Ben Affleck as Batman in Superman Team-Up Film

listen to ‘Is Ben Affleck The Right Man to Play Batman? ’ on Audioboo

I got a phone call this morning from Movies.com editor Erik Davis and fellow Movies.com writer Sean O'Connell to discuss the recent Batman casting news for 2015's upcoming Superman/Batman movie. It's a quick talk about what our expectations are, what direction they might take with the character, and what Affleck's motivations might be in the wake of an Oscar win for directing.

Podcasts: "Magical and Transcendent" on 5by5's Giant Size

This week we're talking about the most interesting Superman origin stories, with host Moises Chiullan, BlueTights.net founder Justin Korthof, and myself. Moises also had the chance to sit down with veteran writer J. M. DeMatteis to discuss origin stories and his most personal work, Brooklyn Dreams.

You can listen to the all-new, reformatted Giant Size right here! 

And if you don't mind a few off-topic spoilers in your life, Moises and DeMatteis keep the conversation rolling into talk of Dr. Strange and DeMatteis's original 1986 graphic novel Doctor Strange: Into Shamballa.

You can listen to that extended bit on the latest Giant Size After Dark.

WTF? According to DC, Superman Is Batman's Brother?

I was alerted to this bit of weirdness by Michael Nixon on Twitter. This is from DC's official page for Superman...

Superman has super-everything—strength, speed, flight, invulnerability, X-ray, heat vision…and a world-famous brother. What the world doesn’t know is that Clark’s mother, Martha, once changed her name from Wayne to Kent. Martha was the real target for the mob hit the night that her husband Thomas Wayne was murdered. While in the ambulance it was discovered that she was still alive, and the doctors were able to save her. She signed over guardianship of their son Bruce to the family butler, Alfred Pennyworth, in hopes that Bruce would be protected, and she was put into the Witness Protection Program and sent to Smallville, Kansas—a quiet town where nothing ever happens.

There Martha met and married the local farmer Jonathan Kent. With a new inability to carry a child due to the bullet wound, Martha and Jonathan were unable to have the baby they so longed for. However, their prayers were answered when out of the sky, a rocket landed in a nearby field as the couple was driving by. There was a small baby in the rocket who they adopted and gave the name Clark, and who would grow up to be Superman!

This new information is backed up on Batman's page as well...​

Millionaire Bruce Wayne was just a kid when he watched his parents get gunned down during a mugging in Gotham City. The crime would define his life, as he dedicated himself to becoming the world’s greatest weapon against crime—the Batman. What the world doesn’t know is that Bruce’s mother, Martha Wayne, was the real target for the mob hit the night that Bruce’s parents were murdered. While in the ambulance it was discovered that she was still alive, and the doctors were able to save her. She signed over guardianship of Bruce to the family butler, Alfred Pennyworth, in hopes that the young boy would be protected, and she was put into the Witness Protection Program and sent to Smallville, Kansas—a quiet town where nothing ever happens.

There Martha met and married a nice young man named Jonathan Kent. With a new inability to carry a child due to the bullet wound, Martha and Jonathan were unable to have the baby they so longed for. However, their prayers were answered when out of the sky, a rocket landed in a nearby field as the couple was driving by. There was a small baby in the rocket who they adopted and gave the name Clark Kent, and who would grow up to be Superman!​

Um...WHAT? Is this an April Fool's joke that DC forgot to take down or is this New 52 canon? If it's a joke, and DC takes it down (ED NOTE: They did - the very same day this made the rounds), I've saved the screens for posterity below...​

View fullsize

Captured on 4/2/2013

View fullsize

​Captured on 4/2/2013.

Some Thoughts on 'Injustice' #3 aka the One Where Superman Punches Lois Lane to Death

Injustice: Gods Among Us, the comic book tie-in to the upcoming video game with the same name, was first brought to my attention on the Word Balloon podcast, where, in all honesty, it sounded pretty good. Host John Siuntres is an old-school DC fan, so when he gets ebullient about a DC Superhero story, my ears perk up. Writer Tom Taylor was the guest and Taylor sounded genuinely excited about the amount of leeway he'd been given, to play with the biggest stars of the DCU outside of regular continuity. In retrospect, this freedom was probably a bad idea.

​Chris Sims, who does great work over at Comics Alliance, drew my attention to the comic in a different way, through the masochistic joy he gets in finding the worst of the worst comic books. He took a look at the first few issues of Injustice, and declared it "the dumbest comic you'll read all year." He mentioned a few specific plot points, most of them idiotic, and the most offensive of these bits takes place in issue #3 - a comic that finds Superman punching his pregnant wife so hard that it kills her and sends her flying into space. Sure, he's hallucinating that Lois Lane is Doomsday, but the event still happens. Sims has a pretty thorough critical breakdown of the series, so I'm not going to do that here, but I am going to pound the stump, pull up a soapbox, and cry in the streets to anyone who will listen that DC Comics allowing Superman to punch Lois Lane and his unborn child to death is easily one of the stupidest things that the company has ever allowed in its long, long history.

​And somewhere, some editor (Jim Chadwick, editor of Injustice?) is wringing his hands with glee, thinking, "This is exactly why we allowed it! We want to get people talking about comics!" Well, that's all fine and good, but how about we do it without resorting to the most pure fictional symbol of Truth, Justice, and the American Way slugging a woman in the gut so hard that she leaves the Earth's atmosphere? There's a lot of discussion about sexism in comics and video games, and hooray - DC gets to be a part of that discussion now, on the totally wrong side of it, by promoting their upcoming video game with a story that, and I can not understate this, hinges on Superman beating a woman to death.

