrison have tried to demonstrate how Superman can and should work in modern, cynical society); I don't know whether it's that those making the stories think that that's how everyone else views Superman and that they should match that, or whether they see the character as someone out of step with modern times, but simply by taking that approach, they limit the impact Superman can have, and prevent him from becoming the success he should be.

(There's also a third route, as Bryan Singer's Superman Returns demonstrated: Superman as Jesus. But the problem with that is that, in order for the story to work as a superhero story, he has to stop turning the other cheek at some point. If you dropped a couple of "I am floating outside your window" scenes and added some more scenes of derring-do, Returns would've been a much better movie.)

Here's the thing: I firmly believe that now should be Superman's time. As The Dark Knight took all of our Bush-era worries and concerns and made them into an action movie, so should Superman be around right now to embody Obama's (still-resonant, even a year after campaigning) message of hope and positive change and being the best we can be. Instead of using Superman's inherent positivity against him, or thinking that it pushes him out of step with today's world, focus on the way in which he personifies that which we want to believe in, and the people that we want to be. If we elected a president because we believed in the ideals of Yes We Can and Hope and Change and all those buzzwords, I refuse to believe that we wouldn't want to see a movie that sold us the same message but with added punching, flying and action.

(I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Star Trek's success comes as much from it being positive and colorful and optimistic escapism as it being a good movie, this time around. Superman has those qualities in spades.)

Is Superman damaged goods? To an extent, yes, but he shouldn't be; there's nothing wrong with the character, or the concept, when done right, and I think that the audience is more ready for what he's selling now than they have been in years. What damages him most, perhaps, is the attitude from his owners that he's a problem that they don't know how to solve. The first step to stopping him being damaged goods is to stop treating him that way.

If You Loved The Denseness Of Watchmen:
From Hell
To my mind, this is Alan Moore's masterpiece (and one we've already recommended - 500+ pages that look behind (and beyond) the legend of Jack the Ripper to offer a dissertation on murder, majesty and London, ably (and atmospherically) illustrated by Eddie Campbell. As full and as deep as Watchmen at its best, but with more subtlety and patience, From Hell offers a rich experience that may not offer as many people in costumes, but may be all the more rewarding for that. [Amazon]

If You Loved The Way The Book Played With The Comic Medium:
Or Else
On the face of it, Kevin Huizenga's work is almost the very opposite of Watchmen; in many cases autobiographical and entirely devoid of superheroes or apocalyptic scenarios. But Huizenga shares a fascination - and desire to experiment - with the language of comics that goes beyond what Moore and Gibbons did in Watchmen, moving into abstract images and wordlessness that takes the medium in directions that Dr. Manhattan would be proud of. The best example - and the place to start - would be Or Else #2, "Gloriana," where a sunset turns into something altogether more unusual and magical.

If You Loved The Adult Approach To Superheroes:
Sleeper
Ed Brubaker and Sean Philips' story of a superpowered secret agent who goes undercover in a criminal organization only to get in way over his head - emotionally and strategically - offers up both the nods to comics' past (Especially in the twisted secret origins that pepper the series) and the "real people who just happen to have superpowers" aspects of Watchmen, but take the latter much further; the characters here aren't the iconic archetypes and stereotypes of Moore and Gibbons' book, but much more genuine, believable, and recognizable as us. Brubaker and Philips' Incognito, which just launched a couple of months ago, is in a similar vein and well worth checking out as well. [Amazon]

If You Loved Dr. Manhattan's Cosmic Perspective:
The Invisibles
Much longer, chaotic and disorganized than Watchmen, Grant Morrison's long-running story of the 1990s The Invisibles crosses time, dimensions and questions the very nature of reality on a regular basis. Ripped off by The Matrix, The Invisibles is a much more individual work (although stealing from multiple sources itself, shamelessly) that wants to change the way you look at the world, if you let it. [Amazon]

If You Loved The Near-Future Setting Of Watchmen:
100%
I've recommended Paul Pope's work here enough to make it clear that I'm a massive fanboy, but that doesn't change the fact that 100% is the ideal follow-on if you liked the small details that made Watchmen's world so similar-but-different to our own. Focusing on the characters allows him to sneak in all manner of alternate-world SFisms without you noticing until it's too late, but this is a beautiful and necessary book that, come to think of it, should be made into a movie of its own. Just keep Zack Snyder away from it. [Amazon]

