Batman: Earth One Series

[The Joker]

I'll lay it all out there.

Geoff Johns is one of the most overrated writers in the comic book industry.  It seems that every single character he writes has to have some kind of loss to be a hero.  On paper, that might seem to make sense... but (before Johns) what was Barry's motivation to be the Flash?  Who did Superman tragically lose that inspired him to put on (or keep on) the cape?

Frankly, loss and tragedy very much define Batman so Johns is more in his element.  So maybe this is a good move.

Plus, Batman's been overdue for full, genuine reboot for quite some time now.

I agree that Johns is pretty overrated these days, but out of the writers who consistently put out numerous books a month for DC, I ultimately find myself enjoying a good amount of his work. Though it's pretty evident that he's become the "go to" guy on pretty much everything in the DCU. 

As to the format, I'm down with it... but honestly, even this feels like a concession on DC's part.  The comics industry in general has become so focused and insular that newbie readers can't pick up a comic without understanding a lot of intricate details, parallel realities and, oh yeah, 15+ years of continuity!

Right. Also, in addition to all the above, the comics industry has become extremely un-friendly towards new readers with all of the mega events that have transpired during this decade. Sure, they are entertaining for those who have already been keeping up with all the continuity, but for those who want to get into reading comics, coming in right into a mega event like Infinite Crisis, Final Crisis, Blackest Night, Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, ect ect would be especially trying and often, quite confusing. Especially in a time where mega event after mega event is seen as the norm, or each issue is simply a chapter in a much larger story. Which I personally don't find satisfying in the least bit. Especially after $2.99-$3.99 a pop.

Does DC make the sensible decision of resuming primarily self-contained storylines?  I mean, that method only sold a few million Superman comics per month back in the 50's, 60's and 70's so heavens no, they've simply decided to skip the monthly comics format and go straight to the trades.  In English business terms, I believe that's called "redundancy".  In American business terms, we call it "downsized".

DC COMICS TO COMIC BOOK SHOPS: "YOU'RE OBSOLETE."

If trade paperbacks sell, it is simply because they get into regular bookshops where people have easier access to them. If the trade paperbacks were better value they would sell even more. It's simple economics. Although I really hate when writers, both at DC and Marvel or any other comic book company, clearly 'write for the trade'. Which has increasingly become the case over the years.

BE1 is symptomatic of something that's deeply wrong with the comics industry.  It's the motherfu(king pink elephant in the room that nobody's talking about.  Monthly comics aren't selling.  And that's not strictly because of video games, iPods or global warming.

It's because people don't like feeling lost in a story by page 2.

That and the cost as well. In the 1990s, superhero comics became glossier, and driven by art. The causes (the direct market, older readers, gimmick driven sales, the success of Image) are less important than the result: the price of each comic increased. At the same time, Marvel was hell bent on squeezing more profit from each comic, so guess what? The prices rose even further (especially in the period that led to Marvel's bankruptcy in 1996-97). Finally, after the bubble burst in 1993 sales plummeted, so unit costs further increased. So in short. comic prices increased much faster than inflation, and that no doubt hurt the industry. Personally, I think superheros are more popular now than they may have ever been. Due to the many adaptations in other mediums. Unfortunately, comic sales do not reflect this and actually are at historic lows.

Do you honestly think comics virgins stand a chance of following all that?

Of course not.

[thecolorsblend]

Just so I'm not accused about whining about the problem without producing any solutions, here's what I suggest to deal with this.

In the 70's, it was common for comics to be written similar to how a lot of TV shows are today.  Many issues would stand alone but also tell an independent story.  The newbie reader might not necessarily follow every single plot thread but they got 90% of the story.  Remember the Laughing Fish?  There was a larger story being told there but if you simply want a good Batman vs. Joker story, you can read most of the Laughing Fish without relying on any other source.

An individual comic back then might've sold in the millions.

The established way of telling a big story in, say, five "chunks" is demonstrably killing the industry.  The editors should step back, rein the writers in and direct them to write more single issue/one shot stories with ongoing plot threads.  That just might give the monthly comic format a few more years.

[Azrael]

I think the crossovers like No Man's Land ("continued on Robin #27", "see what happens next in Gotham Lasses # 39") were the prime reason I stopped buying monthly comics a decade ago. I usually prefer one-shots with a beginning and an ending, and TPBs are the best way to enjoy some story arcs. I think I can survive if I don't know firsthand what happens in the current continuity.

[thecolorsblend]

I think the crossovers like No Man's Land ("continued on Robin #27", "see what happens next in Gotham Lasses # 39") were the prime reason I stopped buying monthly comics a decade ago. I usually prefer one-shots with a beginning and an ending, and TPBs are the best way to enjoy some story arcs. I think I can survive if I don't know firsthand what happens in the current continuity.

