“Batman v. Superman” Shows (and Tells) Too Much

Super Stink Face

Super Stink Face

The new and (hopefully last!) trailer for  Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice has dropped and it indicate the first sign of the glaring absence of executive producer Christopher Nolan to tell writer David S. Goyer and director Zack Snyder, “I wouldn’t do that if I were for you”.  In Man of Steel, Nolan resisted their idea for Superman to kill Zod and the Dynamic Duo him it would be cool (it wasn’t).

Now with the adult out of the room, who’s gonna tell the kids they can’t eat pizza for breakfast and to flush after using the john?

Let’s sum up the trailer:

Batman is mad at Superman. Superman doesn’t give a shit about Batman being mad. Bruce and Clark have a snark fest. Lex Zuckerberg does a bad Joker riff. Previous scenes from earlier trailers. Bats and Supes duke it out. IT’S A BRO FIGHT! Mark Luthor unleashes his eeeeeeeevil scheme with Zod’s cold dead body. Doomsday is here looking like a moving pile of puke and poop. Bats and Supes team up to fight the greater menace. Mass destruction and big explosions. Suddenly, Whatta Woman appears! Bats and Supes exchange puzzled looks. “Is she with you, dude?” We Stand As One to Kick Doomsday’s nasty ass!

The trailer GIVES AWAY THE WHOLE FUCKING PLOT OF THE MOVIE FOR CHRISSAKES!

I save $10 bucks! This might be the worst trailer since Castaway in giving away all its big moments way too soon.  I’m certain there are more than a few secrets left to reveal in Batman v. Superman, but Great Scott that trailer was spoileriffic.

And it still looks to me like passing over Bryan Cranston in favor of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was a turrrible idea as Charles Barkley might say.   It’s completely out of place and character for a DC flick since they disdain being “jokey” like Marvel movies. I didn’t mind the exchange as much as I agree it’s a little tone-deaf after the laugh riots of Nolan’s Batman trilogy and Man of Steel.
The thing which bugs me most about this trailer isn’t Batman or Superman or Wonder Woman or even Doomsday.  Okay, I’m lying a bit  because  Doomsday looks like shit and he’s never been anything but DC’s knockoff version of Hulk Lite so Superman has someone he can hit that won’t splatter from the punch.

It’s Jesse Eisenberg’s goofy Lex Luthor because nothing screams “BEWARE, MY WRATH!” like an angry Jesse Eisenberg!

Look, no knock on Eisenberg as an actor. Loved him as anti-social, unlikable The Social Network, but his Luther looks like the same smart-ass motormouth he played in Now You See Me. In fact, I’ll go further. Between Gene Hackman, Kevin Spacey and now Eisenberg, the best actor to play Lex Luthor was…Clancy Brown.

My brother tells me I’m being a buzzkill and the trailer doesn’t spoil everything about Batman v. Superman.  We still haven’t seen Aquaman, but that’s a pretty thin branch to perch on.  If you’re depending on Aquaman to save your movie, it’s a lost cause already.

jesse-eisenberg-lex-luthor-not-bryan-cranston-meme2016 is going to be a huge year in super hero films with Batman v. Superman,  Captain America: Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, Suicide Squad,  and maybe one film where superheroes aren’t beating up each other, Deadpool.

Every genre reaches a point of saturation and if super hero movies aren’t there yet, they are getting close.   When the heroes are beating up each other it’s a sign they are running out of villains to beat up instead.

It’s going to be a big year, but to make it a good year, something is going to have to grab my interest in a way Avengers: Age of Ultron (saw it once and promptly forgot all about it) and Ant-Man (didn’t bother to see it) did not.   Maybe I’ve aged out of getting excited about seeing comic book characters on the big screen or maybe I’m just waiting for one that actually gives me a reason to get excited.

Relax. It Only LOOKS Like Diversity.

These are not your father’s Avengers. Or anybody’s father’s Avengers.

Here’s how the comic books dividing lines worked in my house when I was a kid.    The boys started off with DC and Batman and Superman and Superboy and then we got sophisticated and left Lois Lane’s 1000th stupid scheme to find out Superman’s secret identity and Jimmy Olsen being turned in a cockroach or something and moved over to  Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, X-Men,  and the wondrous splendor of Stan Lee/Jack Kirby’s Marvel Universe.

