Took a break from What Danny Did to try and see what I could do with a new Jack story and the pages have been flying out. It’s actually surprising me a little because I wasn’t even completely sure what I was going to do with Jack next, but I certainly know now.

It’s weird how these things kind of sort themselves out. I was really floundering on what I should be working on. I was writing on What Danny Did but wasn’t sure what exactly I was doing with it, then I was considering going back to the next Charlie story or even starting a new, non-Bloodletting story. I knew I wanted to work on Jack soon, but I didn’t even know where to start. So I opened up the document, and started with the same image the other two Jack stories started with, a woman hanging from the ceiling, and then it was off to the races.

I also made a cover for the story, once I figured out what it was actually about. It’s a pretty different style from the other covers, but I like it. It’s perhaps a little too busy for an ebook cover, but I think it gets the job done and is striking and interesting. I’m sure I’ll mess with it and change things here and there before I’m done.




Delta Washington vs The Zombies

I’ve been bummed about a thing for the last couple of years. I had a story that I’ve been developing for a long time. I wrote maybe 75% of the screenplay, and it’s called Delta Washington vs The Zombies. The very first seed of the story was “What if there was a zombie apocalypse in a Pam Grier movie” because I thought that that would be a really fun movie to watch. It would take place in the 70s and have a lot of the old Blaxploitation tropes. It was going to be horror/comedy hybrid. But then Black Dynamite came along and did the Blaxploitation tribute far better than I ever could have hoped to, or had the right to. I realized, ultimately, that as a white guy I had no business trying to insinuate myself into that arena.

So instead, I changed directions and wrote (most of) the screenplay as a straight forward zombie horror movie, with heavy comic book influences. There was a “villain” who was very much a comic book villain, and I kept the lead character, Delta Washington, as the kind of character that Pam Grier might have played in a more straight forward, Hollywood movie. Smart, attractive, flawed, politically aware and with an arch that forced her to step up and be a badass, as most zombie movie heroes do. I like that story. I like my approach to the genre in that story, and I really, really loved that character. Delta Washington was a fucking great character.

Then The Walking Dead came along, and Michonne shows up and is a super badass black woman totally dominating all zombies. She had a signature weapon, like Delta (though Delta’s wasn’t a sword exactly) and a no-bullshit attitude. I figured that since TWD had pretty much done the tough, black woman fighting zombies thing, that my story was now irrelevant. So I just stopped developing it entirely.

But then I was thinking about it last night, and I realize how incredibly stupid that is. And frankly, kind of racist when I didn’t even realize it. Why can’t there be more than one badass black woman fighting zombies? It’s not like there’s one spot in all of zombie pop-culture for a black woman to occupy. She’s different from Michonne. She has a different history, a different way of dealing with characters, and a different role in the broader story. Besides, how many generic fucking white guys have starred in zombie movies? It’s a stupid reason not to write a story. If anything, the fact that there’s only really one badass black chick fighting zombies in pop culture (unless you count Naomie Harris in 28 Days Later, which I do actually) is all the more reason to write MORE diverse characters. I wrote that character because I felt like there was a distinct lack of that kind of representation, so what, I’m going to just throw the whole thing out because there’s ONE other character out there that happens to also be brown? That’s idiotic.

So I will write Delta Washington vs The Zombies. Maybe not next, but eventually. It’s on deck. Maybe I’ll let zombies cool off a bit first, since I already dove into vampires in the middle of a massive backlash. But it’s in the pipeline.

I’ve recognized that the characters in Bloodletting are overwhelmingly white and I’m actually taking that into consideration as I’m move forward. There are more characters coming down the line, and I’m planning on adding some color to the stream. The lack of ethnic diversity so far has frankly been out of my own experience. I’m not a particularly social person and for the last 15 years I’ve lived in a place where I’m surrounded almost entirely by white people. Most of my own experience has been decidedly vanilla, racially, and I’m working on broadening my vision a little. Also, because I’m writing about vampires, my brain goes to pale skin as the aesthetic. But I recognize that as a content creator, it’s important to take that opportunity to bring more diversity into my work, and I’m going to make an effort to do more of that as I go forward.



