Batman Earth One Vol.1, Vol. 2

Discuss it at will here.

When is it due out? I haven't really followed any spoilers for it in awhile.

webhead2006 wrote:When is it due out?

www.google.com

I am concerned about Batman- Earth One now. It seems the E1 universe is supposed to be set in a quasi-real world type of place. Frankly, I've watched enough Chris Nolan Batman movies to have my fill of that shit. It's been done, it's been done to the motherfucking death and now it'll be being done by Geoff Johns and Gary Frankenstein. It'll be another fucking boring origin story (that's sort of the entire idea here), it'll probably show us little or nothing new in terms of how Batman came to be and if anything good at all happens, it won't be until vol. 2.

I just can't muster any enthusiasm for that.

thecolorsblend wrote:I am concerned about Batman- Earth One now. It seems the E1 universe is supposed to be set in a quasi-real world type of place. Frankly, I've watched enough Chris Nolan Batman movies to have my fill of that shit. It's been done, it's been done to the motherfucking death and now it'll be being done by Geoff Johns and Gary Frankenstein. It'll be another fucking boring origin story (that's sort of the entire idea here), it'll probably show us little or nothing new in terms of how Batman came to be and if anything good at all happens, it won't be until vol. 2.

I just can't muster any enthusiasm for that.

Here's the thing though: You will STILL have the regular Batman in the "mainstream" DCU, so why not look at it for what it is? Something different.

Honestly, aside from the Plain-Jane look to the costume, I'm interested in what they come up with. Alfred looks "unique", and I'm curious to see what Gary Frank's work will look like without Chris Reeve's likeness to "ape".

So, is this thing DOA?

Ask and you shall receive... eventually.

Billy Hogan to the Younis page wrote:The panel, led by Dan Didio, was in the middle of taking questions from the audience. I came in just as Dan mentioned that the first volume of Batman: Earth One would be published around the same time as volume two of Superman: Earth One.

URL- http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=9464#comments

I'll probably download BE1 before buying it (as I did with SE1). This looks more in line with Nolan's Batman films. The comics are taking a similar tone already so this seems redundant to me. But we'll see.

They were announced at the same time, and both had "preview art" come out. Why is one taking twice as long as the other?

Apologist Puncher wrote:They were announced at the same time, and both had "preview art" come out. Why is one taking twice as long as the other?

My guess is that Gary Frank or, at least as likely, Geoff Johns is fucking around and not finishing up the work. So much stuff Johns works on ends up late. You go down the line and you see that shit that ought to have come out on time didn't. Sucky Origin is a PERFECT example. It took, what, a year (or more?) to release a whoppin' SIX ISSUES. Johns usually throws the penciller under the bus ("hey, that dude wasn't on his game for some reason, he got sick or whatever and that somehow slowed him down for six fucking months") but that CAN'T be the case 100% of the time. Sooner or later, you have to think "maybe Johns is the problem".

If word were to get out that something similar happened with BE1, the LAST thing I'd say is "shit, I never saw THAT coming!"

thecolorsblend wrote:My guess is that Gary Frank or, at least as likely, Geoff Johns is fucking around and not finishing up the work. So much stuff Johns works on ends up late. You go down the line and you see that shit that ought to have come out on time didn't. Sucky Origin is a PERFECT example. It took, what, a year (or more?) to release a whoppin' SIX ISSUES. Johns usually throws the penciller under the bus ("hey, that dude wasn't on his game for some reason, he got sick or whatever and that somehow slowed him down for six fucking months") but that CAN'T be the case 100% of the time. Sooner or later, you have to think "maybe Johns is the problem".

If word were to get out that something similar happened with BE1, the LAST thing I'd say is "shit, I never saw THAT coming!"

Frank isn't doing Superman anymore, or is he? Does he have something else going on that could keep him THAT busy? You know, busy enough for another artist to pencil TWICE AS MANY PAGES?

Johns being a problem sounds more likely to me.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Frank isn't doing Superman anymore, or is he?