My sisters read Archie Comics.  And they were welcome to it.   Which reminds me…ever notice you never see Jimmy Olsen and Archie at any of the same parties?  Archie Andrews has never been cool, never been hip, or anything but a series of unfunny gags  from the world’s oldest teenager.  The dilemma was how to make anybody give a damn about this terribly trite ccomic book.

The solution to this problem was to create an alternate universe with an adult Archie.   It’s Middle Age Archie is going to get taken out as he courageously bites the dust saving his gay friend, a U.S. Senator from an assassination attempt.

This is the standard go-to move for the comic book companies to drum up buzz.   Take a beloved character  like Superman, Batman, Captain America,  announce they are going to be killed off and wait for the headlines.   And it works!   But what nobody bothered with was diggging into why Adult Archie was really about to bite it and it turns out because the title flat out doesn’t sell.   According sales figures from May, Life With Archie was #386 out of #439 comic books in sales.   It sold an impressive  2,064 copies.

To put it another way, if Adult Archie wasn’t about to die, they would have to kill him.  Shooting Archie is a mercy killing.

Far less of a contrived stunt is the Secret Life of Archie.   What secret?    There’s a pretty good reason he never chose between Betty and Veronica.



Hey kids! Suggestively Gay Comics!  I’m not saying.  I’m just saying.

Whether its offing Archie and Wolverine,  making Captain America a brother or Thor a woman, it’s all about pandering and pandering desperately for a little bit of attention.  Comics exist primarily as intellectual property for films and to tell the same stories in ever more expensive formats.     Whether they call it The New 52 or Marvel Now,  what comics primarily provide is not occasionally innovative fun, but meaningless “event” after meaningless event.

It’s 2014 and there is still only one monthly title from the majors with an openly gay hero. It’s hard enough to get the heterosexual White males that make up the core of the comics audience to support titles with women or racial minority heroes. When Marvel replaced the Ultimate Comics version of Peter Parker with Miles Morales, a Black and Hispanic teen that was a major change and I recall the howls of outrage fueled in part from racist comic fans. It’s no accident a lesbian lead character is as far as pushing the envelope with sexual orientation goes. A homosexual super hero’s got no shot.

Change the gender, change the race, change nothing else.

Change the gender, change the race, change nothing else.

Homophobia is one reason  the concept of gays in comics is confined primarily to second-stringers, supporting characters and heroes which can be created, discarded and forgotten.

The takeaway from all this is its okay to kill off a long-running established characters (because they always come back) and its okay to give over their name and uniforms to a woman or person of color (because they will eventually take the name and uniform back) or to marry them off, rape and murder their wives, husbands and family members, impregnate them, body swap them, paralyze them, lop off a limb, steal their sight, make them old and infirm, and pretty much do any blessed thing to a long-running established character because you can always retcon it out of existence.

Don’t stress over Dead Archie,  Muslim Ms. Marvel, Thor with breasts in her breastplate or Afro Cap.  Before you can start to hate it, it’ll be over.

Just don’t make them gay.  Phony diversity is cool, but that is the Line of Death which must never be crossed.   There are straight fans who would riot if a major super hero came out.   Or create really angry Tweets.   The prospect of  pissing off all those timid editors and misogynist, homophobic fanboys would be reason enough to do it.   Every group wants to see themselves in their heroes and not only the ones whom are popular with the majority and  comics shouldn’t pander  exclusively to the majority while the minority settles for tokens and table scraps.

I would  be a lot more interested if we were about to get a Black writer on Captain America. Or about any comic book from Marvel and DC.  I’m  over diversity for the sake of appearances thing

If Lois Lane can turn into a Black woman it’s equally possible for Superman and Batman to look deeply in the others eyes and tenderly whisper, “I wish I knew how to quit you.”  Is that an image that disturbs you, dead reader?  Perhaps, but enough with  seven decades of the side eye and vague hints. Go big or go home.

It’s only a comic book and comic fans like difference in their comics.  Just not the radical kind.

Collision Course: Captain America vs. Superman vs. Batman

superheroes

There are plenty of reviews for Captain America: The Winter Soldier that opened last weekend to kick off the summer movie season (in April?) and pocketed a tidy $93 million dollars even before I sat down in my seat. This isn’t another one of them. It’s just a few thoughts I had that aren’t spoilers, but one might be “spoilerish.”

