Print Thread
How long....
Sven-El
So we now now that not only will Lois and Clark not be married in the DCnU, they will also not be a couple in any way shape or form. Most likely she will not know his secret either, (it makes no sense for her to no the secret when there is no relationship.)


So, how long will it be before Lois Lane

a. learns the secret that Clark is Superman.

b.) the two of them are in a relationship of some kind.

Well, barring her removal from the DCnU, I estimate she will be back as his main squeeze by at least 2012-2013 to conicnde with the Man of Steel film. Look at BRuce wayne becoming the only Batman. Just in time for the Dark Knight Rises.

As for anything past a love triangle, I think...2038. The 100th anniversery of the first apperance of Superman. OR at least by that point she'll no the secret again. It would be big. Land mark. Epic. Exactly what DC will want. Then I would venture to guess 2047 they'll be married again. Around 1988 was when Lois learned CLark was Superman and they were married ten years later. Again, just my fan guesses.

Edited by Sven-El on 18/07/2011 23:39


"You're here for a reason. Now I don't know what reason or whose reason but it's not just to score touch downs. "
-Jonathon Kent.
SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE
 
baalroo
relationship: 6 months - 1 year
secret: 9 months - 2 years
married: 2 - 5 years

It's one of the most compelling story arcs you can tell with Superman, they'll want to capitalize on it with the reboot.
 
A6K
I was born in 1980, so Lois and Clark not being in a relationship, Lois not knowing Clark is Superman, and there being a whole love triangle with two people is normal to me. That's how it should be.
It's what I grew up knowing the Superman story to be. Most every Superman story line outside of the 90's comics and foward was that way.
It's a more interesting dynamic in my opinion. But how long can you keep playing that tune?
I don't know, but I don't have a problem with it and I'm kind of glad to see it back.
 
Sven-El
Now how long before they "revisit" the Death of Superman arc. Personally, I wouldn't want to see it, mainly as it won't have the same impact. No one saw it coming in 1993. Now with the interent, and a mor jaded fan basis, it woudln't work .AS soon as news broke on-line I'm sure folks would say , 'Didn't he die already? , or '"Again?"

However, I would not put it past DC to try and re-explore or re-examine their best selling story. However with the Kents dead, it would lack the same pathos.

As long as the rest of the "real" JL ( Batman, WW, Flash, GL ) take part in the battle against Doomsday this time around, I may at least look at the issues.
"You're here for a reason. Now I don't know what reason or whose reason but it's not just to score touch downs. "
-Jonathon Kent.
SUPERMAN: THE MOTION PICTURE
 
AKalel
not saying i did not like the relationship but who is to say they have to have one there have been times in the past he was not with lois. on a side note i thought i had heard talk of supes and wonder woman having some sort of relations.
 
Hypoxic

>Sven-El wrote:


Now how long before they "revisit" the Death of Superman arc. Personally, I wouldn't want to see it, mainly as it won't have the same impact. No one saw it coming in 1993. Now with the interent, and a mor jaded fan basis, it woudln't work .AS soon as news broke on-line I'm sure folks would say , 'Didn't he die already? , or '"Again?"

However, I would not put it past DC to try and re-explore or re-examine their best selling story. However with the Kents dead, it would lack the same pathos.

As long as the rest of the "real" JL ( Batman, WW, Flash, GL ) take part in the battle against Doomsday this time around, I may at least look at the issues.


I don't think a death story of that magnitude will occur in continuity for a long, long time.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
supermanofsteel

>A6K wrote:


I was born in 1980, so Lois and Clark not being in a relationship, Lois not knowing Clark is Superman, and there being a whole love triangle with two people is normal to me. That's how it should be.
It's what I grew up knowing the Superman story to be. Most every Superman story line outside of the 90's comics and foward was that way..


Really? You would have been six when the Byrne reboot started. That's four years to "grow up" knowing how the story should be. And why's your profile say you were born in 1991?
 
Hypoxic

>supermanofsteel wrote:


>A6K wrote:


I was born in 1980, so Lois and Clark not being in a relationship, Lois not knowing Clark is Superman, and there being a whole love triangle with two people is normal to me. That's how it should be.
It's what I grew up knowing the Superman story to be. Most every Superman story line outside of the 90's comics and foward was that way..


