Print Thread
New 52 - Superman (SPOILERS)
UltraWoman

>Hypoxic wrote:


I'm still confused why so many fans are so attached to the relationship via marriage. The only thing that needs to exist between Lois and Clark is a dichotomy, and that dichotomy needs be interesting in a literary sense. Marriage isn't the be-all approach to that quality and suggesting that it is limits one's view of the characters - and perhaps relationships in general.


I think it doesn't necessarily have to do with the marriage specifically, in at least my case (and I think CertainShades said the same thing at one point) but the relational aspect. How they relate to one another beyond casual acquaintances. I'd say that while Lois is reaching out to Clark in an attempt to be more than casual acquaintances to a true friendship in Superman, there's been nothing over in Action to establish any other sort of relationship status as either a friend or more with Superman. IOW, there is no Triangle at this point. You'd have expected to have seen it in Action, but it's been even less of a priority there than here (which is to say, barely existent in the first place.)

Perhaps the Triangle is meant to be ID'd through the lens of those few pages of Superman #4 I mentioned and got me thinking she might know but I'd doubt it.

Also, don't forget that there's a whole generation (my generation which is on the tail end of the demo they're looking for... I'm 29 going on 30 in a month) that grew up on the Animated Series (A triangle of friendship with Clark that had an inactive element of attraction and a a little more obvious but still there non-professional relationship with Superman but no marriage mentioned) and "The New Adventures of Superman" (which definitely played up the relational aspect in the series and while Season four was mostly not great did have really good episodes that addressed/pointed out things with the Triangle even when married,) and "Smallville" (made for the tail end of the demographic that grew up with the two mentioned beforehand and also had the relationship played out... but it played out over multiple seasons much of which were just Lois as a friend but one with a still obvious attraction to at least part of him.)

While the comics often inform the live and cartoons, if there's too much of a disconnect from "meta" or what everyone else if familiar with they won't see it/won't be interested in it (I know it was part of the reason I did no see Superman Returns in the theater. Clark/Kal-El leaving like that didn't pass the smell test if he had been in an intimate relationship with her in either guise without it strongly detrimentally injuring the integrity of the character to the point where it was not an incarnation I was interested in.) If I'm looking for the disconnect/re-imagining I'll go to an Elseworld for it. Not the main series.

Edited by UltraWoman on 07/01/2012 07:21

 
Made of Steel
I'm not attached to the marriage, I'm attached to the relationship. Of course I didn't want them to end the marriage, and when I first heard about it I was disappointed, but then I figured that they'd just retell in a new, fresh, well-written and entertaining way. But right now I highly doubt that. At the present, I don't think Action is doing a good job of showing the relationship develop ( they've hardly conversed ), and though I know that it isn't on Morrison's priority list I do believe their relationship--like UltraWoman said, as anything other than just acquaintances--is important to the mythos. I'm seeing way more of that development in Superman than in Action ( the only reason I haven't dropped it is because I want to be able to connect the two when the story wraps up ).

I mean, in Action Lois and Clark's interaction is kept at a minimum. If I was reading this for the first time and had no knowledge of the Superman mythos, from I had read in Action, I'd only think of her as a minor supporting character and nothing else, from how much of a role she has in Action. She barely has a place, so no, I don't think anyone's going to take her place. She's constantly shuffled to the background in that series thus far, leaving no room for a friendship to develop. Yeah, I know they might show that later on but right now I'm not impressed by any means by their treatment of Lois.

Edited by Made of Steel on 07/01/2012 16:16


[img]http://oi55.tinypic.com/2cg0a2r.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

__

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."--Jor-El
 
Certainshades
Personally, the only thing I took away from the decision to have the relationship done away with or reset (or whatever your preferred term is) was that we would get to see that relationship form and flourish all over again.


I would love that. I'm just not sure that's what is going to happen.

Romance stories are not written about happily married couples. They're written about the story of how that love comes to be.


That's actually not true. And even if it were....what a limited, sad way to view relationships.

Marriage is not an end. Not when you are married to someone you really love. It's a new beginning filled with new challenges and new adventures. I personally believe part of the reason so many people struggle to commit to marriages succesfully is because our culture views marriage as an end as opposed to a new journey. It's a cultural problem.

Also, one of the most critically acclaimed shows on television, "Friday Night lights" was basically the story of a marriage. Critics praised that show up and down for having the courage to actually tell the story about a marriage as opposed to giving in to soap opera drama.