Saw the fuck out of the flick on Sunday. It’s really good, though I wouldn’t go so far as some to call it “Marvel’s Dark Knight.” Pump ya brakes and slow ya roll.   It is a fun time in the dark, but there’s no Heath Ledger performance anywhere in sight. Certainly not from the Winter Soldier.

If Kevin Feige reads this, it is time for a Black Widow movie. I was surprised by how much screen time Scarlett Johannson had but this was far and away her best turn as Natasha Romanoff. If we wait for DC to finally give Wonder Woman her shot, we’ll be waiting around for another five years or so. I’m convinced the audience will turn out for Black Widow kicking ass in her own movie.

Come on, Kev. Make it happen!

DC/Warner Bros. is in a completely reactive mode where they have squandered their advantages of having a line of iconic super heroes, yet have utterly and completely failed to exploit that edge into successful franchise films without Batman or Superman.

Over the next two years movies featuring Marvel properties include The Amazing Spider-Man 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past and the Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man(?!) and The Avengers: Age of Ultron all up and taking swings at box office supremacy before Superman vs. Batman finally get up to deck in 2016. Two years with nothing to offer is an eternity for a genre of films that has to peak sometime (but hasn’t as of yet).

Oh, and Captain America 3 is already claiming the same 2016 opening week as Supes vs. Bats (does Cap die and Bucky/Winter Soldier pick up the shield as it played out in the comics?). You would think Marvel has to be nuts to go mano a mano against DC’s biggest guns, but they claimed the release date first.

Both of these 500 pound gorillas can’t occupy the same weekend without one being severely wounded by the other. Someone is going to blink and move out of this opening week and I’m willing to bet it will be the one that already moved once already.

Cap ain't afraid of no Superman and his Bat-Buddy either.

Cap ain’t afraid of no Superman and his Bat-Buddy either.

I would expect in a head-to-head competition, Captain America 3 would falter against the joint might of Superman-Batman-Wonder Woman and whomever else the hell DC stuffs into the movie, but if blunts their box office momentum and it doesn’t open to somewhere in the $100 million range, Warner Brothers will need real superheroes to catch all the falling bodies being tossed out of hi-rise office towers.

The trap DC is in is they have bet their entire superhero film future on one movie. This movie can’t underperform or fall short the way Man of Steel did which barely edged out Thor: The Dark World in profitability.    If you’re a Superman fan, how does a Thunder God most people associate with their high school class on mythology give the Last Son of Krypton a run for the money?

It’s because Marvel has followed a plan to build a universe where even it’s “B”list characters can battle DC’s “A” list heroes to a virtual draw.

Marvel has been able to load its gun with several bullets so even if  Thor misses they still have Iron Man, Captain America, and The Avengers locked and loaded with more possibilities for The Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Widow and the Falcon. Marvel mastermind Kevin Feige says they have their movies planned out to 2028! The fact that actors like Sebastian Stan (Bucky/Winter Soldier) are signed to do six to nine pictures makes it clear than when Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans and others “age out” or are done slipping on the spandex, the franchises will go on and on and on…

I don’t see a similar game plan from DC/Warner. They are dealing with a recast Batman, David Goyer and Zack Snyder turned loose without a Christopher Nolan to reign in their worst excesses (and Nolan disagreed with their decision to have Superman kill Zod).

Nolan is gone to pursue his own vision and while the hope is Snyder/Goyer will successfully set up a Justice League franchise it all hinges on Supes/Bats doing billion dollar business.

It could all come together as planned. But if it doesn’t DC isn’t as well-positioned as Marvel to overcome a cinematic setback.

As for Captain America: The Winter Solider, it’s really good. Easily the best superhero movie I’ve seen since The Avengers. Chris Evans has really grown into the role of Steve Rogers/Captain America. Anthony Mackie’s Falcon is good. Samuel Jackson finally gets to do more as Nick Fury than stand around and glower. Scarlett Johannson surprised me in how central her role was in my enjoyment of the flick.

I give it a solid “B+” and I’d take my wife with me for a second viewing.

"Let's tell Disney to give you your own film right now!"

“Let’s tell Disney to give you your own film right now!”

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Superman Had To Destroy Metropolis To Save It

“You talkin’ to me?”

As far as summer blockbusters go, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the relaunching of the Superman movie franchise by the Zack Snyder directed and Christopher Nolan produced Man of Steel.   Among the movies of the summer it falls only slightly behind Iron Man 3, but leaps with a single bound over the bloated and soulless Star Trek: Enter Darkness.

For a 75-year old hero, Henry Cavill’s Superman doesn’t quite charm the way Christopher Reeve did when he slipped on the red-and-blue uniform, but Cavill will definitely get a second and probably more chances to slip on the suit (sans the red undies) in future sequels.   Warner Brothers and DC Comics desperately needed a big hit to get them back in the game against the multitude of Marvel movies and with Nolan done with his Batman trilogy,  Man of Steel gets them back in the game.    The trick will be to have as much luck in getting other DC comic book heroes onto the screen, but with the big box office grosses of Man of Steel it should be up, up and away for future franchises.

Between the men of steel and iron, once again comic book movies dominate at the box office.   There are a lot of things I love about Man of Steel,  but boy does it take itself seriously.  That’s the Nolan touch at work because the Dark Knight flicks didn’t have much of a sense of humor either.   If Superman Returns was ripped for being boring as hell, Man of Steel goes for jaw-dropping spectacle and an extended showdown between Superman and his nemesis, General Zod (a glowering Michael Shannon)  that ups the ante for sheer devastation that The Avengers‘ trashing of New York City can’t begin to touch.   That’s where my big problem with Man of Steel begins and be warned that there are major SPOILERS from this point on, so if you haven’t seen the movie, bail out here.

Even fantasy flicks have to follow logic, if not necessarily realism and logic says if two superhumans go to war in the heart of a city and wreak massive devastation and destruction in the process, there will be a body count and you would run out of toe tags and body bags once  you pulling them out of the ruins of Metropolis.

“You like prison movies, Zod?” “NOOOOOOOOOOOOO….”

Merely because we are discussing/debating a fantasy character in a summer popcorn flick, it doesn’t mean we can totally suspend disbelief.  Tom Clancy said it true when he observed, “The difference between truth and fiction? Fiction has to make sense.”  The bloodless catastrophe that befalls Metropolis in Man of Steel makes no damn sense.

Rather than referencing Man of Steel a much more relevant comparison would be Superman II when Zod gets ready to throw down in the middle of Metropolis, Superman retreats rather than tear up the city.

That’s Superman making the smart move instead of being a dickhead with blood in his eyes and dead bodies everywhere.   I am not the target demographic for this film.  It was made for teenage boys who either do not know of Superman’s moral code against killing or could care less about it.  Youth must be served and because technology has come so far in 33 years when the tagline for Superman was “you will believe a man can fly.”  There are all new ways to make shit blow up real good and maybe that’s good enough for those with no sense of history.  Yet even these movies are designed not only to attract kids, but the parents of the kids as well and they are the ones most likely to be familiar with the original source material and still respect it.

Stuff blowing up real good is not enough for me. Superman not only does not kill, he does not willingly permit innocents to die, but this one does both.  Zod is the one who considers massive expenditures of human life to be “collateral damage,” not Kal-El. If neither of them care then there are no good guys and bad guys here. It’s just bad guy and worse guy.

This is supposed to be a more “realistic” Superman who has no choice but to kill in the absence of any better option, but that’s because Snyder and David Goyer’s screenplay didn’t give him any.

After he snaps Zod’s neck, Supes lets out a “NOOOOOO!!!” but he gets over it real quick.    There’s no consequences to trashing a major city and no remorse for killing his enemy.   Batman tells Ra’s Al Ghul, “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you” in Batman Begins.    Superman says,  “Guess I have to kill you since I can’t figure out any way to stop you.”

Superman’s philosophy used to be “truth, justice and the American way” when it was Christopher Reeve with the “S” on his chest. When did it become “I had to destroy Metropolis to save it?”

Superman is a super hero and super heroes find another way. He can do what takes some imagination or say “ain’t nobody got time for that” and just snap the bastard’s neck. Problem solved, right?

Except I don’t want Superman killing Lex Luthor, Doomsday, Bizarro, Brainiac or anybody else that decides to mess with the “S” because it’s the quick and easy fix and Superman just really digs snapping necks.  Wolverine and The Punisher already exist to put bad guys to sleep permanently, but neither are “heroes” in the classic sense.  Superman is and he is a hero who does what others can not do or will not do, not just what is expedient.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child and I read comic books that appealed to me as a child. When I became a young man I put away childish things including Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and superheroes like that because it stopped making sense to me why someone like Batman would do this endless, repetitive dance with The Joker where the guy escapes from Arkham Asylum (again), kills a ton of innocent people (again), Batman beats him up and throws his ass back into Arkham (again) and six months later we start the whole damn thing all over again.

It was an endless cycle of stupid that made no sense. Garth Ennis’ character of Tommy Monaghan, the Hitman took on a contract to kill the Joker and blamed Batman for enabling the Joker’s murderous sprees because he wouldn’t kill the Clown Prince of Crime saying, “A sensible man would have done it years ago.”.

Superman is blessed with enough powers and abilities that he doesn’t have to kill his enemies. He finds another way because that’s what he does.

That has worked for 75 years. One movie with a revisionist streak doesn’t mean what always worked before doesn’t work anymore.

“Bring me The Avengers and I’ll kick all their asses!”

Lies, Injustice and Homophobia Are Not the American Way

What the Internet does better than anything else is give ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and hate a means to reach millions of people in a matter of seconds.  If not millions, at least dozens.

Today’s daily dosage of Internet Ignorance comes from a defender of Orson Scott Card, the science-fiction author and notorious homophobe who sparked controversy when DC Comics announced Card would be writing a Superman comic  book.   The fans of the Man of Steel gave a collective middle finger to that news and Card’s debut on the most popular super hero of all time has been delayed indefinitely after the artist resigned from the book.

Card and DC miscalculated the degree of resistance they would meet, but that isn’t to say his hateful homophobia doesn’t have his supporters.  One of  them directed me to an essay on a right-wing website and said, “It provides solid counterarguments to much of the “logic” used to justify this unfair boycott, particularly that the character of Superman is inherently incompatible with Card’s beliefs.”

“I’d encourage you to give it a read.”

So I did and for my troubles I was exposed to a particularly ugly expression of hate-filled homophobia that left me as queasy as Superman exposed to green kryptonite.    I didn’t find any solid counterarguments. I found spectacularly weak justifications of bigotry.    I also found a rhetorical  IED set by the author, Kathy Shaidle, to blow up when it was read. It’s almost clever how Shaidle set up her hate bomb.

Gay activists insist that faggot comes from the word for the kindling beneath the feet of heretical homosexuals. That’s a lie.

But while the word “faggot” doesn’t come from “a bundle of sticks,” the word “fascist” does.

Funny, that.

Behold: In the name of “truth, justice and the American way,” a renowned science-fiction writer has just been condemned to (professional) death for expressing his views on homosexuality in a tiny Mormon magazine almost twenty-five years ago.

The Far Right has rallied to Card’s defense.

Orson Scott Card wrote the beloved 1985 Hugo and Nebula Award-winning novel Ender’s Game “about the innocence of a child winning out over war and hatred,” an “irony” which seems to be making his “homophobia” all the more heartbreaking to his lifelong (liberal) fans.

So what did Card say?

Back in 1990—and again in 2004—he objected to the legalization of sodomy and “gay marriage” by judicial fiat. If unelected judges can nullify thousands of years of civil and religious law in a trice, he asked, what else will our robed rulers force us to accept? Will ordinary people someday rise up against this tyrannical system?

That candid, decades-long (and, some would say, perfectly sound) opposition to “gay marriage” in particular and top-down social engineering in general suddenly rendered Card persona non grata when DC Comics hired him to write a Superman comic last month.

That was the stick that broke the faggots’ back, or perhaps the one they’d been waiting to beat Card with for some time.

Like I said. Almost. What all that was for was to set up an excuse for Shaidle to use “faggot” as a slur, not as a descriptive for kindling.

Five feet of fury. And homophobic hate.

Kathy Shaidle likes that slur. She likes to say it. A lot.

Who is Kathy Shaidle?

She has called Muslims “pathetic, whiny losers” who practise “a sick, sick religion.”

She has accused Asians of spreading disease in Toronto, disparaged natives and blacks, and suggested the poor “are no more real than Bigfoot.”

Now, controversial right-wing blogger Kathy Shaidle may be coming to London to speak about human rights.

The invitation to Shaidle by some members of the city’s Jewish community has alarmed anti-racism activists and provided fresh ammunition to the country’s heavyweight politicos over freedom of speech.

“She is a purveyor of some of the most offensive racial stereotypes I have ever read,” Bernie Farber, head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said yesterday.

“Any group that associates with or defends her is diminished by her,” charged Warren Kinsella, Liberal insider and author of Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network.

“They shouldn’t have anything to do with her. They will just hurt themselves.”