Really? You would have been six when the Byrne reboot started. That's four years to "grow up" knowing how the story should be. And why's your profile say you were born in 1991?


To be fair, he may have started reading at 6 or 7, right when the reboot started. I started looking at comics (notice I didn't say "read comics" ) at around 7 or 8 years of age.

I, too, would like to know which of your birth years is correct, for clarity's sake.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
supermanofsteel
To be fair, he may have started reading at 6 or 7, right when the reboot started. I started looking at comics (notice I didn't say "read comics" ) at around 7 or 8 years of age.

No, that's my point. I can only only assume that he didn't really learn to read (and comprehend what he was reading) until he was at least five or six, which is right around the reboot in 1986.

Lois and Clark started dating around 1989/1990. He learned how their relationship SHOULD be in that four year time-span.

It's possible I suppose, but a bit reaching.
 
King Creole
It should take some time. I would say not less than ten years. In a relation, 20 years the most. That way it won't feel rush. Because if they do otherwise, then was was the deal of having to reset the whole universe if within five years they will have done the same progress where they are today?

Besides, what the point of doing that all over again?. That was done in past comics. This is a great oportunitiy to explore other possibilties. How about Clark marrying Lana Lang or Lori Lemaris instead?
You are here for a reason.
 
Hypoxic

>King Creole wrote:


Besides, what the point of doing that all over again?. That was done in past comics. This is a great oportunitiy to explore other possibilties. How about Clark marrying Lana Lang or Lori Lemaris instead?


I think Lois should remain the focal point of the romance, but I agree that since it's a relaunch the romance should be approached in a different manner.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
Doug22

>Sven-El wrote:


So we now now that not only will Lois and Clark not be married in the DCnU, they will also not be a couple in any way shape or form. Most likely she will not know his secret either, (it makes no sense for her to no the secret when there is no relationship.)


So, how long will it be before Lois Lane

a. learns the secret that Clark is Superman.

b.) the two of them are in a relationship of some kind.

Well, barring her removal from the DCnU, I estimate she will be back as his main squeeze by at least 2012-2013 to conicnde with the Man of Steel film. Look at BRuce wayne becoming the only Batman. Just in time for the Dark Knight Rises.

As for anything past a love triangle, I think...2038. The 100th anniversery of the first apperance of Superman. OR at least by that point she'll no the secret again. It would be big. Land mark. Epic. Exactly what DC will want. Then I would venture to guess 2047 they'll be married again. Around 1988 was when Lois learned CLark was Superman and they were married ten years later. Again, just my fan guesses.


I think DC is covering all bases by not making Lois and Clark an item in the reboot.

There is no need to rush it - they can revisit it in a year or two or.... if they fail to come to an agreement over the rights and lose Lois they can easily write her out of the books by having her and her new boyfriend move to Europe or wherever to take on new jobs.
 
A6K

>supermanofsteel wrote:


>A6K wrote:


I was born in 1980, so Lois and Clark not being in a relationship, Lois not knowing Clark is Superman, and there being a whole love triangle with two people is normal to me. That's how it should be.
It's what I grew up knowing the Superman story to be. Most every Superman story line outside of the 90's comics and foward was that way..


Really? You would have been six when the Byrne reboot started. That's four years to "grow up" knowing how the story should be. And why's your profile say you were born in 1991?


So instead of making a point you just attack me?
Real birth date 2 July 1980. I was going to make my birth date 1 11 1111 but 1111 isn't there. Why put my real birthdate? Is anyone here going to send me a card or something? Most of the comics I read were not new, I would get 10 or so whenever I had the chance at the flea market or......but why am I explaining this?

BACK TO THE TOPIC.....no screw it. I learned in college while studying political campaigns, if you can't win an argument you attack the person's character. So if you can make it seem the person isn't a credible then nothing they say will be credible. So, well played on your behalf.