People love to hate on smallville around here. But the committed relationship of Lois and Clark on that series was also somethings that critics paid attention to last year and the year before. Entertainment Weekly repeatedly talked about the fact that it was really that bond between Lois/Clark that kept that show together and that it was refreshing to see a show just have the guts to tell a story about a couple who were TOGETHER and committed. Some of the best moments between them on the series were when they were together.

And honestly...many of our most famous stories are about married couples. Odysseus isn't going home to his girlfriend in The Odyssey when he's desperately trying to make that journey back---he's going home to his wife.

It's the easy way out to rely over and over again on trying to keep a couple apart. I really appreciate narratives that have the courage to know that life does not end when you get married---that love does not end, it only grows.

Don't get me wrong---I love seeing the journey. I love watching them GET there. I think that has an important place and I would never not want to see that. That's why I love The Triangle For 2 when it's done right because I find the dichtomy of Lois and Clark to be fascinating. But i don't think their story is "over" when they finally get married or find each other or find that happiness. I think a new chapter is just starting.

Don't you think this generation deserves to have that too? That's what the New 52 can be for them: a chance for us to see that love spring to life all over again. We're not talking destruction here, we're talking rebirth.


That would be awesome if that is actually what happens. I'm just not sure it is.

Edited by Certainshades on 09/01/2012 18:09

 
Certainshades
Marriage isn't the be-all approach to that quality and suggesting that it is limits one's view of the characters - and perhaps relationships in general.


I don't think anyone said it was the be-all end all.

But I actually think the attitude about the marriage from DC is what limits the view on relationships--not people who are sad that they aren't married anymore.

DC made it more than clear that they thought that there was no "conflict" in marriage. Repeatedly I've seen people say that marriage is "an end."

That is probably the most limiting view on relationships I've ever heard as it's simply not true. We need to stop teaching kids that once you get married....the story is over. There is love and conflict and sex and all these wonderful things to be had after you get married. The story isn't over with "happily ever after." I really valued that. I valued that Superman was daring to be different and to actually tell that story.

There are not that many examples out there of stories that are willing to tell that story and willing to be mature enough to understand that marriage is not an end. There is natural conflict even in the most loving relationships. I find it so sad that there were people who found that "boring" as opposed to recognizing all the conflict and growth that was there.

Either way, I agree with much of what was said above. My concern right now is not that they are not married but that I don't think they have any relationship whatsoever. Grant Morrison has particualrly let me down with the way he has used Lois and I fear that he has no desire to do anything with their interactions in Action. I find it concerning.
 
Hypoxic

>Certainshades wrote:


Marriage isn't the be-all approach to that quality and suggesting that it is limits one's view of the characters - and perhaps relationships in general.


I don't think anyone said it was the be-all end all.


Well, there were plenty of people all over the net saying they were dropping Superman because the marriage was done away with. I wasn't suggesting anyone here in this thread said such, but it was and still is a component of the criticisms of the reboot.
Easy, miss. I've got you.
_____

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

>Hypoxic wrote:


>Certainshades wrote:


Marriage isn't the be-all approach to that quality and suggesting that it is limits one's view of the characters - and perhaps relationships in general.


I don't think anyone said it was the be-all end all.


Well, there were plenty of people all over the net saying they were dropping Superman because the marriage was done away with. I wasn't suggesting anyone here in this thread said such, but it was and still is a component of the criticisms of the reboot.


I think there was a sense and feeling that DC never really worked with the marriage the way they probably could have had they actually taken the time. Most of the time they saw it as a side-tangent to the character rather than a factor in decision-making or connection to the world he lived in. As Certainshades said at one point, it was a detail that had to be worked out (most of the time they just barely gave any thought to or just one panel and not the important decision that it would be.) this was especially evident in both the NK arc and Grounded (in that case it was even less addressed... to the point where he didn't even talk it over. That's something that just would never fly in any marriage like the one DC was claiming Lois and Clark to have.) In some ways the marriage was simply dismissed in favor of starting again, not even giving it the closure it probably deserved (unless they decide to make that earth akin to a new Earth-2 at some point, in which case I applaud the vagueness.)

If DC had attempted to do something to address that stuff before the reboot and had failed or worked with the marriage to create a conflict that could not easily be resolved I suspect the outcry might well have been very different. The fact of the matter however, was that they did none of the things I mentioned above and as a result there were unexplored storylines that people believed needed to be explored that were not, thus causing the distaste for starting again.
 
Certainshades
Well, there were plenty of people all over the net saying they were dropping Superman because the marriage was done away with. I wasn't suggesting anyone here in this thread said such, but it was and still is a component of the criticisms of the reboot.


I can't speak for other people. But I know that the reasons I saw in many circles for seeing the marriage go was really symbolic of DC's treatment of Superman overall. A lot of people felt (and I tend to agree with this) as though Lois and Clark had evolved for a very long time to get to where they were together.

We've watched them fall in love so many times now--and believe me---it never gets old for me. I want to make that clear. I do love the chase. Truth be told, when Lois Lane came on Smallville back in 2004....I didn't think she would hook me. I was so mentally turned off by the idea of having her there. But then...Lois stepped into cornfield with Clark and the two actors had such wonderful chemistry. And despite the timeline being different...watching their interactions grow and change totally hooked me. By the time Season 8 rolled around and the two of them were dancing around the fact that they were falling in love....I realized that I was totally wrong to think that I didn't want to see Lois and Clark fall in love again because holy crap...I was hooked.

We have a new movie reboot coming next year. I have no idea what the script will look like. But my husband said something the other day that was really interesting to me. He said that if Henry and Amy have chemistry....and you put those characters into that iconic situation together...BAM. People are going to fall in love all over again. The characters are so perfectly matched and so wonderful together that the chase is always fun. I don't want to make it sound like I don't appreciate seeing that story told over again because I do.

But I also feel as though the Clark/Lois/Superman love story had gone through a lot to get to where it was. The cultural impact of waiting and waiting for them to finally be together was something that a whole generation of fans finally achieved. And you know....I really felt as though the marriage had been such a long time coming---as it was something that people even wanted back in the 70's---that by the time they did it....they would truly commit to it. But DC just never did that. And I felt so let down by that as a fan because I felt like these characters had worked and fought so hard to get here. Not sure if that makes sense.

It's kind of how I feel about Barbara Gordon as Oracle. Yes, she was Batgirl longer in terms of years. But the 20 years spent as Oracle were years that she fought so hard to achieve and those 20 years were paramount in terms of growth. I still don't understand the logic in tossing that growth in the trash to start "over" again with her as Batgirl. I feel like we've lost so much.

In some ways the marriage was simply dismissed in favor of starting again, not even giving it the closure it probably deserved (unless they decide to make that earth akin to a new Earth-2 at some point, in which case I applaud the vagueness.)


I think a lot of fans would feel better if we knew that the Modern Lois and Clark were happy somewhere in an Earth-2. I think that would have eased a lot of pain and heartache for people.

As it stands, I did think Paul Cornell did a very good job in Action 904 of giving Lois and Clark a beautiful final scene together and I thought Superman 704 tried to establish that these two will just keep finding each other over and over again. But it's hard not to feel that it was too little too late after they were ignored all year long by the company. Their relationship deserved so much better.

If DC had attempted to do something to address that stuff before the reboot and had failed or worked with the marriage to create a conflict that could not easily be resolved I suspect the outcry might well have been very different. The fact of the matter however, was that they did none of the things I mentioned above and as a result there were unexplored storylines that people believed needed to be explored that were not, thus causing the distaste for starting again
.

I agree.

I should make clear that I don't think there was a conflict that those two couldn't resolve. The bottom line is that Superman represents the best of us---not the worst of us. I think those two had within them the kind of love that we all strive for in that they were willing to do what was needed to stay together. I don't think anything would have ever truly pulled them apart because they were just too in love.

BUT--I do think there was some natural conflict written into the story that was very realistic and emotional for their marriage and I feel cheated that it was ignored. Even good marriages go through rough patches and even people who love each other deeply have that conflict.

For example...I still feel cheated that we never really saw their reaction to losing their son again. What was that going to do to them? Losing a child is heartbreaking and they lost Chris not once...but twice.

How were they going to handle Sam Lane's suicide? How was Lois's relationship with her sister going to affect her life? How was Lois going to handle having Clark home again after being gone for a year? How was Clark going to handle going back to the Daily Planet after all that time and would the DP even have him back?

If they wanted to explore Lois as Clark's boss....man....that would have been 100 times more effective if done within the context of their marriage. We know canonically that they struggle working FOR each other---they like to work beside each other as partneres.