If You Loved The Cold War World-building of Watchmen:
American Flagg
Howard Chaykin's American Flagg - a 1980s contemporary of Watchmen - takes the Cold War paranoia of Moore and Gibbons in a whole new, satirical, direction and to the world of 2031, where America's government has moved to Mars, turned corporate and taken on a particularly Russian approach to some subjects, allowing former television star and new "Plexus Ranger" Reuben Flagg to try and keep the peace in a future Chicago. Sharing a similar dark humor to Watchmen, it's as much a product of its time, but well worth checking out. [Amazon]

If You Want Cold War World-Building In A Near-Future Setting Complete With An Adult Approach To Superheroes, But Without That High-Brow Shit:
The Dark Knight Returns
Okay, there's really no avoiding this one although, chances are, if you've read Watchmen, you've also read this; Dark Knight, created around the same time as Watchmen, and the book that made Frank Miller into the superstar megalomaniac that he is today, still stands as a singular achievement and the book that Batman stories are still measured against today. And why not? Whether it's the satire of Reagan's appearances, the cynical re-view on Superman or the dystopia of Gotham taken to the Nth degree, there's a lot to admire about this book even twenty years (and countless rip-offs) later. [Amazon]

If You Want To See Where It All Started:
Miracleman
Moore's first series of note - now, sadly, out of print and lost in a legal mess over rights issues - wasn't just the start of his career, but also the the first major deconstructionist superhero work in mainstream American comics. Taking a cloned version of Captain Marvel and pushing him into a more realistic world without entirely undoing everything that came before, Moore rehearsed many of the ideas in Watchmen here, but in a less formal, more human way. One day, this series will hopefully return to bookstores and everyone will see the connections; for now, spend your time in back issue bins and on eBay looking for the original issues or collected editions.

If You Want A More Optimistic Period Piece About Superheroes:
DC: The New Frontier
In many ways, the polar opposite of Watchmen (The cynicism and despair of that book being replaced with a boldness, optimism and strong belief in the inherent goodness of its characters), New Frontier is no less an achievement. Darwyn Cooke's beautiful take on the origins of DC's Silver Age characters (focusing mostly on Green Lantern, but taking in so many more along the way) is, in its own ways, as much a love letter to comics and superheroes as Watchmen is, but simply one that chooses to focus on the happier side of things. And, with Cooke's amazing artwork (presented in a three-panel format for the entire book, in much the same way that Watchmen adheres to a nine-panel format throughout), I have to commit potential heresy and admit that New Frontier looks much, much better than Watchmen. [Amazon]

Longer version: Originally the result of Moore looking to revitalize characters purchased from the defunct publisher Carlton Comics for DC Comics - characters who later found their way into the regular DC Universe such as the Question, Captain Atom and Peacemaker - in a similar way to which he had approached Swamp Thing and Marvelman/Miracleman (both of which he has won industry awards for), Watchmen grew in terms of scope and ambition as Moore and Gibbons worked on the series, eventually becoming a series that would redefine the superhero genre forever... much to the creators' upset. Aiming to create, in Moore's words, the superhero version of Moby Dick, the two veterans of British SF comic 2000AD set out to make a book that required multiple re-readings and tried to redefine the technical boundaries of the comic medium; the series is structurally complex in ways that are still groundbreaking, from the metatextual comic-within-the-comic Tales From The Black Freighter to the complex use of visual metaphors throughout the book (most obviously in the fifth chapter's visual symmetry).

Sadly, neither the technical brilliance nor the ambition of the creators became the lesson learned from Watchmen's success; instead, the book - and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, also published by DC in 1986 - ushered in a spate of "grim and gritty" superhero stories that aped the story's tone without understanding the intelligence, or humanity, that lay underneath. Moore has since decried Watchmen's influence within the genre:

The gritty, deconstructivist postmodern superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen, also became a genre. It was never meant to. It was meant to be one work on its own. I'd have liked to have seen more people trying to do something that was as technically complex as Watchmen, or as ambitious, but which wasn't strumming the same chords that Watchmen had strummed so repetitively. The apocalyptic bleakness of comics over the past 15 years sometimes seems odd to me, because it's like that was a bad mood that I was in 15 years ago. It was the 1980s, we'd got this insane right-wing voter fear running the country, and I was in a bad mood, politically and socially and in most other ways. But it was a genuine bad mood, and it was mine. I've seen a lot of things over the past 15 years that have been a bizarre echo of somebody else's bad mood. It's not even their bad mood, it's mine.