Nope. I have no idea what else he's done besides Superman but after contributing some pages to the World of New Krypton special (that introduced the retarded storyline of the same name), I haven't seen Frank do any significant Superman work (as I think most of his Sucky Origin stuff was either finished by then or else close to it, even if the release schedules were waaaaay different).

Does he have something else going on that could keep him THAT busy? You know, busy enough for another artist to pencil TWICE AS MANY PAGES?

The only thing I can think of that would slow him down is the same thing that slows other comics artists down. If you look at any average comic book from the late 80's to mid 90's, you see that artists tend to be overall more "sketchy". They didn't draw elaborately detailed pages too often back then. Because of that, you usually saw them hit their deadlines more often. If you figure a 22-page comic and, roughly, 22 work days per month, that obviously comes out to about a page a day. At the level of texture and detail most comic book artists put into their work back then, such was a pretty reasonable schedule.

Where things go south a bit is that nowadays a lot of artists sell their art at conventions and other places. Because of that, a page of original art can actually go for more money if it's got TONS of extra detail in it. So, in an effort to effectively double-dip on their work, artists will draw the pages with insane detail, get paid from the comics company and then sell those same pages for extra.

The problem is that putting in all that laborious detail takes time which slows down their productivity which, when taken to the logical conclusion, ultimately results in missed deadlines.

Johns being a problem sounds more likely to me.

I could see that as well. Or maybe it's a combination of both. Mark Waid, Brian Michael Bendis and other writers can obviously script half a dozen (or more) titles per month and not break under the workload. Hell, Bendis pretty much owned the Marvel universe for a while there. He came up with all the concepts and I think he's still writing Ultimate Spider-Man (after, what, a 10 or 12 year run??!?!). And at his peak in the 60's, wasn't Stan Lee "writing" (plotting, really) every motherfucking Marvel comic book on the market?

Johns is clearly not in the same league as those writers. Plus he writes for SV now and then, plus he's the head of DC Entertainment, plus he does this, plus he does that, blah blah blah. The guy may well have just over-extended himself. I'm not excusing him, believe me, I'm just saying that he may be spread too thin. Given that he's overrated as a writer to begin with, that ain't a good thing, dude.

I still don't understand how Shane Davis is able to pencil TWO projects before Frank can do ONE. Doesn't Davis make money the same way?

Maybe it's because Frank can't just use old pictures of Chris Reeve to base his Bruce Wayne/Batman on?

Digital Spy reports Bob Harras saying B:E1 should be out by the end of the year.

The first Earth One title was released last year to commercial success, and told the story of a teenage Superman growing up in modern times.

Harras also hinted at a potential release date for the previously announced Batman: Earth One, the first expansion of the Earth One line to other DC Comics characters.

"That should come out we're hoping late this year or early next year, and that's by Geoff Johns and Gary Frank," Harras added.

It was also confirmed that further Earth One novels are already in the works, although no further details were released.

The sequel to Superman: Earth One is expected later this year.

(More characters are getting reinvented E1 style. Hmm.) Also, Dan DiDio said at MegaCon that it would be coming out alongside the second volume of Superman: E1. Geoff Johns described it as "big".

I have vast misgivings about Johns' ability to revamp an A-list character like Batman. What works for Carter Hall, Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, and Aquaman will not work for a mainstream character like Batman. The former list needed a continuity streamlining and freshening up, which is Johns' strength. Actually, that's arguable, but the point is... Johns never brings anything new and vibrant to a character revamp. Superman & Batman have had so many origin retellings, and we've all read them over and over... you don't need to streamline what's already there so much as you need to invent something entirely fresh that hasn't been seen before.

...and THAT is something that Johns fumbles the ball on, every single time.

Call me crazy, but I'm going out on a limb here and guessing this guy calls Superman's trunks "underwear", and wants them taken off the suit.

Just a hunch.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Call me crazy, but I'm going out on a limb here and guessing this guy calls Superman's trunks "underwear", and wants them taken off the suit.

Just a hunch.