But if you must know, I have the years of Superman comics from 1982 to about 1989. The rest are from around 1991 and on. Plus with the Superman Movies I watched over and over until the tape wore out, and the fact they Lois and Clark didn't get married until the mid 90's. I can say I spent most of my childhood and teens without them being married and was about 10 or 11 before she knew he was Superman.

Edited by A6K on 23/07/2011 17:22

 
supermanofsteel
A6K wrote:
I learned in college while studying political campaigns, if you can't win an argument you attack the person's character. So if you can make it seem the person isn't a credible then nothing they say will be credible. So, well played on your behalf.


Yes, I questioned your credibility. And I still do. Deal with it.

You wouldn't have brought up your birthdate unless it supported your argument. Take away that support and your entire argument risks becoming invaild.

But you're right, I should have stayed on topic and focused on your point instead of attacking you, and for that I apologize.
 
A6K

>supermanofsteel wrote:


A6K wrote:
I learned in college while studying political campaigns, if you can't win an argument you attack the person's character. So if you can make it seem the person isn't a credible then nothing they say will be credible. So, well played on your behalf.


Yes, I questioned your credibility. And I still do. Deal with it.

You wouldn't have brought up your birthdate unless it supported your argument. Take away that support and your entire argument risks becoming invaild.

But you're right, I should have stayed on topic and focused on your point instead of attacking you, and for that I apologize.


My argument is that Lois and Clark have been married since 96 or so and people supporting them being married is the foundation of the story line is not a valid argument because it's only 15 or so years of 70 to 80 years of Superman history. And it's more of what I was used to from the times I cherish as a kid. The fact that I grew up on that is not the argument it's just a fact I used to support my argument. I guess I did not make that clear, my apology for being misleading with the statement and not posting a proper birthday on my profile, I have made the corrections.
I guess I could will deal with that and I'll just assume you are an online baiter, very angry for no reason, a bitter person and like to intimidate people online because you cannot in reality, Deal with That.
Apology accepted but I’m done with this and will not respond to anything else from you. Not now or in the future.
 
Golddragon71
Maybe this time he should end up with Lana instead. just because we've already seen the Lois and Clark thing go it's full distance.

As it happens It took about Three Years of stories from Man of Steel 2 to Adventures of Superman 466 for the relationship to take hold and another year after that for Clark to tell Lois the Truth in Action 662.

This time it may not take so long for them to get married again if they go the Lois and Clark route since we've already had the BIG Wedding of the century (course, this is a different century)
 
Hypoxic
What's with all the love for Lana? I've never really cared for the character. I blame Smallville.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
Golddragon71
I don't know If it's a specific Love for Lana so much as just a different direction. I mean, we've seen Lois and Clark and how that all turns out. but towards the end of Smallville I actually thought that since they had done so many things different already (introducing Lois to clark during High School for one,) they could go that alternate route.
Now seems to be a real opportunity to do that (or if you really wanted to go off the beaten track, Clark could end up with Lori Lemaris) Also this character or that could be dog dull it just depends on who the writers create the tension for.
 
Hypoxic
All in all, I don't think Clark should be married to anyone. The relationship never really changed when he married Lois. They were still together. There was nothing inherently better about them being married.

I do think he and Lois should have a focal romance, but not a marriage.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

Get away from me, padre. You reek of the irrational. - Lex Luthor
 
Patercoop
A relationship with Wonder Woman could have intriguing possibilities--one is a princess, the other is a small-town guy, worlds apart socially. I also liked the nuanced exploration of their motivations in Kingdom Come. I even liked the depiction of their child Lara in the Dark Knight Strikes Again (shudder). One compelling reason, established early on in the mythos, for not marrying Lois was that Superman feared she would be constantly threatened by criminals trying to get at him through her. Romancing Wonder Woman would render moot such a fear but of course writers would lose that element of dramatic tension. At any rate, the re-boot is a great opportunity for Clark to date around the DC universe. Done tastefully, we could see many dates end well or end horrifically. Could you imagine a fixated super-heroine popping up in stories looking for that second date? "Not now, Awesome Girl, can't you see I'm fighting Toyman?" Anyhoo, I vote for Wonder Woman.
 
Jump to Forum: