Re: Geoff Johns And Jim Lee Promise "ShitBomb Announcements" For "Superman" At DC

thecolorsblend Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:38 pm

URL- http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/06/11/grant-morrisons-superman-the-liberal-activist

Guess we better deal with this right now. It seems that Grant Morrison will be handling a very Golden Agey type of Superman. Not only in terms of power level but also in terms of worldview. People have called that Superman a socialist because in one issue he knocked down a crappy tenement so the government could build better housing.

The solicit for Action Comics #1 says

This momentous first issue will set in motion the history of the DC Universe as Superman defends a world that doesn’t trust their first Super Hero.

I don't think that's a plot that should apply to Superman. Lesser superheroes? Yeah, sure, but not Superman. But apart from that, here are some other remarks from Grant Morrison from that Bleeding Cool link.

Grant Morrison, circa Feb. 2011 wrote:But I love all the different versions, even the ones that are very different from “All Star Superman.” I think if I was to do it again, for instance, I’d like to do the early Superman, who just lifts trucks and who can be hurt by a bursting shell. I’d like to do something really interesting with that guy. The young, angry Superman. The different versions always fascinate me because they all add up to this huge, gigantic, multi-generational story. It’s something quite unique.

And...

Grant Morrison in 2008 wrote:And I wanted to do a story of Superman’s first year in Metropolis when he wasn’t so powerful and he was a bit more of a liberal activist. And to do that kind of Superman, the big heavy guy who can only pick up trucks and be killed by an exploding shell, you can kind of do that as the first year and see the differences between that guy and the incredibly powerful, self-assured man-god in the main All Star Superman book. So those are the three stories I came up with and as I say, they were slightly off the main storyline but related to it so I hope to do those when the current workload eases up because as I say I could just keep doing that Superman stuff forever.

People are now connecting those quotes to what might be coming Action Comics. There's not much info about what the new Action Comics will be like though so it may be premature to go off the deep end about the right now.

Oh yeah, and this pretty much destroys my "Action Comics will cover Clark/Superboy growing up in Smallville" theory.

webhead2006 Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:34 pm

Hmm so he wants to bring superman back to golden age take. Interesting. How do you guys feel about that? As for smallville/superboy stuff for clark maybe the first issue or two will cover. That. Cause I believe I read the other day that the perez supermann book will cover the more changes to supes"history" and his relationship with daily planet and lois lane.

Apologist Puncher Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:14 pm

webhead2006 wrote:

So, I guess Sloth from 'The Goonies' is headlining Action Comics now?

Awww, and he even tied on a tiny little cape too??

Geoff Johns And Jim Lee Promise "ShitBomb Announcements" For "Superman" At DC - Page 5 Thumbdown

Geoff Johns And Jim Lee Promise "ShitBomb Announcements" For "Superman" At DC - Page 5 Thumbdown

thecolorsblend Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:50 pm

Father Finian wrote:You know, I thought it would be impossible for Singerman to sink any lower in my opinion, but it did.

My Blu-ray box turned up yesterday and I gave STM and Singerman a side by side quality comparison. They have done an amazing job on STM, you can actually see the fabric in Reeve's costume! As for the new DTS-MA audio.....just mindblowing. The neighbours must've loved me last night!

Singerman....all I could stomach was the plane rescue sequence. Terrible. Noisy, grainy image with bland chroma levels and digital artifacts everywhere.

You'd go a long way to find a theatrical feature that High Definition DOESN'T help. Nice one Bryan. That's what you get for using video technology that you get in a phone these days.

I don't know much about this kind of stuff but I've heard several supposed experts say that the Genesis cameras were still basically prototypes when Singer decided to use them for Singerman. In fact, it was even suggested that Genesis is the main reason for the dull, drabby costumes and production design. At that point in development, the system could not accurately reproduce your brighter, more vibrant colors and so Singer willingly used a very limited color palette. Rather than using a proven system, the nitwit willingly tied his own hands behind his back... for some reason.

Singerman is an ugly "film" in any case though. With STM, Unsworth used a lot of smoke and fog for atmospheric effect. Singer attempted to replicate some of that digitally and it looked like shit. I'm too lazy to find screen caps but I remember a sequence where Singerman flew over the sea, stopped and turned to look back at Metropolis. There was supposed to be a "light wrap" effect around his head but it looked so shitty that I had to wonder if the technicians behind the shot had more than a day to work on it. Probably Singer was partying so much their development time got cut down before they got final notes from him. That apparently happened with a lot of Singerman's CG effects.