Don't be ridiculous. That's never worked. If someone were to do that, the time for that would've been back in the late 90's/early 00's, when Wildstorm was at its peak and you had characters like Supreme and Majestic and Apollo running amok and showing up Superman.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, don't put words in my mouth. You, AP, do not speak for me. Nor do you speak for the legions of Superman fans who were upset at Singerman but are absolutely APPALLED at how you've behaved online. You are a rabblerousing, pugilistic demagogue who wants what he wants and doesn't care how many people have to suffer, as long as he gets what he wants.

道 wrote:Don't be ridiculous. That's never worked. If someone were to do that, the time for that would've been back in the late 90's/early 00's, when Wildstorm was at its peak and you had characters like Supreme and Majestic and Apollo running amok and showing up Superman.

That's NOT a denial, is it turd-nugget?

Oh, and while we're on the subject, don't put words in my mouth. You, AP, do not speak for me. Nor do you speak for the legions of Superman fans who were upset at Singerman but are absolutely APPALLED at how you've behaved online. You are a rabblerousing, pugilistic demagogue who wants what he wants and doesn't care how many people have to suffer, as long as he gets what he wants.

I speak for MORE Superman fans than you could EVER imagine, you mealy-mouthed little fuck. I took part in, and helped accomplish, what LEGIONS of TRUE fans wanted. It doesn't matter if YOU agreed with my tactics, because YOU aren't even dogshit on a WB exec's loafer. You mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the grand scheme of things. You buy Superman merchandise, I GUARANTEE you bought Singerman on DVD, and you posted anonymous disapprovals of it without ever standing up for yourself. You are WEAK and you are PITIFUL.

And I find it funny that you come to MY forum to try and bitch about ME. Why don't you start your own, shithead? I bet I know why:

Because nobody likes you. Not even your fucked-up family, you moronic mongoloid.

Get fucked. And I don't mean by your Father.

Apologist Puncher wrote:That's NOT a denial, is it turd-nugget?

Show me some evidence that you believe direct denials. Everything on the SSS blog suggests otherwise.

I speak for MORE Superman fans than you could EVER imagine, you mealy-mouthed little fuck.

Do yourself a favor. Go count up all the individuals online who agree with you wholeheartedly in both results and methodology. Then go look at the Nielsen ratings for Smallville. Then do a simple calculation and figure out what percent of Smallville's Nielsen ratings are made up of people who agree with you wholeheartedly.

That's the objective evidence. You speak for a very, very small portion of the fandom. And you were used to stage a corporate coup. How does it feel to be a corporate tool?

And I find it funny that you come to MY forum to try and bitch about ME. Why don't you start your own, shithead? I bet I know why:

Because nobody likes you. Not even your fucked-up family, you moronic mongoloid.

Get fucked. And I don't mean by your Father.

I'm calling it now. AP is pwned.

...you really have no idea who I am, do you?

"I'm calling it now. AP is pwned.

...you really have no idea who I am, do you?"

For explanation see Earth One Superman thread. Hey Fagley, how ya doing huh? How's that 'writing' working out for ya there, dude?

non_amos wrote:For explanation see Earth One Superman thread. Hey Fagley, how ya doing huh? How's that 'writing' working out for ya there, dude? :lol:

Truth: I'm not Neal Bailey. As I said over on the SHP thread, I have nothing to do with either SHH or SHP. I've never been a member of either site.

道 wrote:

non_amos wrote:For explanation see Earth One Superman thread. Hey Fagley, how ya doing huh? How's that 'writing' working out for ya there, dude?

Truth: I'm not Neal Bailey. As I said over on the SHP thread, I have nothing to do with either SHH or SHP. I've never been a member of either site.

Sure you haven't! If you ain't from duh Homopage, why the outright hostility towards AP? What history could you possibly have with him if not from duh Homopage?

The incidents I refer to I'm sure are still documented. It wasn't just Bailey who came over. It wasn't just 'swrighty' either. Even some of duh sheeple came over & not just on the Sucks blog but also on Emi's blog (if that is indeed her real name). They were even trying to guess who some of us were who may have been posting anonymously at the time. But the incident with 'Armstrong' comes to mind very strongly! He basically called AP out, like you're doing. Birds of a feather, flock together. Oh, & interestingly, duh Homopage had 'server problems' this week & supposedly lost 4 days worth of comments & such. But you wouldn't know anything about that, now would ya?