Nonetheless, the book was a critical and commercial success unlike any other. A multiple award-winner within the comic industry, the book has also been recognized in the mainstream; Time Magazine called it one of the best 100 English-language novels written since 1923 and Entertainment Weekly said it was "the greatest superhero story ever told" and one of the best 50 novels of the last 25 years. The collected edition has remained a top seller since it was released (outselling every other graphic novel released last year, for example), and it will likely always be one of - if not the comic that other superhero comics will be compared with in terms of content, technique, and critical and commercial success.

Miller still wants to see a movie version of his groundbreaking graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns, and he thinks Sylvester Stallone should star. He told the LA Times:

"Just that mouth of his, the scowl and the way it would look in a mask. I loved 'Rocky Balboa.' This wounded warrior, that's what Batman is in 'Dark Knight Returns.'"

Now I saw the new Rambo, and after watching him blow up half of the world and then mutter one-liners about how killing people is bad, I don't know if Stallone has the "subtle" touch of an older Batman. Wasn't Clint Eastwood getting tossed around as a rumor for this part at one time? Now that's a more believable man for the aged Batman's patience and wit.

As for those Nolan rumors, the UK's News Of The World is reporting that there will be no more Nolan Bat-pictures. The World claims that Nolan is moving on according to Aaron Eckhart who allegedly said, "Chris hasn’t said he’s going to make a third film. I think he wants to make other movies." Apparently this is because Nolan can't imagine making another Bat-movie without Heath Ledger. Right, and Nolan is going to walk away after that whole truck load of money they made this year? Not going to happen.

[LA Times and The News Of The World]

Spinning out of Watchmen director Zach Snyder's offhand comment that he'd like to see Miller's classic 1986 bat-book on the big screen, Newsarama.com's Michael Doran argued why such an adaptation would make sense as a follow-on to The Dark Knight:

By leaving the Joker (literally) hanging at the end of The Dark Knight, Nolan left open-ended a story that begs to be finished. Even Tim Burton knew he had to kill Jack Nicholson at the "end". Nolan himself killed Ra's at the end of Batman Begins and he even tied-up a loose end regarding the Scarecrow in The Dark Knight. These are both clear signals Nolan knows the story has to have an end and has some idea for that end already in mind.

Nolan further foreshadows the future in The Dark Knight's climatic moments as well. Remember when the Joker tells Batman the two of them can "do this for years"? Filmmakers of Nolan's talent don't throw away lines like that, especially in a moment like that. That was the director signaling to the audience that he understands one of "The Dark Knight Returns'" main themes - that the Joker's very existence is primarily to be Batman's nemesis and their fates were inevitably intertwined, as well as a signal that their final showdown will in fact come years down the road.

Which brings us back to the three-act structure: Act One (Batman Begins) was the first Batman story. Act Two (The Dark Knight) was a classic tragic turning point.

So what does this demand Act Three be?

Well, not only the final battle of Batman and the Joker, but also the last Batman story, of course.

He even helpfully listed all the reasons for a DKR conclusion to the movie series:

1.) The Dark Knight's title and ending makes the next film being called "The Dark Knight Returns" logical.
2.) The next film needs to further "escalate" the series, and be even bigger and bolder than The Dark Knight.
3.) Nolan seems to be crafting a three-act structure, and left the Joker's fate open to be a major element of a final act.
4.) The “Dark Knight Returns” future setting gives Nolan some "room" to help recast the Joker.

It's almost compelling, but I think Frank Miller doesn't need to be breaking out the champagne just yet (Instead, go back to the editing bay and try and make The Spirit look a little more promising, Frank). After all, while Nolan and his team have tipped their hat to classic Batman comics in their two films so far (Batman Begins pretty much ends with the final scene from Year One, and The Long Halloween informs a lot of The Dark Knight, to name just two), they really haven't shown any sign of wanting to just outright film an existing story just yet. The idea of making The Dark Knight Returns into a movie may be thematically sound, but would either require significant reworking or else the recasting of all roles for actors ten or fifteen years older than Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman.