I reread Patricia last night and decided I really disliked parts of it. Specifically the first page or two. I don’t exactly know what I was thinking when I started writing it. I think that because the “introduction” of the story was the part I knew the best (the scene with Patricia and Charlie in the bathroom was the first Bloodletting thing I wrote ever, way back when I was a teenager). For some reason, the first few pages had this like folksy, “here’s an old story” quality to it, like Waylon Jennings narrating an episode of The Dukes of Hazard. ‘Round about this time, the Duke boys were getting into some trouble with vampires!”

I wasn’t happy with it. I think I’ve become a better writer since I started writing Bloodletting, and it shows in that first story. Then I figured, hey, this is self publishing! The wild west of writing! THERE’S NO RULES. I do what I want!

So I rewrote that shit. Mostly just the first half a page or so. I took out all the overly familiar, self aware narration and wrote it more like an actual story. I made a few minor changes here and there, as well as cleaning up some grammar issues and the odd clunky bit of writing.

The first half of Patricia (Book 0) goes like this now:



Patricia’s teeth were chattering uncontrollably. It happened every time she took X. Chattering teeth was one of the less fun side effects of the otherwise enjoyable drug. She had a lot of experience with Ecstasy and knew that by the time she got to the club, the chattering will have mellowed to a low, mostly imperceptible rumble in the back of her mouth.

The Aston Martin let out an electronic yelp, like a dog in a shock collar, when she pressed the ‘unlock’ button on the plastic fob hanging from her keyring. She slid into the car, pulled down the zipper on her boot and slipped it off. Sitting against the dark gray leather of the seat, the red bottom of the boot looked like a blood soaked weapon, and that made her smile. She liked the boots quite a lot. They were black, leather, made in Italy, designed by Christian Louboutin and cost her well over twelve-hundred dollars. That said, she never quite mastered the art of driving in heals, so the right boot was in its place on the passengers seat. All of her right high-heals had ridden shotgun at some point or another.

This would be the last night that Patricia’s Shaefer’s black suede Louboutin boot would get to ride in the passenger seat of the Aston Martin, because Patricia Shaefer was going to die in just under an hour and a half. It would be an ugly, ungraceful death and entirely unexpected.

While certainly a case could be made that all human life is precious, it’s also accurate to say that the number of people who would truly mourn her death was limited to a very select few. By nearly all accounts, she was a vile, occasionally cruel woman who was arrogant, condescending and treated retail workers and cleaning staff like human garbage. Perhaps she didn’t deserve to go out quite as harshly as she did, but honestly, not many tears were be shed for the loss of Patricia Schaefer.

The night all of this happened, Patricia was 26 years old and living in Laurel Canyon, in a house far too large for a single woman. The building itself was more of a novelty than a practical home, though she was fond of it. For a year or so in the late sixties it belonged to Peter Tork of The Monkees and at the time was notorious for hosting legendary parties. Patricia had no personal nostalgia or connection with the history of the house, but she did appreciate its location and aesthetic. The area had a diverse and distinctly Los Angeles history that appealed to her. Alice Cooper, Frank Zappa and Jim Morrison all owned houses in Laurel Canyon at one point or another. The Wonderland Murders happened not more than fifteen minutes away.


Header source suzi9mm



Something I’m thinking about

I was reading a blog post about a guy and his debut novel and how well it’s doing, and it got me thinking.

So all along my plan has been to do what I’ve been doing, which is writing and releasing Bloodletting as a series of short stories that I would ultimately consolidate into either one massive novel or a series of shorter novels. That’s why they’re divided up by character and book number. While each story is meant to be able to stand alone, the intention all along has been to collect them.

Originally, I planned on having an A-story and a B-story in each  “book” and flip back and forth between them. I ended up only doing that in two of the books (2-Victoria and 3-Danny) and in the other two (1-Charlie and 4-Jack) I stayed pretty much exclusively in the past.

What I’m thinking is that I’ve got another Charlie story (1.4) that is just about done, and then probably one more that I still need to write (1.5) and that should finish up the entire Charlie “book.” Or at least this phase of it. I’m still deciding how I want to approach the second half the main story. Either way, once I put out those two stories, I’ll be able to compile the whole Charlie series into one book and essentially have a complete novel, following Charlie from when she runs away from home in book 1.1 to when she ends up where she ends up in at the end of book 1.5. I suppose book 0, Patricia, is also part of the Charlie series, though I’m not sure I’d put it in Charlie’s book.