道 wrote:Show me some evidence that you believe direct denials. Everything on the SSS blog suggests otherwise.

The mark of a loser: Answer a question WITH a question.

Score ANOTHER ONE for ME!

IDo yourself a favor. Go count up all the individuals online who agree with you wholeheartedly in both results and methodology. Then go look at the Nielsen ratings for Smallville. Then do a simple calculation and figure out what percent of Smallville's Nielsen ratings are made up of people who agree with you wholeheartedly.

What does 'Smallville' have to do with ANYTHING, you fucking retard? You seriously made me laugh with that one.

Good job.

That's the objective evidence. You speak for a very, very small portion of the fandom. And you were used to stage a corporate coup. How does it feel to be a corporate tool?

Oh yes, and of course YOU know what went down, right? Let's see some of this "evidence" that YOU have been demanding.

Until you can provide some, shut yer fucking yap.

I'm calling it now. AP is pwned.

Ooooh, so now I'M "pwned" too? Like non_amos? All it takes is a ridiculously laughable post to "pwn" someone now?

Christ kid, you are making a mockery of yourself....

...you really have no idea who I am, do you?

Haven't given it a thought. You don't matter.

AP, great pic! That's from the ending of the 70's remake of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the one starring Leonard Nimoy. Actually that film is one of the better remakes, just like THE THING or THE FLY.

...you really have no idea who I am, do you?

You see, that right there tells me that this dude ought to be someone you've already had a 'run-in' with in the past, even if the guy was 'anonymous'. But I still say that duh Homopage is the most likely scenario because I believe it was with them that you ruffled the most feathers. Sure, you called SHH 'SingerHomoHype' but the bigger reaction seemed to come from Eunuch & company. Food for thought.

Apologist Puncher wrote:The mark of a loser: Answer a question WITH a question.

Score ANOTHER ONE for ME!

Not exactly. If you truly believe direct denials, you should believe me when I tell you I'm not Neal Bailey and not connected with SHP or SHH. We'll use that as the acid test.

Also, truth: I haven't lied to you about a single thing I've said since I began posting. I said things you severely dislike and disagree with, but I haven't lied to you. And I won't.

What does 'Smallville' have to do with ANYTHING, you fucking retard?

I was giving you a smaller number to try to measure up to. Since you insist, though, I'll raise that bar. Go tally up the total sales numbers of all Superman-related comics last year. Then measure the count of everyone who agrees with you and your methods against those sales numbers. What percent of those numbers are your followers?

Oh yes, and of course YOU know what went down, right? Let's see some of this "evidence" that YOU have been demanding.

Until you can provide some, shut yer fucking yap.

As you wish.

In 2010, Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov were ranked at the top of the most powerful people in Hollywood, according to The Hollywood Reporter:

Warner Bros president and COO Alan F. Horn and Warner Bros. Pictures president Jeff Robinov will be pleased to note they are the highest placed studio executives on a list of the top 100 most powerful people working in movies.

But Horn and Robinov will note, on closer inspection, that at No.14 in the "Film Power 100" list published Friday by The Guardian newspaper here, they rank behind producer Scott Rudin at No. 7 and Working Title's Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner at No. 12.

Jeff Robinov has been gunning for Horn's position for some time. He was president of WB's pictures division, but he wanted control of the company. That's what all this has been about: control of Warner Bros. Total control. The problem was, Horn was doing a good job, hit after hit after hit: The Perfect Storm, 300, The Departed, Happy Feet, Ocean's Eleven, Sherlock Holmes, The Dark Knight, etc. In fact, the only real blight on his record was the long-running drama over the Superman franchise. So those who wanted his position used it to hang him out to dry. The Wall Street Journal article that you celebrated victory over was the beginning of all that. That was when they started using the Singerman backlash against Horn. That was how they showed he'd lost touch with moviegoers. This was documented in The New York Times:

“The notion of my leaving, as you know, did not come from me,” Mr. Horn said in an interview. “I guess they wanted younger and better-looking management.”