"Lois and Clark" Season 4 had some flaws but they did have some moments that were rather brilliant in terms of looking at what kinds of conflicts these two would face when they were married. (The sad thing is that by the time the show found their groove again and really started to get good again, the network blindsided them when Disney bought ABC.) But that episode, "Stop The Presses" where Lois is promoted over Clark is full of realistic, understandable conflict that made total sense. Clark did not like taking orders from Lois and Lois didn't like giving them to Clark.

I would have LOVED to have seen the conflict that would have come from Lois being his boss while they were MARRIED. It has so much more weight then.

The Season 10 episode of Smallville "Ambush" is widely considered to be one of the best episodes of the season for the main reason that again....it was realistic conflict between two people who were madly in love with each other but were torn over family dynamics getting in the way. And the comics dropped the ball on that with General Lane as his death and the impact of his actions were IGNORED.

There are just so many things that were just ignored and wasted. And it really grates on a lot of fans, I think, when DC claims that Superman's life was so "perfect" when he was married when the fans are standing there like....HUH????? There was all this conflict and you ignored it.

I think that is where a lot of the anger stems from. There were so many rich stories to tell in this marriage. It was all there. And DC just refused to do it. Certain writers wanted to do it. And certain writers, like Greg Rucka, DID do it.
 
IFightForTomorrow

>Certainshades wrote:


Romance stories are not written about happily married couples. They're written about the story of how that love comes to be.


That's actually not true. And even if it were....what a limited, sad way to view relationships.

Marriage is not an end. Not when you are married to someone you really love. It's a new beginning filled with new challenges and new adventures. I personally believe part of the reason so many people struggle to commit to marriages succesfully is because our culture views marriage as an end as opposed to a new journey. It's a cultural problem.


I never said that was my view of relationships. It's my view of what is best for story. It's not about what I think is best from an emotional place in all honesty, it's about what's sustainable. There are more dramatic tools easily leveraged by more writers when Superman is still single for one simple reason: all of us have been single. For that same reason, a single Superman reaches more people at an empathetic level. Especially the "fresh blood" that DC is trying to snag with this new initiative, who are by and large younger people who haven't yet gotten to marriage. This is why all the characters have been de-aged I assume. Considering the fact that I am engaged to be married to a woman I love more than anything else in the world, who very much so is my Lois Lane, I have to admit to being slightly insulted by what you've implied about me in your post.
 
Certainshades
I never said that was my view of relationships.


I didn't mean to imply that you personally feel this way. I understand that you don't. But I do think that sometimes this is the message that gets sent culturally when people make statements that assume that the only romance stories worth telling end when the couple gets married.

It's my view of what is best for story. It's not about what I think is best from an emotional place in all honesty, it's about what's sustainable. There are more dramatic tools easily leveraged by more writers when Superman is still single for one simple reason: all of us have been single.


But see...to me that kind of feels like making excuses for bad writing.

The fact that everyone begins their life single does not mean that that is what more people relate or or respond to nor does it mean that it's easier to write or to sustain.

I have several close friends in Superman fandom who are not married and may never be married. But they loved the marriage deeply and responded to it and understood it.

Lois and Clark got married when I was still a child. I clearly was not married yet. Yet, I responded to their marriage and understood it and rooted for them to be together. I didn't need to be married myself to feel that.

The bottom line is that a professional writer shouldn't have to be married to understand the kinds of mature, emotional dynamics that influence that kind of relationship. Yes, it's true that some of the best writers on the Supermarriage were, in fact, happily married. Greg Rucka. Kurt Busiek. Gail Simone. But there were also married men who did a terrible job with the superbooks. And there were men who were NOT married like Geoff Johns (he's not married I don't think) who did a nice job with the relationship.

None of us have been the lone survivor of a doomed planet. None of us have superpowers. That doesn't mean that we have to have experienced those things in order to write about Superman or to love him or understand him.

Not all of us have lost a parent or had our parents murdered in front of like Batman. But we feel his pain. We can see his heart and understand his rage. Not all of us have the privilige of being wealthy like Bruce Wayne...but that doesn't mean we can't understand him for that reason either.

The universal theme with Superman and Lois Lane is love. Because many of us know what it feels like to love someone so much that we would quite literally die for them. But that universal tether of love is relatable whether they are married or not. Fans did not have to personally have married the love of their life in order to understand why Lois and Clark wanted to be together. As I said, I was just a kid when they got married and I GOT that.

The idea that it's harder to write established relationships is something that has been discussed openly and critically in the media lately. It was a discussion that came up a lot on various critical discussions when "Friday Night Lights" was up for their Emmy award because there were a lot of critics basically raising the issue of how sad it is that we remain obsessed with the soap opera antics as opposed to having the courage to delve deeper into the story.

For that same reason, a single Superman reaches more people at an empathetic level. Especially the "fresh blood" that DC is trying to snag with this new initiative, who are by and large younger people who haven't yet gotten to marriage.


That's not entirely accurate. The census data indicates that the average person in the United States still gets married by like Age 26. That is well within DC's target demographic. That doesn't take into account how long people are together and engaged before they get married. It's actually a myth that people are getting married "older" today than before. Peopel are waiting longer to have children statistically but the average age for marriage is still pretty young.

This is why all the characters have been de-aged I assume.


I take no issue with them being de-aged in the older comics. I do think it was a mistake to de-age them in the present comics. And as it stands...I don't think we are supposed to assume that Clark Kent is particularly young in the Superman book. He's probably mid-20's at that point.

Considering the fact that I am engaged to be married to a woman I love more than anything else in the world, who very much so is my Lois Lane, I have to admit to being slightly insulted by what you've implied about me in your post.


First off, Congratulations on your engagement. I'm really happy for you and I wish you a lifetime of happiness.

Please accept my apology as I was not trying to imply that was how YOU personally feel about marriage. My point was that I do think that culturally it is a problem that we continually assume that the better "story" is told only up until the marriage takes place.

Studies have actually shown that part of the reason many couples get divorced is because people enter into marriage with this idea that once you settle down.....that your life is over. And a lot of that comes from the way we talk about and present marriage and commitment in our media. It's a larger cultural problem where we assume that once you settle down....your adventure is done. It teaches young people that commitment is something to fear because it paints the idea that all the "fun" is over once you are married. It's a sad message to send to people because it's simply not true.

Are there unhappy married people in the world? Yup. There are miserable single people too. There are marriage that don't work. But there is kind of this untold story about the marriages that DO WORK. And that was, to me, one of the most special things about superman.

Because let's face it....Clark Kent is not perfect. Lois is not perfect. But if Superman---our greatest symbol for hope---can't make it work....then what hope do the rest of us have? Superman is supposed to represent the best of us....not the worst of us. And, to me, it made a lot of sense that he was making that commitment work with the person he loved. I thought it was a positive, unique and special message to send and one that younger generations don't get a lot of other places.

I think the very idea that it's not as "cool" for younger people to see a hero married is something that we have created within our culture. It wasn't always that way. This is a problem that we have created through mass media and through the way we present relationships to young people.

I just find the whole idea that the stories are more "sustainable" by 'more writers" when Superman is single to be very limiting and sad. Because there is a whole host of drama and conflict and love and sex and incredible things that are being missed and not explored because we are assuming that there aren't enough writers skilled enough to capture them.

That's just...sad.

Edited by Certainshades on 10/01/2012 17:31

 
IFightForTomorrow
I fully see your point on that and thank you very much for the congradulations and appologies. After the last discussion I had on this site, that is very refreshing.

I'm sure you're right about there being good stories in the marriage that could have and should have been told. I'm fairly certain also that if Dan DiDio (who for the record, I personally dislike) were asked about why things like this and the end of Flash's marriage happened, he would say something much like what I said above. Doesn't make it right necessarily, but it does seem to be the prevailing opinion.

Like I implied in my first post, I'm just glad that it didn't end with Clark selling his marriage to the devil to bring Pa Kent back from the dead...so maybe my expectations are just set a bit lower! Wink
 
Certainshades
I fully see your point on that and thank you very much for the congradulations and appologies. After the last discussion I had on this site, that is very refreshing.


You are quite welcome. I hope you find marriage to be as wonderful as I have. I've been married 3 years now and it just keeps getting better. I hope you have the same experience. When you are with the right person....marriage is really wonderful.

I'm sure you're right about there being good stories in the marriage that could have and should have been told. I'm fairly certain also that if Dan DiDio (who for the record, I personally dislike) were asked about why things like this and the end of Flash's marriage happened, he would say something much like what I said above. Doesn't make it right necessarily, but it does seem to be the prevailing opinion.


Unfortunately, I think it is the prevailing opinion. And I think it's very sad.

L
ike I implied in my first post, I'm just glad that it didn't end with Clark selling his marriage to the devil to bring Pa Kent back from the dead...so maybe my expectations are just set a bit lower! ;


I understand completely.

Truth be told though, as much as I loved the marriage, my concern right now (and the concern of others I think) is not that they aren't married.

I'm legitimately concerned that DC Comics has decided to basically trash the Clark/Lois/Superman love story in the new 52.

I mean, one can argue that the marriage was a newer piece of the mythos. I don't agree that that made it less important but that is true. But the feelings that existed between the characters have been there since Day #1.

Matt Idelson made a cmment today in the "Ask Matt" segment where he said that Lois and Clark would always have "affection" between them. Maybe it was just a poor choice of words. But honestly....I legitimately fear that they have decided that these two do not have feelings for each other anymore in the new 52.

And I'm not ok with that. I'm not ok with Superman not being in love with Lois Lane. I'm not saying he can't date other people or that she can't date other people. I'm not saying that they have to be married. But those feelings between them---that passion between them---a semblance of the Triangle For 2 has to be there for me. The marriage is not a dealbreaker for me but no semblance of love between the characters IS a dealbreaker for me. If you remove the relationship between Lois/Clark/Superman you are removing the emotional core of the story. With Jonathan and Martha gone too.....it just makes me wonder what character I'm actually reading about anymore. Cause it doesn't feel like Superman.
 
Zaniah
Wow is this thread ever off-topic....I went back a couple pages to catch up on what everyone thinks of the last couple Supes books and I didn't see one thing about the actual book. Oh well...

I just read #4 and for the first time I'm actually enjoying this title for more than the fact that it has Kal-el flying around "doing stuff". This issue makes the other issues much better in hindsight. I'm enjoying the teasers being dropped here and there like Lois knowing that something is going on with Clark at the Smallville cemetery.

Is there speculation that these creatures are the eradicator or the eradicator plus other entities who will eventually build and man the Fortress of Solitude or is that just so obvious I don't need to mention it?
 
Made of Steel

>Zaniah wrote:


Wow is this thread ever off-topic....I went back a couple pages to catch up on what everyone thinks of the last couple Supes books and I didn't see one thing about the actual book. Oh well...


Um, we were talking about the book. It's just some of us aren't very happy with the characterization and some of the things going on in the book, and are equally as concerned with that as we are with the general plot.

I personally liked the last issue. It left suspense, even though ( like in Action ) I'm pretty confused as to what the heck is going on. I do hope they go with Lois knowing the secret, because it would be a slightly redeeming story move.
[img]http://oi55.tinypic.com/2cg0a2r.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

__

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."--Jor-El
 
A6K

>Zaniah wrote:


Wow is this thread ever off-topic....I went back a couple pages to catch up on what everyone thinks of the last couple Supes books and I didn't see one thing about the actual book. Oh well...

I just read #4 and for the first time I'm actually enjoying this title for more than the fact that it has Kal-el flying around "doing stuff". This issue makes the other issues much better in hindsight. I'm enjoying the teasers being dropped here and there like Lois knowing that something is going on with Clark at the Smallville cemetery.

Is there speculation that these creatures are the eradicator or the eradicator plus other entities who will eventually build and man the Fortress of Solitude or is that just so obvious I don't need to mention it?


I'm not sure if the Fortress is there or not yet. I think it's going to be built during the current Action Comics story arc by the ship.

I haven't thought about it being the Eradicator, I know it's going to be some new skull faced villain. Well at least on DCcomics.com if you look at upcoming months covers, there's a flaming, freezing, skull faced thing fighting Superman. About the same time Jurgans takes over.

The marriage/relationship could be moved to another topic, there already is one for this topic. I noticed the Lois thing too and for a moment was interested in what was going on and then it became some kind DC is sexist argument or something. I don't know what's going on so I just washed my hands of it before it gets out of hand.

Too much negativity, speculation and bias opinion. Glad someone else is just sticking to topic.
 
Certainshades
Um, we were talking about the book. It's just some of us aren't very happy with the characterization and some of the things going on in the book, and are equally as concerned with that as we are with the general plot.

I personally liked the last issue. It left suspense, even though ( like in Action ) I'm pretty confused as to what the heck is going on. I do hope they go with Lois knowing the secret, because it would be a slightly redeeming story move.


Right. This entire conversation developed because people were expressing their concerns over the way the relationship is developing in this BOOK. The conversation about the relationship is completely relevant to that because that is what is influencing everyone's emotions and perspectives.

I liked the issue for the same reasons you did.

The marriage/relationship could be moved to another topic, there already is one for this topic. I noticed the Lois thing too and for a moment was interested in what was going on and then it became some kind DC is sexist argument or something. I don't know what's going on so I just washed my hands of it before it gets out of hand.


The marriage/relationship discussion is completely relevant to the discussion over this book and should not be moved.

It's being discussed because it's influencing the way people feel about the way in which Lois and Clark's new interactions are playing out in this very book. It's not a seperate subject because these characters do not exist in a vacumn. Everything is connected and our feelings about the book are doing to be directly influenced by the things being talked about. It's all connected.

As for "washing your hands of it"....that's certainly your right. But personally, i've always found that it can be more effective to try and understand why people feel a certain way as opposed to just walking away and acting as if the people upset don't have the right to be.

Too much negativity, speculation and bias opinion. Glad someone else is just sticking to topic.


That makes no sense.

The very purpose of a forum is to speculate and to discuss and share feelings. People are not required to like everything or be positive about everything.

Several posters have, imo, thoughtfully and honestly expressed their current fears and feelings about the book and the reasons why they feel that way. That's what these boards are for. To talk about how we feel about these issues. To act as if people who are expressing their frustration are in the wrong or "biased" for doing so is wrong.

And speaking of bias....that makes no sense either. EVERYONE has bias. There is no such thing as being completely objective about a subjective narrative. This is all subjective. You are not less biased than I am simply because I am bothered by things that you are not.

Everyone here is expressing their feelings in honest and thoughtful ways. Personally, it's impossible for me (and others) to talk about what my issues and fears are with this book without talking about how the relaunch of the relationship affects my viewpoint. It's all connected.

You don't have to partiticpate in the conversation. But to imply that those of us that are trying to make sense of it and trying to come to grips with how we feel as "biased" or doing somethng wrong....is unfair.
 
Made of Steel
I really hope they go with that. I liked how in Smallville Lois knew all along--that was an interesting take on the Triangle, and it would make sense since she seemed to be suspicious in the one panel. I'm hoping that at some point Clark will stop being emo and tell her how he feels. I'm really not feeling that much sympathy toward him. I feel like these characters need to be established more, because right now I'm not feeling much of an attachment to them. They've done a good job with Lois, but Clark's too much of an enigma in Superman. I think it'd be interesting if some panels were written from his point of view and the reader could get into his head more. We still don't know what it is that motivates him.

@A6K: I'm pretty sure the purpose of this topic is to give our opinion of the Superman title, and that's what we're doing, giving our opinions--we're focusing on the aspects of characterization and Clark's relationship with Lois in the Superman title. I would say that it is quite relevant to this issue, as we've gotten the first hint that Lois may know that he's Superman.

I happen not to like some of the things in the book, and just because our opinion is different from yours doesn't mean that there's too much 'negativity.' It's constructive criticism; I don't have to sing Perez's praises. Yes, I'm biased, but then again so are you--all of us are, because all of us have our own opinions. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean that it has to be moved. You don't have to read my posts or respond to them, but I'm asking you to respect my opinion as I respect yours.
[img]http://oi55.tinypic.com/2cg0a2r.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

__

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."--Jor-El
 
A6K

>Certainshades wrote:

The marriage/relationship discussion is completely relevant to the discussion over this book and should not be moved.

It's being discussed because it's influencing the way people feel about the way in which Lois and Clark's new interactions are playing out in this very book. It's not a seperate subject because these characters do not exist in a vacumn. Everything is connected and our feelings about the book are doing to be directly influenced by the things being talked about. It's all connected.


There is a thread called How LongÖ that applies to this spific topic. I think this argument would be better suited there because this thread is more about the entire spectrum of the story. The New 52 Ė Superman is a macro topic if you will, the relationship/marriage argument is a micro topic, IMO

>Certainshades wrote:

As for "washing your hands of it"....that's certainly your right. But personally, i've always found that it can be more effective to try and understand why people feel a certain way as opposed to just walking away and acting as if the people upset don't have the right to be.


Iím walking away from the argument. You are just being argumentative.

Like right now, I didnít want to get into this situation Iím in.
I KNEW you were the type of person to do this. Thatís what I meant by ďwashing my hands of it.Ē But I didnít listen to my own advice.

>Certainshades wrote:

You don't have to partiticpate in the conversation. But to imply that those of us that are trying to make sense of it and trying to come to grips with how we feel as "biased" or doing somethng wrong....is unfair.