Either way, my point is that I’m considering finishing up the Charlie story entirely next. Finishing and putting out the mostly done Charlie 1.4 and then powering through 1.5, just so I’ve got a full novel under my belt. A book I can charge 5.99 for or whatever and put in the print store and see how it sells compared to the shorts.

It’s a something I’m thinking about. I’ve got a pretty solid idea of exactly what happens between when I left off with Caroline and Charlie in Arizona and where that story ends, so it’s really just a matter of writing it. The first three Charlie stories (excluding Patricia) are between 13k and 15k words each, and I expect the last two will clock in around that as well. all together that should be about 75k words, which is roughly 200 pages by Amazon’s count. Not great for a print novel, but not completely unreasonable either. And for an ebook, that’s perfectly acceptable as a full length novel.

I dunno. I still have to write What Danny Did, so it’s not like I need to decide anything right now. It’s just something I’m thinking about.

(header image source)


The Gail Story

So I should explain this a bit before I post it.

First of all, I wrote this a while ago. It was something of a sequel to another story I wrote about Carly Simon. To say that they’re fan-fiction is perhaps not entirely accurate, in part because I didn’t really know what that meant when I wrote them, and also in part because they aren’t very pleasant stories. Neither this, nor the Carly Simon story present either of their subjects in an accurate context or a realistic portrayal of who they are. It’s not even right to call it speculative, because I don’t believe that anything about either story is even remotely close to true. They’re just weird, dark narratives that entered my mind at 2 in the morning, so I wrote them down. It’s an old piece of writing and I believe I’m a better writer now, and it pains me to put this up “as is” but I think it would be disingenuous to rewrite the particularly glairing bits of clunky writing.

This story is dark, sexual, entirely unhealthy and completely untrue. I want to make it clear that at no point do I believe in, feel positively about or endorse anything that happens in this story. I generally don’t feel the need to put disclaimers before my stories, but this time, because it does center around a real person who probably uses the internet and probably googles her own name, it seemed like a good idea.

I cut a fair bit of the lead up to the Gail story out, just because it wasn’t really relevant and while it presented the story in an interesting way (springing forth from a fairly juvenile blog post about the breasts of cooking show personalities) it’s a product of a time when I was far less concerned about objectifying and frankly, dehumanizing women. It was played for humor and was fairly cynical and while not mean spirited, it was at least insensitive, and I’m just not that guy anymore. That said, the following story doesn’t exactly paint a pleasant picture either. The difference is that the lead character in the story isn’t speaking on my behalf, but the blog post was. So I cut the blog post and  jump right into the part where I was explaining what it was that I found attractive about food writer and frequent Top Chef judge Gail Simmons.

Continue reading


The Office Bully

This was originally posted on my old blog on December 18, 2013


So I’ve had something on my mind lately. I think that the Jim Halpert character on The Office is the most accurate and honest portrayal of a bully I’ve ever seen on TV.

It’s weird, because it’s almost as though the writers understand that he is a bully, and kind of an asshole, and there are a few scenes where they touch on this, but not many. For the most part, we’re meant to view Jim as the hero of the story. One of the few sane voices in an office full of supposedly annoying and unbearably quirky characters. Yet, if he were a real person in the real world, he’d be fired for the way he treats Dwight. Or, one would hope.

The show is a perfect example of how bullies are able to continue bullying. The relationship between Jim and Dwight is established immediately. Dwight is annoying and strange and socially awkward and Jim finds it amusing to “prank” him and laugh at how he reacts, mostly to impress the secretary he has crush on. We’re meant to go along with Jim and laugh at Dwight. It’s meant be amusing that Jim antagonizes him, winding him up for the entertainment of the rest of the office. It doesn’t matter that Dwight is clearly suffering from some sort of emotional and/or personality disorder, in addition to an unconventional and culturally secluded upbringing. They make it clear that Dwight is a “nerd” by establishing his love for science fiction (especially Battlestar Galactica,) heavy metal, a myriad of computer games, and an obsession with history and natural science. These qualities are all used against him to portray Dwight (both by Jim and by the show itself) as strange and therefor annoying and deserving of belittling harassment.

(I should probably point out that I quite enjoyed The Office. Both the UK original and the US version. They both had moments of brilliance and while I think the US show fell apart a bit after Steve Carrell left, up to that point it was pretty consistently hilarious.)

Something that’s interesting about this particular perspective on Jim as a bully, is they make a point to portray Roy (fiance of Pam, the secretary and focus of Jim’s pining) as a bully in the traditional sense. Physically imposing, aggressive and dominating. Yet, Jim was the one perusing his fiance. When Roy came into the office to confront Jim after finding out that he’d kissed Pam, he’s portrayed as borderline psychotic. Certainly it’s wrong to assault someone (which Roy was threatening to do to Jim) but in that particular scenario, Roy was justified in being upset to the point of an altercation. Perhaps not a physical one, but few would argue that he was wrong for being angry and confronting Jim. That was a direct reaction to Jim’s active pursuit of his romantic partner. Yet the show portrayed Roy as this awful brute and Jim as the poor victim. It’s worth pointing out that in that particular incident, it was Dwight who actually stepped up and defended Jim (literally, physically) and stopped Roy from attacking.

This dynamic between Jim and Dwight went on for most of the show. It seemed like they would occasionally throw in a friendly moment here and there to act like “Aww, we’re just having fun here. These guys really love each other” which, to me, is an even more disturbing example of how the show justified and normalized its portrayal of bullying. That’s the exact attitude that allows people to be harassed endlessly. The idea that the person being harassed is playing along with the fun, even though they clearly aren’t. Or that they’re overreacting to harmless teasing.

Was Dwight Schrute an annoying character? Certainly. He was designed specifically to be. He had a painful lack of self-awareness (as most victims of bullies do) and was socially awkward to the point that he was difficult to be around. He had a peculiar sense of entitlement and arrogance (though I wonder how much of this would be called confidence and initiative in a less annoying character) and often an disturbing lack of common sense, and he was dismissive of the feelings of others in his pursuit of approval from his boss. He was ruthless in his attempts at upward mobility within Dunder Mifflin.

Yes, as a real human being, Dwight Schrute would be difficult to deal with on a regular basis. That doesn’t justify years of harassment. It would be one thing if Jim was responding to specific incidents or slights made against him, but that’s not the way the relationship plays out. It’s made clear over and over again that Dwight is trying to do his job and Jim is systematically and repeatedly harassing him. To the point that, by all appearances, he invests more energy and time into bullying Dwight than doing his actual job. As much is said directly, on multiple occasions on the show. Throughout the show, they make it clear that Dwight makes countless complaints to human resources and his manager about Jim’s harassment, but is never taken seriously. It’s another source of humor, how hard he tries to get his employers to protect him from Jim’s “pranks.” Again, another example of the kind of environment that facilitates bullying.

Then there was the time Jim pushed another character, Andy Bernard, into a full mental and emotional collapse, using the same tactics he used on Dwight. Andy ended up freaking out, punching a hole in the wall and having to take time off work go to anger management courses. The implication being that he was the problem. Ha ha.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that this bully dynamic was carried over directly from the UK show, and it made even more sense. I’d argue that the relationship between Tim and Gareth on the UK Office (the characters Jim and Dwight were based on) was an even crueler example of bullying. In the US they went to great lengths to establish how obnoxious and insufferable Dwight was. His social awkwardness was, at times, nearly sociopathic (though it seemed to stem from a deeply emotional and passionate love for his job and family) and so it was easy to laugh along with the crowd as Jim taunted him. Gareth, on the other hand, while socially awkward, came across more as just an incredibly simple man. A kind of Forest Gump-esque man-child. Tim’s bullying of Gareth was far crueler just because Gareth appeared to genuinely not understand why he was being tortured. At least Dwight had a kind of battle minded approach to his job. Gareth was just pathetic and sad.

It made me realize that this is likely the influence of Ricky Gervais, the co-creator of The Office. Gervais himself is something of a bully. It comes through constantly in his comedy. Whether it’s shaming overweight people (or, specifically, those more overweight than he himself) or his incessant need to ridicule and badger anyone who isn’t an atheist. While I understand that it’s the job of a comedian to poke at the sensitive and silly aspects of culture and society, and I would never suggest that they shouldn’t do that… there’s also a point where the comedian stops being funny and is just being a dick for the sake of it. Winding people up for the entertainment of the masses is a pretty lowbrow, brutish style of comedy. On the internet these people are called “trolls” and I’d say that’s accurate description.


Then there’s Ricky’s relationship with Karl Pilkington, which seems to be a real life example of the Tim/Gareth relationship. Karl Pilkington has served as a kind of springboard for the comedy of Ricky and Stephen Merchant (Ricky’s writing/producing partner) for the last ten years or so, and they’re both consistently unbelievably cruel to him. It’s hilarious, because all three of those people are naturally very funny, and the only reason it works is because Karl seems to be immune to it. I don’t understand why. I don’t know if Karl is some kind of elaborate Andy Kaufman type character played by a comedic genius but somehow he’s able to spin the way Rick and Stephen treat him into something funny rather than simply cruel.

Either way, my point is that the foundation of most of Ricky Gervais’ humor seems to be bullying. That came across clearly on the UK Office and it carried over directly into the US version. It’s something to think about next time you catch an episode. It’s certainly made me rethink the show itself and the environment it facilitates, seemingly with a sympathetic eye to the bully rather than the victim.


So I shut down my old blog at joehumphrey.com to focus on writing the Bloodletting series, but I still get hits to that site. In fact, I get way more hits to my old, now defunct blog than I do to the Bloodletting site, so I thought it might be worth blogging regular old blog stuff here.

Looking at other writers blogs, they post about all sorts of things, not just their books. I figure that as long as I keep updating about the series and what I’m working on, it shouldn’t be a problem to also blog about other things I’m interested in.

After re-blogging an old post I’d made years ago (to make available for a friend to read) about the casting of Superman, I started thinking about other older posts that might be worth peppering into the mix. I’ll try not to flood the page, but I’ll drop them in as I think of them.


Rolling With It

Okay, so I had a catastrophic computer failure last night. The good news is that I save all of my writing in The Cloud so it should all be safe. I lost some editing and some early drafts of things, but I’m not super bummed about that. I am, however, devastated at the loss of a lot of personal stuff (photos, other writing, random stuff)

Luckily, I’ve uploaded most of the finished products to Amazon and here, so at least I have something to work with, even if I don’t have the original photoshop files. Plus, because I’ve been pretty diligent about crediting the photographers and models who let me use their images, I have links to most of the original photos and can rebuild covers if I need to.

Which, as it happens, I need to. I was in the process of giving all of my previously released volumes a once over. Doing some minor proofreading and editing, cleaning up a few odds and ends. In the process, I was also redoing the covers, changing the layout of the text and that sort of thing. I was mostly done, but still had the first Danny book left.

So that one I actually did have to go back and rebuild from scratch. I kind of like the new one better, which is making me want to go back and rebuild all of them from scratch. Before, I was mostly just moving around text. But I might actually give all the covers a complete overhaul. As long as I’m being forced to rebuild, may as well rebuild all of it.

Here’s the three iterations of the Danny 3.1 cover. The first one  is the very first version, the second is the a version of the one I was going to use before my computer crashed. It’s too small to actually use it, which is why I had to start over. The third is the new one.

old danny1 book1


Why I Still Want Jon Hamm to Play Superman

(This is carried over from an old blog post that was written more than a year before the release of Man of Steel)

I fully get that at this point, there’s no real reason to talk speculatively about a Jon Hamm lead Superman movie. I know that ship has sailed and will never come back. What I’m talking about is my ultimate Superman fantasy movie and why Jon Hamm would be the best Superman ever.

First of all, I should explain my perception of Superman, because it may be different than the perception a lot of people have.

Over the years, there have been many different interpretations of Superman, both in comic books and in movies and television. When I was a kid I watched the Max Fleischer cartoons.

and reruns of the George Reeves TV show.

And, of course, I watched the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, and while I enjoyed them (I’d say I appreciate the first one more as an adult than I did as a kid) I always felt that Christopher Reeve was just a little too skinny and fragile looking to play Superman. He was a great actor and he certainly had the performance down, but for me, Superman needed to look a little older and a little burlier. In my mind, Superman looked like a wrestler from the 30s.

As the movies progressed, they got farther and farther from my idea of how Superman should be portrayed. They started getting  sillier until they became unwatchable. By the time they’d run out of steam, Superman was a big joke and nothing at all like what I wanted Superman to be.

I should also point out that over the course of this period I started reading comic books. Somewhere around the age of eight or nine. I gave Superman a few shots, but could never really connect with him as a comic book character. For me, Superman was better as a idea than as a practical, viable character. I liked him as a character in other comic books. I would read Batman and enjoy the issues where he would go to Metropolis and deal with Superman. Or in The Dark Knight Returns when the President brings Superman in to get Batman under control. There’s that great page where Frank Miller starts us with just the American flag and dialog where you understand that the president is talking to someone and each panel pulls us back a little more and intercuts with the color yellow as we start to realize that we’re looking at the S symbol on Superman’s chest.