My opinions on "digital cinema" have really undergone a lot of reevaluation the past few years in any case, partly as a result of Singerman (smudging, artifacting and whatnot were pretty evident even with the DVD release) but partly from the realization that digital images are "stuck" at whatever resolution they're shot at. Film is theoretically infinitely scannable and so it can "change" with the times but a digital image will only ever be at that same resolution or less but never higher. So when we move beyond current hi-def resolution specs... digital movies won't because they CAN'T.

Father Finian Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:06 am

Mate, I work in the industry and you are 100% spot on

thecolorsblend Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:46 am

Father Finian wrote:Mate, I work in the industry and you are 100% spot on

That's good to know. And as much as I love him, I kinda have to lay a lot of this at the feet of George Lucas. And I consider myself a fan of the guy too so that kinda hurts. I'm perfectly willing to play George Lucas apologist on certain things but his emphasis on digital production... I honestly feel that's hurt the movie industry. Not now, but 10 or 15 years from now, we'll start seeing these old, "legacy" films shot in 2000 to oh maybe 2009 or so that were shot digitally that almost look like home movies by future standards because of the bleeding edge technology they took advantage of back in their respective productions.

On top of that, even films shot on regular film that used heavy CG effects may have trouble being upgraded to whatever inevitably replaces hi-def because those effects are at (max) HD spec right now. All well and good when HD rez is the standard... but when this hypothetical future standard exceeds HD rez, um, what do you do then? Unless I'm missing something, you either reduce the resolution of whatever generation technology you're using (in which case, why the fuck are you even bothering in the first place?) or you spend millions remastering the effects to get 'em up to scratch for this new format (and do you plan to do that for EVERYTHING?).

It's almost a lose-lose proposition.

It's funny. Pre-digital technology was far from perfect but it didn't usually have all of these fucking compatibility problems. I think the typical analog Nazi is an authentic lunatic but he's got a point when it comes to this part of the deal. Here's an example: you want to release STM on a new home video format? Remaster the film, mass produce the physical media, release 'em to stores, rake in the cash. That was the procedure back in the 80's and remains so now.

Want to release Singerman on a new home video format? To take full advantage of it, you have to create new masters with upgraded (higher res) effects for the entire fucking movie, spend 6 months or a year on the job, mass produce the physical media, release 'em to stores and cross your fingers that nobody notices you did it on the cheap (although given that we're talking about Singerman, nobody's watching anyway but this is just an example).

There's gotta be a better way...

Father Finian Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:55 pm

thecolorsblend wrote:There's gotta be a better way...

Yeah, and you're right again. I'd hate to think what Singerman would've looked like on an IMAX screen.....especially with it's phony and half hearted 3D sequences.

Funny you mentioned Lucas (and yes, he has a lot to answer for in this field), pixellation was clearly visible in the film print of the first prequel. You have to wonder what he's trying to achieve.

thecolorsblend Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:11 pm

Father Finian wrote:Funny you mentioned Lucas (and yes, he has a lot to answer for in this field), pixellation was clearly visible in the film print of the first prequel. You have to wonder what he's trying to achieve.

In the short term, that much is easy: a finished product.

But the issue here is that nobody seems to be thinking long term. Yeah, Episode III (mostly) looks great on DVD. I'm sure it'll also look great on Blu-Ray. But what do you do when a format comes along that exceeds the HD/Blu-Ray image spec in however many years?

Meanwhile, Raiders of the Lost Ark "only" needs to be remastered for that new format/resolution and then released. Relatively simple compared to the shit you'll have to go through newer films.

non_amos Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:02 pm

Father Finian wrote:
thecolorsblend wrote:There's gotta be a better way...

Yeah, and you're right again. I'd hate to think what Singerman would've looked like on an IMAX screen.....especially with it's phony and half hearted 3D sequences.

Funny you mentioned Lucas (and yes, he has a lot to answer for in this field), pixellation was clearly visible in the film print of the first prequel. You have to wonder what he's trying to achieve.

I'll confess. I actually saw Singerman twice at the theaters. The 1st time was the 10 PM showing the night before the official release on a regular screen. The next time was a few weeks later on an IMAX screen. One reason I wanted to see it on IMAX was due to the, get this, FOUR SCENES IN 3-D! What a ripoff! Couldn't Singer have at least done the entire film in 3-D?! And I'll tell you the truth, it wasn't worth it!