​The death of another Robin just got a bunch of press, but for whatever reason, this Lois Lane death isn't getting talked about. I understand that it's "just" a video game comic, and therefore has no bearing on the "real" DC Universe, but we're still talking about a comic book product that DC published starring their flagship characters, and geared specifically toward non-comic readers. They are asking for an audience outside of their usual buyers, and with Injustice specifically, they seem to be courting the video game audience by giving them what they think that audience wants, namely extreme moments of shock value violence. They want to show the Mortal Kombat crowd how awesome and dark Superman can be by having him be a woman-punching baby-killer.

​First of all, this is insulting to video game fans because the assumption is they're all immature, bloodthirsty, and desensitized. It's insulting to comic book readers because - while it's all fine and good to tell a story outside of continuity - there are certain things you just don't do with the characters. I would say that Superman beating women to death, hallucination or not, is so beyond what people expect of Superman in an all-ages comic that all may be lost with DC's new editorial regime. If there's one thing they should care about, it's the sanctity of their individual properties. If they don't care about that, then they really shouldn't be safeguarding these characters. Thirdly, and it's the point I shouldn't have to make, it's especially troubling to female readers. There's a conversation going on right now about the marginalization of female geeks that can not be ignored. Injustice #3 does its best to ignore that conversation, and reinforces DC as an ignorant company that doesn't understand why decisions like this would offend anyone. It's an all-around stupid creative decision, and they should be called out for it. If DC can't even comprehend why Superman beating ladies to death is wrong, then it's time for a complete housecleaning at the top of the creative chain.

Quick Thoughts on Orson Scott Card, Superman, and the Homosexual Agenda

Let me get the news out of the way first before I get into this. Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game) is writing a two-part arc for DC's digital comic Adventures of Superman. Many fans are very angry at DC, and calling for boycotts due to Card's active stance against homosexual unions.

Here's Card on the subject of gay marriage:

"...legalizing gay marriage is not about making it possible for gay people to become couples.

It's about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children. Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.

Panel detail from Superman #7, art by Joe Shuster. DC Comics.

Our children will be barraged with the deceptions of the left. Parents will be forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda.

Any child with any gender or sexual confusion will be pushed inexorably away from the decision to establish a traditional family. They'll be told, again and again, that any sign of effeminacy or gender confusion or same-sex attraction is an irrevocable, lifelong compulsion and they might as well shape their lives accordingly.

The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children's education. That's what those signs on the lawns are about.

I'm not making this up – it's already happening wherever the left has complete control of education."

Typical, old school right-wing "homosexual agenda" paranoia. I've always wondered what a vast pro-homosexual conspiracy could stand to gain by "indoctrinating" children, but that's probably because I don't see homosexual activity as anything different from heterosexual activity.

Far less typical and more inflammatory are Card's broader opinions on homosexuals in general...

"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

Today, RIch Johnston of Bleeding Cool directly addressed the subject of boycotts against the upcoming comic:

"There are a number of comic book creators who believe something very different to what I do. Some of those beliefs offend me. Sometimes they even inform their art, something that Card is unlikely to be accused of in Superman.

Some try to draw a line between an opionated [sic] person and an activist. I disagree, any famous person who expresses an opinion, especially in this day and age, de facto becomes an activist for that opinion.

It’s a very dangerous game, it has led in the past to witchtrials, McCarthyite or otherwise, and it’s no better than the actions of, say, One Million Moms. And next time? It could be you…"

Art detail from Superman #7, art by Joe Shuster. DC Comics.

I've seen other fans chime in with the sentiment that a creators' politics should be ignored in favor of good stories, and that makes some sense to me, but I think what Rich Johnston and those fans get wrong is thinking of this as a manner of politics. It really isn't. This is the matter of people who believe in their heart of hearts that human beings should be denied rights, if not outright punished by law, for romantic attraction.

To me, there's a massive difference between Frank Miller's opinions on Occupy Wall Street (to use one example) and how we interact with the other human beings on our planet. I support Card's right as an artist to create and have the work be judged on its own merit. But, at the same time, I admonish DC for inviting Card to create that work for them. Card can, and has, created his own material for most of his career. He's not artistically censored by being denied two issues of a work-for-hire Superman comic, and DC could say, "we don't want to put money in the pocket of someone who thinks gay people should be jailed if they're too gay." At a moment when DC should be making smarter editorial decisions in general, they've invited controversy instead. And not the good kind. (In full disclosure, Marvel has also worked with Card in the past, but Card's reputation as an outspoken anti-gay advocate grows every year - you're going to be hearing a even more about him when the Ender's Game film hits later this year). 

Johnston's last paragraph gets me hot under the collar because it's so live-and-let-live that it forgives people of wrongdoing with an argument that next time "it could be you." That's unacceptable. I may be saying what I think is "right," just as Card thinks what he's saying is right, but we don't advance as a society unless we challenge each others' viewpoints. We are where we are because of this concept. The argument grows and grows and the voices get louder and louder until the "wrong" voices are robbed of their power and things like women's suffrage or the civil rights movement happen. Those loud voices can send a very real financial message to an artist who uses his money to support groups that work to deny basic human rights to law-abiding Americans. In truth, DC Comics should've been the first loud voice in this situation. We wouldn't be having the conversation otherwise.

(Special thanks to luchins.com for the scans.)