“I will not be intimidated. I am not going to apologize about anything I have written,” she told The Free Press yesterday. “This is a goofy smear campaign by name-calling leftists.”

No wonder she’s riding Card’s jock so hard. She’s just another hateful bitch who thinks her religion gives her the right to hate others.

And I don’t mean “bitch” as a sexist slur. I mean it as describing a female canine. As in lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas. Homophobic, racist fleas.

See how that playing around with the duality of words works?

It’s A Bird! It’s A Plane! It’s Super-Homophobe!

Don’t mess with the “S.”

DC Comics announced this week that Orson Scott Card, author of Ender’s Game will be the writer of the Adventures of Superman. Mr. Card is an extremely conservative, extremely controversial choice based upon his strident anti-gay beliefs and opposition to same-sex marriage.

Card explained his views at length in a 2004 essay.

Calling a homosexual contract “marriage” does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization.

In fact, it will do harm. Nowhere near as much harm as we have already done through divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing. But it’s another nail in the coffin. Maybe the last nail, precisely because it is the most obvious and outrageous attack on what is left of marriage in America.

Supporters of homosexual “marriage” dismiss warnings like mine as the predictable ranting of people who hate progress. But the Massachusetts Supreme Court has made its decision without even a cursory attempt to ascertain the social costs. The judges have taken it on faith that it will do no harm.

You can’t add a runway to an airport in America without years of carefully researched environmental impact statements. But you can radically reorder the fundamental social unit of society without political process or serious research.

Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn’t bothered them. That’s what tolerance looks like.

But homosexual “marriage” is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society — to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

So if my friends insist on calling what they do “marriage,” they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won’t be married. They’ll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes.

Very conservative, very homophobic, very controversial.

That’s pretty harsh as is, but the further you drill down into Card’s essay the deepest it descends into the ugliest of homophobic stereotypes and hetro-paranoia:

Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.

Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms — effeminite boys and masculine girls — are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into “accepting” what many of them never suspected they had — a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.

In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.

Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are “born that way,” and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.

In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.

Those who claim that there is “no danger” and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.

The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

It’s that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual “marriage.”

They are unhappy, but they think it’s because the rest of us “don’t fully accept them.”

Homosexual “marriage” won’t accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it.

Who needs Metropolis when you've got Gay City?

Who needs Metropolis when you’ve got Gay City?

This is the dude DC Comics thinks would be a great choice to write Superman? I don’t read the comic books any more, but I recall Superman standing for “truth, justice and the American way.” Is overt hatred for a group of people the American way?
Some gay activists don’t think so, but for now DC Comics is standing by the controversial Card.

The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender activist website AllOut.org has collected more than 11,000 signatures on an online petition asking DC to drop Card from the project.

“By hiring Orson Scott Card despite his anti-gay efforts you are giving him a new platform and supporting his hate,” the petition reads. “We need to let DC Comics know they can’t support Orson Scott Card or his work to keep LGBT people as second-class citizens.”

Card and his representatives did not respond to requests Wednesday for a comment.

A statement released Wednesday by DC said: “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

The publisher has a history of being pro-LGBT with its series. Batwoman, featuring a strong and nuanced lesbian superheroine who shares the Gotham City streets with Batman, has won two GLAAD Media Awards for outstanding comic book and is up for a third this year.

That’s partly why some comics readers have difficulty understanding the Card hiring.

“When you consider all the writers available in the world, picking one as controversial as Card seems like a clueless, tone-deaf move by DC. On the other hand, they were probably just thinking of the Ender’s Game movie coming out (in November) and getting even more attention,” says Heidi MacDonald, editor in chief of the comics-culture website The Beat.

Other authors such as Brad Metzler, Jodi Picoult, Eric Jerome Dickey and Stephen King have taken their turns writing mainstream comics for DC and Marvel, but Card’s history of demonizing an entire segment of readers makes him a poor choice to write the most iconic character in the history of the comics genre.

DC is kidding themselves if they think their LGBT readers will overlook Card’s odious beliefs and separate them from his writing talents. It isn’t political correctness to punt Card from writing Superman.  In a time when comic books are struggling to hold on to every reader they have, doe it make sense to use a writer who has displayed such contempt for a portion of the audience based upon their sexual orientation.    If Card were railing against Jews or Blacks in blatantly anti-Semitic, racist language DC wouldn’t consider for a moment hiring him.