Singerman was probably the first 3-D experience I had had since probably the 80's! Back then I saw FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III in 3-D & was actually impressed with the technology at the time. However, I think then it was looked at as a 'gimmick' & didn't exactly take off in popularity. Nevertheless, years later, in the decade of the '2000's', it took off like a rocket. Now, it seems like every film & their cousin wants to jump on the 3-D bandwagon. Anyway, back to the 'Jason' film. To me, at that time, around 1981 I believe, it was awesome! A real experience! But fast-forward to Singerman. When I saw those 4 scenes in 3-D, they looked like CRAP! It was like it was out of focus or something. Ya know, they say that part of the 'gimmick' is that the way it's made 'tricks' your brain into perceiving the 3-D images. Well, to me, that was proven wrong with Singerman! Instead it was like a chore to watch those scenes, but then again, that probably goes back to the crap way that Singer made the film in the 1st place.

Since Singerman I've seen just a few 3-D films, not really a lot, only a handful, the most recent being THOR. Nevertheless they all blew Singerman away in the 3-D arena! And one of them was even animated! And believe it or not, one of the best 3-D films I saw was MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D starring Jensen Ackles of Supernatural fame. I really enjoyed the use of 3-D in that film. But you're right Father Finian, Singerman even sucked in 3-D! Laughing

thecolorsblend Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:19 am

I don't think it's usually my business to defend Singerman for ANYTHING but I recall Singer saying that the limited number of deleted scenes was a time issue. He claimed that the decision was made late in production and there wasn't time to do a full 3D conversion of the film. Not sure if I buy that but that's what he claimed.

Just for the sake of argument though, let's say that Singerman had been fully rendered in 3D. So what, BFD, it would've sucked in 3D! Seeing three dimensions of the movie's crapitude at, what, a $15 ticket price never struck me as a great bargain.

Not bashing on you, of course. Hell, I saw it twice in theaters so I'm just as guilty. Once at the 10pm premiere (which was itself kinda weird; 10pm? Not midnight?) and then once more about week later when the reality had started sinking in that Singerman was a crusty turd bomb.

webhead2006 Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:17 pm

This could be final cover for superman #1:
Geoff Johns And Jim Lee Promise "ShitBomb Announcements" For "Superman" At DC - Page 5 1307917317237

non_amos Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:30 pm

webhead2006 wrote:This could be final cover for superman #1:

El sucko el dic..........well, you get the point?! Rolling Eyes

webhead2006 Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:41 pm

Ya I too still not liking it. For no trunks, the high collar, all the dam lines make it look like armor, and the boots. Would been ok with different boots and the lines gone in the tights, and maybe if the belt was gold and maybe the raised parts red to go along with trunks.

thecolorsblend Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:49 pm

webhead2006 wrote:This could be final cover for superman #1:

non_amos wrote:El sucko el dic..........well, you get the point?!

Bah, you're only saying that because it looks like complete shit.

Can't tell if that's intended to be some sort of F'ed up armor or if it's just a glossy finish for... whatever the hell he's wearing. It's not The Suit, I can tell you that.

Anyway. The collar is stupid, the knee pads wtf, the general body suit design is too busy, it looks stupid without the trunks, blah blah blah, you've heard me say it a million times now.

lib Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:42 pm

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the illustration resemble cavill too?

Apologist Puncher Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:54 pm

webhead2006 wrote:

It's funny just how unoriginal this really is:
Geoff Johns And Jim Lee Promise "ShitBomb Announcements" For "Superman" At DC - Page 5 Superman_flyby_concept_art_04

Geoff Johns And Jim Lee Promise "ShitBomb Announcements" For "Superman" At DC - Page 5 Superman_flyby_concept_art_04

Notice anything "familiar"?

webhead2006 Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:39 am

I do really hope dc will do a change for supes before everything is officially set for the stupid relaunch. But probably wont and we fans have to suffer through this crap suit to its changed again.

non_amos Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:49 am

I may have already posted this link previously but I just found in the comments some interesting info. Too bad duh apologist didn't give a LINK for where he found it but here's what he quoted:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=9893#comments

#226 | Jor-L5150 on June 13, 2011 6:10pm EST
THE LEGAL VIEW: The DCU Relaunch and the Superman Copyright
By Jeff Trexler

The September relaunch of the DC universe has raised a number of questions about the future of current continuity and the comic marketplace. But does it have legal implications as well?

Given the recent history of Superman and Superboy, it’s only natural that some people are wondering whether the event has some connection to the Siegel lawsuits. For example, in 2006, DC killed Superboy and the Earth-2 Superman and Lois Lane–the DCU versions of the Golden Age Siegel and Shuster originals. Not coincidentally, this story appeared as the Siegel heirs were prevailing in the first round of their effort to claim the Superboy copyright. After another judge vacated this ruling in 2007 and strongly suggested that the Siegels were not likely to become sole owners of the Superboy copyright, Superboy miraculously came back to life.

A more gruesome commentary on the Superman case followed the Siegels’ landmark 2008 victory in reclaiming Jerry Siegel’s half of the copyright to the Superman material in Action Comics #1. One year later the Earth-2 Superman and Lois Lane returned as undead Black Lantern zombies out to take the living Kents back to their dead Pa.

As PR from the September relaunch reveals that the Superman and Superboy will have curiously redesigned costumes and altered continuity, a recent article in Variety would appear to confirm that the Siegel lawsuits have once again made their mark. According to this report, the case affirming Neil Gaiman’s co-ownership of Medieval Spawn could serve as precedent for treating a distinct new version of Superman as a legally separate character from the Superman created by Siegel and Shuster. By this line of reasoning, the relaunch would establish a clear foundation for making DC the sole owner of the current Superman and Superboy, leaving the Siegel and Shuster heirs with nothing except the original–and far less lucrative–Superman from 1938.

Does copyright jurisprudence establish a relaunch exception to creators’ rights? Is Neil Gaiman to blame? My first series here at The Beat will explain how recent speculation on this issue misses the mark–and why the greatest threat to the Siegel heirs’ victory may actually be Grant Morrison.

So is this what we have to look forward to from now on?! UGGHH!

thecolorsblend Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:36 am

I've wondered about this, actually. I can't approve of drastic changes to Superman or The Suit but Apologists and other Siegel Parasite sympathizers need to understand wtf they're advocating here. This shit is what's at stake.

thecolorsblend Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:54 am

Something else, if you look at a lot of these relaunches, what you see is that a lot pencillers are writing. You've got George Perez (who, to be fair, isn't exactly a stranger to writing), Francis Manapul, Ethan Van Sciver, Tony Daniel, Scott McDaniel and others. This smacks of the early 90's just before Lee, McFarlane, Silvestri and the rest jumped ship to form Image.

Another thing is that DC in the early 2010's is, in other ways, fast starting to resemble Marvel from the early 90's. You've got Bob Harras as EIC as well as Scott Lobdell and Fabian Nicieza as staff writers (buddies of Harras from the old X-Men days, in fact). It'd seem out of place to not mention Liefeld pencilling Hawk & Dove at this juncture.

In fact, hell, between the Valiant line coming back, the the above stuff and an apparently slowly returning speculator market, you kinda have to wonder if we're not in for The 1990's Episode II around here.

But back to the "pencillers as writers" thing... I kinda wonder if more traditional writers weren't offered some of these books and then (because they're not hip to the concept) declined the job. I'd expect Johns to stick around because he basically runs the show at DC nowadays. As for Grant Morrison, I think he's up for anything that allows him (A) to be weird as fuck and (B) to pay homage to 1950's and 60's comics.

Anywho...

webhead2006 Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:43 am

I still wish there wasn't any dam legal issues so these types of problems wouldn't be a problem. I am sure in superman case what ever changes that will happen are probably due to legal crap. Which hopefully could be changed again if legal stuff gets settled or dropped any time soon.

webhead2006 Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:32 pm

Well looks like this bit of stuff is offical:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/06/16/dan-didio-confirms-end-of-loisclark-marriage/

webhead2006 Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:17 pm

For info on the revamp:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/06/19/more-from-the-dc-retailer-roadshow/

thecolorsblend Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:22 pm

webhead2006 wrote:For info on the revamp:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/06/19/more-from-the-dc-retailer-roadshow/

Bleeding Cool wrote:Green Lantern, Batman and LSH books are all continuing without a reboot

sigh

webhead2006 Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:47 pm

Ya what's the point in this with some not changing. I made this same comment on another board. Just making what ever continuity is more screwed up.

Sponsored content