There is nothing unusual, in Hollywood or any industry, about a star executive wanting to remain at the controls longer than a corporate parent would like. What has raised eyebrows in movie circles is the indelicate manner in which Time Warner, which owns the studio, has pushed Mr. Horn aside.

One of the longstanding codes of the movie business involves longevity and loyalty: Once you’re a made man, to use the Mafia term adopted by film folk, you’re allowed to write your own ticket for nearly as long as you want. Perhaps, eventually, you get a discreet nudge to step aside or move into a chairman emeritus-type of position. All the while, you are treated with deep respect.

Yes, it’s true that Mr. Horn was not enthusiastic about making “The Hangover,” the crude comedy that racked up $468 million in global ticket sales in 2009. But he is also the guy who drafted the blueprints for what has become Warner’s primary operating strategy — focusing on effects-filled event pictures, or “tent poles,” that resonate overseas.

Under his leadership, Warner has also been the No. 1 studio in market share for the last three years. (It has long been the biggest when measured by number of movies.) “You don’t get to be No. 1 because you rest on your laurels or won’t adapt to changing times,” Mr. Horn said. “You get it because you earn it year after year.”

Mr. Horn’s friends say a first slight from Time Warner came in 2009, when the company allowed news to circulate in the Hollywood trade press that it planned to renew the contracts of Mr. Horn and Barry M. Meyer, Warner’s chairman, for only two years instead of the typical three to five. “Humiliating!” was how Deadline.com, the Hollywood blog, summed up the move.

Then, last September, Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Time Warner’s chief executive, announced that he would keep Mr. Meyer in place for two more years — but stick to the planned parting of ways with Mr. Horn, whose consolation prize was a consulting gig. To replace Mr. Horn, the company created an “office of the president,” elevating three executives who had been angling for promotion: Jeff Robinov, Bruce Rosenblum and Kevin Tsujihara.

Now, Jeff Robinov is ascending to a powerful position at WB, where he is expected to rise even higher. This spin control piece from the LA Times gives more insight:

In an industry full of oversized personalities, [Jeff Robinov] is a soft-spoken, austere and mercurial figure who works in an undecorated office and rarely smiles. Though his job depends on relationships, the president of the Warner Bros. motion picture group is uncomfortable with schmoozing, public speaking and filmmakers pitching ideas in person. And while many studio executives thrive on self-promotion, Robinov describes himself as "misunderstood."

Yet by the end of this week, the 52-year-old will wield one of the most powerful tools in show business: final authority to say what movies get made and to manage the $2 billion to $3 billion allocated each year to make and market movies at Time Warner Inc.-owned Warner Bros. Robinov will inherit the "green light" from Warner's president of 12 years, Alan Horn, who at 68 is being forced to retire Friday, making way for younger leadership.

Robinov is about to step into the spotlight he's long tried to avoid. But he plans to do it on his own terms.

"I can't apologize for who I am," said the man who has as many detractors as fans inside Warner and throughout Hollywood.

He could ascend further. Starting next week, Robinov will join television president Bruce Rosenblum and home entertainment president Kevin Tsujihara in a new Warner Bros. "office of the president" that consults on strategic decisions. The trio are top candidates to replace studio chairman Barry Meyer when his contract ends in 2013. Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes has made clear that he will not tolerate aggressive jockeying among the three.

Bewkes won't tolerate it because ALL THREE were aggressively jockeying, before. Bewkes doesn't want any more drama.

So congratulations, guys. We forced a 68-year-old man (who'd created movies we all enjoyed) out to pasture in an unprecedented and inglorious fashion, all because our favorite superhero didn't display the values we thought he should, in the last movie. We were sellouts. Corporate tools. We hurt real people because we were so busy feuding over the color value of tights, capes, and trunks.

It's time to own up to that.

Ooooh, so now I'M "pwned" too? Like non_amos? All it takes is a ridiculously laughable post to "pwn" someone now?

Christ kid, you are making a mockery of yourself....

