Inter-Action

"Ask Matt" Fan Forum Archives

Ask Matt Fan Forum Here are Matt Idelson's answers to questions fans put to him from August 2006:

Matt's Answers

Robb (robb1138@buckeye-express.com) asks:
You've talked about Superman's new past being detailed in future stories. Is this the purpose of the upcoming "Superman: Confidential" title?

Matt: That's a fair question, Robb. Unfortunately, I'm not clever (or devious) enough to have cross-promoted like that. CONFIDENTIAL will certainly tell many a story about unrevealed aspects and adventures from Superman's past, but we won't be using that title to fill in the revised past. In fact, I'm not even working on that puppy, though we'll be coordinating closely to ensure we don't have any repeat stories. How boring would that be?



Blair Burns (jeffrey.burns@jjay.cuny.edu) asks:
Hi Matt! Thanks for taking over the column. The first thing I'd like to say is that, for the most part, I really enjoyed "Up, Up, and Away!" It seems that in that story, Geoff and Kurt were trying to celebrate "Superman Returns", what with the crystal technology coming from Krypton. I know that you've said that you don't want to explicitly state what is canon and what is not in the wake of "Infinite Crisis", but inquiring minds have to know: exactly how much of the Superman movie backstory has been retconned into history? Was Krypton a crystal planet, and so forth? Thanks so much for your time!

Matt: I wouldn't go so far as to say the movie history has become the comic history, Blair, though we've certainly introduced the crystal element in. With the "Superman Returns" film coming out, we certainly wanted to introduce a taste of the films to the books while non-comics readers might be checking them out, but mostly we just liked the crystal idea. As for whether Krypton was or wasn't a crystal planet, well, that's a story for another day.



Jason (jasonmajor32@hotmail.com) asks:
Last year, Greg Rucka was trying to 'fix' the marriage of Pete Ross/Lana Lang. As an Editor, what are your feelings about the direction in Lana's character? Why is she now divorcing Pete?

Matt: Well, Jason, my feeling is that the rift that had grown between Lana and Pete was real, and while they attempted to work things out, it seemed like the issues they had were too great to overcome. We felt like just making them happy again (which would seem to contradict what had come before) or putting them on the verge of divorcing (which wouldn't be much fun to read about) weren't the right ways to go. Like Clark said, they could potentially work things out, perhaps, though I don't see that happening. Lana's in a different place now, which I think contributed to the marital strife, so it made sense to let her go out on her own and figure things out.



Derek Harris (o_harris@earthlink.net) asks:
I've been reading Superman for over 30 years and have seen various subtle and not-so-subtle changes in his history. The most recent Infinite Crisis storyline leaves me with a few questions. Actually, I have a lot of questions, but these are the ones which are higher on my list of things I'd like to know. It's clear that the "Birthright" history has changed, as has Superman's history which was introduced in "Man of Steel" back in the 1980s. I have three specific questions regarding Superman's "new" history. (1) Is Jonathan Kent now living or dead? (2) Did Clark ever take up the mantle of Superboy in his youth? (that seemed to be intimated in one of the post-feature stories in the "52" series), and (3) Does Krypto still exist and, if so, is it the Krypto from the alternate universe or is it the "smarter" Krypto that Jor-El placed in an experimental rocket prior to sending Kal-El to Earth? Okay, that last one is a two-part question. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Matt: Good questions, Señor Derek! And while the answers to all of them will be addressed in one fashion or another in the very near future, I'll still try and give you some sense of resolution here. 1) Ol' Daddio is indeed alive. I was personally lobbying for him to be a zombie, but no one went for it (joke). We'll be seeing Jonathan very soon, in fact. 2) I can neither confirm nor deny, though I'd direct you to the opening sequence of SUPERMAN #656 for further intimations (assuming you haven't seen that yet). And finally, 3) Krypto does indeed still exist. By "smarter" I assume you mean the one that could talk and freaky stuff like that? Nah, we've got the "standard" model, thank you. By the way, can anyone explain to me why "smart" Krypto could speak full English but still had to wear a collar? I never understood that.



Mathew Gwynne (Mail@gwynne31.fsnet.co.uk) asks:
First thanks for taking the time to read this, my question is since Superboy's death in "Infinite Crisis" Superman hasn't really grieved over him. Will this be addressed in one of the Superman books or "52"?

Matt: Hey, Matthew! We will totally be addressing Superboy's death in a very near issue of SUPERMAN, though not through Clark's eyes. Clark's mourning process is something that would be worth exploring, though I'm not sure this is the right time to do that. But just when you least expect it, we're gonna give you weepy Clark!



Bry (bry369@yahoo.com) asks:
Are there any plans to keep to the original status quo of Kal being the "Last Son of Krypton" or will we see more Kryptonian male and females show up in the near future and if so how will this affect his relationship with Lois?

Matt: Interesting question, Bry, one I will not-so-deftly sidestep by not answering. Or is that an answer unto itself? God, sometimes I even annoy myself.



Emy (q9a8z7w6s5x4@gmail.com) asks:
In your opinion, what are the real chances of Superman and Lois actually having a child in continuity? Do you think it's something that could or should happen in the near future?

Matt: Hey, Emy. The odds of Clark and Lois having a kid are pretty remote at the moment. There are numerous dramatic reasons why I would normally want to avoid that like the plague. Then again, most people consider happily married couples boring, yet that's one of the aspects of the book I absolutely love. It is a theme we want to hit on down the road, definitely, and we actually have plans to do so. But I'm sure not going to waste anyone's time by misleading you into thinking a kid is on the horizon.



Mitch (mitchtenchifan@yahoo.com) asks:
What exactly do the writers mean when they say "Superman should be kicking @$$"? Does this mean that Superman is more brutal to his enemies now (or at least more direct) or does this mean that he's more active overall? Thank you and congrats on editing the most influential comic hero of our time.

Matt: Thank you, Mitch. I have to say, for all the warnings I got about psychotic, rabid fans of the character, my experiences have been nothing but pleasant, yourself included. I think writers mean making him more brutal in his handling of his enemies, which I can't say I agree with. There's this misperception that he's a boring boy scout 'cause he doesn't do sadistic things to his enemies like, say, Batman does. I don't think that's true, but I do think it's okay for him to get mad and use his fists against Metallo or whoever rather than just blow his super-breath on them.



Thanks Matt! Keep up the great work!

Matt: Well that's kind of you, Steve, but folks like Carlos, Kurt, Geoff, Adam, Richard, Pete and Dave S. are the ones doing the great work - I just try and stay out of the way!



Got a question you want to ask Matt? Then be sure to fill in the form on the main "Ask Matt" Fan Forum page.



"Ask Eddie/Ask Matt" Fan Forum Archives

You'll find links to our archives of past Questions and Answers on the main "Ask Matt" Fan Forum page.