I like the idea of what Superman represents more than the character himself. I like that he is an alien trying to pass in the human world. Practically a God on earth, yet he desperately wants to be accepted as a human. Because he was raised as a human. Even though he could crush anyone on the planet, all he wants is for people to care for him and respect him as a person, not because he’s more powerful than they are. Yet he’s never weepy. He’s not Batman crying about his dead parents. He’s not The X-Men making a political issue out of his differences. He’s a quiet, reserved guy, perhaps shy and, even more so, deliberately contained. Even though he wants to be accepted by humans, he also knows that he can never BE human, so there’s a detachment that makes him mysterious and maybe a little frightening. Ultimately though, he’s emotionally vulnerable. So rather than indulging his psychosis and acting like a nutcase like Batman, he’s just very quiet and observant. Occasionally having a meltdown or two, but for the most part he keeps it together. Or he tries to anyway. So many of the best Superman tales are stories that focus on his grip slipping and losing his composure.


Which brings us to Jon Hamm. Because in so many ways, his character on Mad Men, Don Draper, IS Superman. Don Draper deals with so many of the same issues that Superman deals with. He’s a scared, alienated guy scrambling to keep his life together, even though it’s a massive lie. He’s a guy who knows that at any moment, the truth could come out and his life could fall apart. The way that Don Draper deals with that constant fear and need to stay detached from those who love him is to hide behind this American ideal of masculinity. While Superman has his powers and persona and American Pride to hide behind, Don Draper has this character that he’s crafted of the strong, silent but brilliant model of a 1960s man. The guy who drinks and smokes and sleeps with lots of attractive women. But it’s all just covering up this inability to connect to anyone. This alien nature and fear of rejection.


One of the things that I thought that Superman Returns got right (and I know I’m in a small group of people who actually liked a lot of things about that movie) was that it brought Superman back to being an alien. Before that movie, Superman was floundering in the world of TV melodrama. Between the fairly corny show Lois and Clark, which was like Felicity with Superheroes to the downright awful Smallville, which was like The Babysitters Club with Superheroes, Superman had become a story about on-again-off-again love affairs and high school drama. Those shows strived to humanize Superman. Make him cute and lovable and something for teenage girls to crush on. Basically the exact opposite of what I think Superman should be.

I felt like Superman Returns took great strides toward bringing the alien nature back to Superman. Reminding us that he’s an outsider and can never fully be invested in a human relationship. There are parts of that movie where Superman is downright creepy in how strange and un-human he comes across. In casting that Superman, they went with Brandon Routh (who put in a good performance, don’t get me wrong) who is like a less masculine version of Christopher Reeve. That’s another area where Jon Hamm works for me. He’s a solid looking man’s man. He looks like someone’s particularly attractive, well built dad. An all American guy with a serious stare and fantastic head of hair. He looks like those old Max Fleischer cartoons.

If we could combine the tone and attitude of Mad Men and Donald Draper with the alien detachment and strangeness of Superman Returns, and give that project to a director who understands how to be methodical and thoughtful in pacing and character. A director who can capture the deep rooted fear of rejection and the inability to connect with anyone around you. A director who understands how to take vulnerable characters and make them strong and powerful through public perception rather than any real confidence. Because that’s what Don Draper and Superman do. They get by on what people think they are. They hide, frightened, behind their persona.

Darren Aronofsky comes to mind. Specifically because of  The Wrestler and Black Swan. Both stories are about characters who find strength through some talent they have rather than any personal growth. The lead characters in both films use their persona and artistic abilities as an escape from dealing with the mess of their lives and their own personal demons. To a degree, that’s also what Requiem For a Dream was about. He tends to make movies about people channeling their fear and pain and self loathing into some other outlet. Drugs and wrestling and ballet.

That’s the Superman movie I would want to see. Darren Aronofsky directing Jon Hamm as Superman. I know it will never happen, but goddamned that would be a great movie.

And just for the sake of discussion, as long as we’re fantasizing, lets get Daniel Day Lewis in there as Lex Luther and Jennifer Connelly as Lois Lane.

And Michael Shannon as General Zod. Just because that casting choice is absolutely inspired and brilliant.