The further practicalities of having to rework the story to remove Superman, Green Arrow and Robin - whom Nolan has already said will not appear in any of his movies, perhaps because of his dislike for green trunks - as well as Ronald Reagan somewhat beg the question... What's left after you've done all of that? A story about Batman returning from retirement, fighting the Joker and some mutants and then faking his own death to avoid capture which may be interesting - and could definitely be used as the basis for a great movie - but isn't really The Dark Knight Returns anymore.

The third Christopher Nolan Batman movie, when it comes - and it really must be a matter of "when" and not "if" at this point - is likely to draw the story from the last two movies to some kind of conclusion, and it may even feature a new version of the Joker, should anyone be brave enough to step into Ledger's shoes. But will it be The Dark Knight Returns? I very much doubt it.

Is a 'Dark Knight Return' in Batman's Film Future? [Newsarama]

The Classics

The Dark Knight Returns: Frank Miller's 1986 reinvention of Batman is still one of his best-known and most well-regarded stories. Sure, a lot of it may not have aged well - all of the Ronald Reagan scenes, for example - but no-one can deny how good it is to see Bruce Wayne come out of retirement to kick some mutant ass and save the world.

Batman: Year One: Going from Batman's retirement to his origins, Miller's follow-up to Dark Knight (illustrated beautifully by David Mazucchelli and Richmond Lewis) provides not only the tone for Batman Begins but also for most Batman comics for about the next two decades. Don't hold that against it, though; melding noir to superheroics with skill and restraint, this may be the best Batman comic ever.

The Killing Joke: The potential secret origin of the Joker, courtesy of Alan Moore and Brian Bolland, both at the height of their powers. For the first time since his creation, Batman's most famous nemesis comes over and scary and dangerous, and a million miles away from Cesar Romero... sadly enough for poor Batgirl.

The Obscure

Batman: Year One Hundred: Paul Pope takes a jump to 2039 (100 years after Bob Kane invented Batman, hence the title) and shows us how a totalitarian police state deals with a vigilante Pope describes as "someone with the body of David Beckham, the brain of Nikola Tesla, and the wealth of Howard Hughes, who is pretending to be Nosferatu." Like Blade Runner, but with costumes and punching.

Gotham Central: Unresolved Targets: What happens when the Joker discovers the internet? Why, he starts killing people live on webcam and holds the city hostage to the idea that they might be next, of course. This collection from the sadly short-lived Gotham Central series by Greg Rucka, Ed Brubaker and Michael Lark (all currently to found on Marvel's Daredevil series) shows us the terror from the point of view of Gotham's cops... who aren't exactly Batman's biggest fans.

JLA: New World Order: Anyone who's read Grant Morrison's take on the Justice League of America knows that Batman can do anything if he puts his mind to it. That's a fact demonstrated best in this first collection, where the Dark Knight single-handedly defeats an alien invasion and saves all the super-powered heroes with only his wits and a box of matches. Garishly-colored superheroics the way you need it.

Batman: Dangerous Dames and Demons: An anthology of comics based on the old animated series from the '90s, all written by that show's executive producer Paul Dini and drawn by various artists from the show, including Bruce Timm. Worth it to see Harley Quinn cut loose in Mad Love alone.

The Admittedly Goofy

A Death In The Family: Post-Killing Joke, the regular Batbooks decided to try out this new murderous Joker for themselves, letting fans decide via phone vote whether or not he'd succeed in killing Robin the Boy Wonder. Fans voted in their thousands, and poor Robin was toast... Well, until they brought him back from the dead a few years ago.

Showcase Presents: The Brave And The Bold - The Batman Team-Ups Volume 2: While both Brave and Bold collections are full of enjoyably stupid Batman stories from the late '60s and early '70s, the second volume is by far the greatest, if only for the stories where Batman meets the ghosts of his dead parents and fights the devil. Here's a clue how that one ends up: The devil wins.

All-Star Batman Volume One: It seemed like a no-lose proposition for DC Comics: Pair up your hottest artist, Jim Lee, with Frank Miller returning to the character that made his name. The problem was that the result was a dark-natured parody of the character who's given to saying things like "Are you dense? Are you retarded? I'm the goddamn Batman" to people who ask why he'd dressed in that ridiculous outfit. Completely over-the-top fun.