You're reacting exactly to type. What would be both surprising and unprecedented would be for you to take my allegations seriously enough to answer them. That's what true American leadership is about, if I'm not mistaken. In America, it's not just your right to question your leaders, it's your responsibility, yes? And in turn, it's that leader's duty to answer to the best of his ability, isn't it? That's why you have State of the Union addresses and representative government. What right do you have to remain as leader, in America, if you continually mock those who question you? Isn't that regarded as an abuse of power?

Haven't given it a thought. You don't matter.

Then why do you make it a point to reply to each and every one of my posts, even when they aren't addressed to you?

non_amos wrote:Oh, & interestingly, duh Homopage had 'server problems' this week & supposedly lost 4 days worth of comments & such. But you wouldn't know anything about that, now would ya?

First I've heard about it.

道 wrote:So congratulations, guys. We forced a 68-year-old man (who'd created movies we all enjoyed) out to pasture in an unprecedented and inglorious fashion, all because our favorite superhero didn't display the values we thought he should, in the last movie. We were sellouts. Corporate tools. We hurt real people because we were so busy feuding over the color value of tights, capes, and trunks.

I can't recall anything anybody asked for seriously calling for Horn's termination within the company. I'm not saying the Realists weren't somewhat co-opted. Everything with Hollywood goes back to egos, money and all that. The only fanbase that escapes being used is the fanbase nobody cares about.

I think there's a tremendous difference between being used (as we might've been for all I know) and being a willing co-conspirator (which I don't think anybody here was). All we wanted was a quality Superman film. The internal workings of any movie studio are not and cannot be our concern. If Robinov was able to kick Horn while he was down, that's beyond our control.

And from what I understand, Singerman is hardly the only blight on Horn's record. My understanding is almost the entire WB 2006 summer roster was loaded mostly with duds (Lady In The Water, anyone?).

It's time to own up to that.

*IF* we were used, it wasn't with any great foreknowledge on our part. Again, we were not willing collaborators in all this.

On top of that, what we wanted was for WB to reboot Superman. Some people had pet causes of their own (a Superman movie based on SV, for example) but 99% of the fanbase wanted a hard Superman reboot that completely starts over from scratch.

To all outward appearances, Zack Snyder is currently developing a hard Superman reboot that completely starts over from scratch.

It seems we fans have finally been given what we believe we should've gotten back in 2006. If Robinov was a mover and shaker in making that happen, fine. Let's face it, assuming he did take advantage of the anti-Singerman sentiment and the general Realist movement, he could've gotten whatever promotion he felt he was due without giving us the above reboot.

There is no acknowledged quid pro quo here.

At the end of the day, SSS and AP simply ran a blog that encapsulated the horror a great many Superman fans experienced in the summer of 2006. Whatever internal shake-ups at WB that ensued as a result (direct or indirect) of that is above their paygrades (as I've seen nothing to make me think they were knowingly co-opted for someone else's purposes).

The entire point of the Realist movement is that we deal in FACTS. And thus far, you've presented strong evidence that there was an overambitious WB exec gunning for Horn's job. I'm not convinced that you've satisfactorily tied the Realists to that agenda in an incriminating way. To my eyes, it seems we still have our independence in all of this. To a man, we're all ready to turn on Zack Snyder's Superman if and when such a thing is ever justified... based on FACTS. To a man, none of us are willing to kow-tow and accept a sub-standard Superman film just to protect a business arrangement with WB personnel.

I can appreciate that you have a point of view in all this but I think you're off-base in several accusations you've made here.

From what I can gather, it doesn't look to me like you're justified in unloading on AP the way you have. There is no "mod protection" here and anyway AP's a big boy and can take care of himself. I'm just saying you've not convinced me of some dark conspiracy implicating the Realists, SSS or AP.

Last of all, given the above, it looks to me like the Realists are yet again one up on the Apologists. We're getting what we want (or seem to be anyway) while keeping our independence. The only way the Apologists could ever get by is with the likes of Steve Younis and others getting special deals and preferential treatment. If Zack Snyder's Superman ends up sucking, the Realists aren't "betraying" anybody but shouting as much from the rooftops.

That's self-respect no amount of money can ever buy.