I swear to recall an interview with Alan Grant where he basically spilled the beans on the Cataclysm/No Man's Land stuff.  From memory, he said something along the lines of "it was the first story I'd been involved with [in the Batman titles] that was a crossover merely for the sake of being a crossover."  He went on to say that the assistant editors were pretty much manipulating Denny O'Neil, who had lost a lot of control over the Batman comics.  Basically, the inmates had taken over the asylum and were running a story that not many of the creators really believed in.

This followed an extended period where Batman, SOTB and TEC were each running with their own storylines.  While there was continuity between books (Gordon announced he was running for mayor in, say, Batman and you'd sure nuff see his campaign signs in TEC; or Bullock had a heart attack in TEC and you'd see him in a coma in Batman; etc), they were mostly smaller subplots that didn't require the reader to follow all of the other books to get the basic thrust of what was going on.  From memory, you had Doug Moench/uber-penciller Kelley Jones on Batman, Chuck Dixon/(mostly) Graham Nolan on TEC and, I think, Alan Grant/Barry Kitson on SOTB, all doing their own thing.

I've got a few problems with that overall era, but ya know what?  The self-contained books (mostly) ROCKED!  You just had to stick with one single title in order to follow that particular story.

As far as I can remember, it was the Cataclysm/NML BS that brought all of that to a close.  For my money, the books were never the same after that.

EDIT- And just so's we're clear, I'm just relating what I remember from Grant's interview.  He was grinding an axe there and he may not have had the full picture.  Maybe O'Neil had just creatively run out of juice and the assistant editors encouraged him to run a crossover since, hell, maybe it was time to do another one.  And then as they got into the story, the assistant went more and more nuts with extending it, making sub-storylines, etc.  Basically, all things that O'Neil would've reined in had he been on top of his game.  There could be another side to this, I'm just trying to repeat what Alan said.

[BatmAngelus]

Bumping this now that it's out.

Anyone read this yet?  I'm curious what people on this board think before I buy and read it.  I haven't read Superman: Earth One, but the sample pages I've read shows me that there's a lot more new and reimagined ideas here than Johns and Frank's previous origin collaboration, Superman Secret Origin.

[Silver Nemesis]

I think you'll like it, BatmAngelus. I know I did.

It's got one of the most detailed retellings of the night the Waynes were killed; one that acknowledges what's come before (hints of a conspiracy similar to the Lew Moxon story from Detective Comics #235 and The Untold Legend of the Batman) but also adds some new elements to the mix.

It places a big emphasis on Alfred's role in Batman's origin, probably more so than any previous version of the story. And the depiction of Alfred is a radical departure from everything that's come before. You can tell that just by looking at the character design. All in all, I prefer the more traditional take on the character. But it was interesting to see such a fresh interpretation.

I was struck by how many of the characters in the book resembled movie stars, almost as though they deliberately cast actors in the roles as visual templates.

Bruce Wayne=a young Mel Gibson
Alfred Pennyworth=Sam Elliot
Thomas Wayne=Paul Newman
Oswald Cobblepot=Joe Pesci

It's worth checking out. I know some people on this site don't like Geoff Johns, but he's become one of my favourite comic writers over the past few years. And he didn't let me down with Batman: Earth One. It's not my favourite version of Batman's origin, but it is a refreshingly new and entertaining variation.

I was actually hoping they'd come up with something like this in the mainstream canon as part of the new 52 reboot, but they didn't bother.

[thecolorsblend]

I've got mixed feelings. I like that we finally have a Batman with an immaculate entry point. It's been decades since there's been a clear, clean starting point for the character. For that alone, I give points.

Johns gave Martha Wayne an interesting family background. It's so cool I'm surprised nobody had ever thought of it until now. I give more points for this.

Johns shows us a Batman who basically has no idea what he's doing at first and, frankly, I've got issues with that. I get the idea that all or most of Bruce's training has come from Alfred. You didn't get much globetrotting here. As a result, his skills and his methods are woefully incomplete. This kinda bothers me. Of all people, Bruce knows what he'll be dealing with out there. I can't imagine he would rush off half-cocked like that. Sure, in BY1, he wasn't quite ready for prime time at first, but that was more how to do the job; he had the skills, he just needed practice. Here? He's just way too unprepared.

The stuff with Cobblepot... I'm of two minds about it. I'll need to read the book a couple more times before I finalize an opinion on the matter.

It's a good book and I recommend it to all. I just happen to think Superman- Earth One #1 is the better of the two.

[Paul (ral)]

I'm finally reading this now.

Some great thoughts here to bear in mind as I read it.

[BatmAngelus]

thecolorsblend is back!  How are you, man?!

Cool thoughts on the comic, guys.  I'll definitely check it out.

[greggbray]

Alfred took a little while to get used to, but I do have to echo how refreshing it was to see the Wayne back story re-emerge.

I loved the material with Cobblepot.  After a few failed runs at Mayor in various mediums, it was nice to see him get into office.   I'm a bit on the fence as to how his character ended, but over all I thought it was impressive storytelling.  As somebody who is not all that jazzed by the soft-reboot New 52 Universe, it was a pleasure reading a self-contained story.