Superman has played gay such as the time he was exposed to pink Kryptonite and faster than a speeding bullet he was hitting on Jimmy Olsen, ”

The excuse by DC that Card’s  odious “personal views” don’t reflect on the company is crap.    What they’re saying is they tolerate some forms of bigotry  as long as its gays and lesbians being dumped on.

Card is a hate-filled fanatic and DC should drop this guy like a bad habit.    Superman deserves a writer who shares his beliefs.

When Superman went gay, things got…interesting.

Superhero Smackdown Set for 2015?

“Standalone movies? We don’t got to make no stinkin’ standalone movies.”

From the Los Angeles Times, there now exists a strong possibility for not one, but two super hero teams slugging it out for box office supremacy in 2015.

DC Comics’ superheroes can finally team up on the big screen following yesterday’s legal victory for Warner Bros. in its long-running fight over the rights to Superman.

The studio is expected to accelerate development of a planned “Justice League” movie that would join Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman and other characters, according to a knowledgeable person not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Warner hopes to shoot the film next year and release it in the summer of 2015. The studio already has a “Justice League” script in the works. Next it needs to attach a director and then cast the lead roles.

Had Warner lost its case against the heirs of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster, it would not have been able to make “Justice League” or any other movies, television shows or comics featuring key elements of the Man of Steel’s mythos after 2013 unless it reached a new agreement with the estates of Shuster and co-creator Jerry Siegel.

That uncertainty made it difficult for Warner to move ahead with “Justice League,” which the studio’s motion pictures group president, Jeff Robinov, has long wanted to make as a pillar of its big-screen superhero strategy.

Robinov previously tried unsuccessfully to convince “The Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan to produce “Justice League.” Nolan is producing next year’s Superman movie “Man of Steel.” Wednesday’s court victory also makes it possible for Warner to make sequels to “Man of Steel” if the picture is successful.

With “Green Lantern” flopping and other movies featuring the Flash and Wonder Woman lingering in development, Warner has lagged behind Walt Disney Co.’s Marvel Studios in profiting from cinematic superheroes. Only Nolan’s blockbuster Batman movie trilogy has succeeded for the Burbank studio.

The studio’s plan is to spin out other superheroes into their own movies following “Justice League.” That’s contrary to Marvel’s successful strategy of teaming up Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America in”Avengers” (which became a global blockbuster) after each character had his own film.

This is welcome news for Justice League fans who have longed to see their heroes finally make the jump from comic books and cartoons to the big screen, but the news comes with some head-scratching details in the story.  Is DC and Warners so confident they can introduce a brand-new Batman, an unproven Henry Cavill as Superman, surround them with a bunch of other actors and knock off something as eagerly anticipated as the second installment of the Avengers ?

Finally off the bench and out of Development Hell?

It is no surprise Nolan is walking away from the millions Warner is offering him.  He’s already one of the best directors working.  He has to want to be nominated for Best Director at some point in his career and it won’t happen making comic book movies. I’m sure Warner will find a good director and a capable cast. I just wonder what the strategy is if Man of Steel tanks or underperforms. Not saying it will. Just saying it could.

Marvel already has sequels in the queue for Thor, Captain America and Iron Man (with the first trailer for Iron Man 3 next Tuesday) and the Guardians of the Galaxy with all four of them priming the pump for the Avengers sequel.   It’s probable not all four will succeed, but it won’t blunt the anticipation for the next Avengers movie.

For DC and Warner there’s no similar margin of error.  If the next Superman relaunch doesn’t fly high at the box office, there’s nothing left to fall back on until Justice League in 2015. That’s why I think the “all or nothing at all” strategy is high reward and high risk. If it works, DC is set up nicely for their own standalone Green Lantern, Flash and Wonder Woman spin-off flicks (sorry Aquaman).

A failure with either or both of their next two films and those future franchises are grounded leaving DC and Warner back in the same dilemma they’ve been in for over a decade; with only Batman and Superman as their go-to comic book movies, and nothing else primed to come off the bench to fill the void between them.

Let’s be honest.  Warners isn’t making a Justice League movie because of its artistic merit.   They’re making it because Disney made a BILLION dollars with Avengers and even if their super hero team movie is only half as good if it only makes half as much that’s a calculated risk worth taking.

Whatever it cost DC and Warner to secure the rights to keep making Superman movies will be money well spent if the Big Blue flies high at the box office.