The bias Iím referring to is against everyone who has an opposing opinion. Youíre too bias against everyone, hence being argumantive.

I might particitpate in the conversation if it were one.

That and the fact you pulled out the ďsexistĒ card is just bad news. Itís not fair to make accusations like that if you want to talk about fairness. If you feel that way about someone I suggest you talk to a moderator or the person in quesiton off line. Calling out ďSEXISMĒ in any case is a big deal, it should not be tossed around lightly.

You donít know anyone at DC, donít make unfair accusations. I just find that you went there offensive, thereís no need to do it, to me itís no different than saying ďraciest.Ē You better KNOW what your saying before you try and ruin someoneís reputation or credibility.



>Made of Steel wrote:

@A6K: I'm pretty sure the purpose of this topic is to give our opinion of the Superman title, and that's what we're doing, giving our opinions--we're focusing on the aspects of characterization and Clark's relationship with Lois in the Superman title. I would say that it is quite relevant to this issue, as we've gotten the first hint that Lois may know that he's Superman.

Yeah but as I stated your going micro in your argument instead of macro. When you click back and see all those other threads, those were created to discuss specific topics. And this micro topic is already being discussed in How LongÖ.

>Made of Steel wrote:

I happen not to like some of the things in the book, and just because our opinion is different from yours doesn't mean that there's too much 'negativity.' It's constructive criticism; I don't have to sing Perez's praises. Yes, I'm biased, but then again so are you--all of us are, because all of us have our own opinions. Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean that it has to be moved. You don't have to read my posts or respond to them, but I'm asking you to respect my opinion as I respect yours.

I wasnít even talking about you. I was talking about

>Certainshades wrote:

I think they ended the marriage because they wanted Superman to have sex with other women. And I think they will do everything in their power to downplay Lois Lane and push her aside and treat her poorly to make that happen.


I think thatís just pure negativity. Unjustified and unfair opinion that doesnít belong. I tried to address it discreetly that maybe she was jumping to an unfair conclusion. But was met with argument and the fact someone said that in ďanother forum.Ē That has nothing to do with the writers at DC.
You should have asked me what I was talking about before you went off and started attacking me.
This is another reason I didnít want to post here, everything ends up in some kind of ďYOUR AGINST ME!Ē argument.

I should listen to myself more often.

Youíre not respecting my opinion at all, if you did you wouldnít attack me for expressing it.
Now both of you write a page long rebuttal attacking instead of thinking about it and trying to come to a compromise. Iím just disappointed, I canít just have a conversation.

I get it, the both of you HATE the story now and want it to go back the way it was. You have both firmly established your opinion. Can't we just be firends and move on to something else rather than beat this dead horse?
 
Made of Steel

>A6K wrote:




There is a thread called How LongÖ that applies to this spific topic. I think this argument would be better suited there because this thread is more about the entire spectrum of the story. The New 52 Ė Superman is a macro topic if you will, the relationship/marriage argument is a micro topic, IMO


No. See that's where I disagree with you. You're implying that the overarching plot concerning the villains is more important than Clark's characterization and the current relationship between Lois and Clark, which we were speaking about in context with this title and comparing the headway made here than that in Action. It's not a micro topic--in my opinion how the characters behave in relation with other characters is just as important. I read these comics for their storytelling as well as the characters involved. I'm an aspiring writer, so I care about these sort of things. I want to see good writing that shows that these writers have a great handle of the characters like I've seen in the past, not just no holds barred fighting. And I think they're doing a pretty good job of establishing Lois. It's just Clark that I don't see a connection with. I can't sympathize with him, nor can I relate with him because I'm not seeing any human connection like he had pre-reboot. The Kents are gone, Lois is reaching out to him but he's not doing the same. Perez seems more focused on his Kryptonian side than his human side, and I think that there has to be a balance. He needs to be personable and take an interest in people, and I just don't see that.

I said this about Action's Superman, and I think it'd work here too. I'd like to see a few panels narrated by Clark so that we could see a bit more introspection on his part about his motivations behind his actions. I can see that he is good at heart in Superman, but they need to try harder to establish his personality in both titles. I don't like seeing him as a mopey emo kid, but if that's how they're going to write him, they have to give a reason why. Even the other characters commented on how 'out-of-character' he was acting. I have a feeling this will be explored in later books, but I would like to see an explanation soon.

>Certainshades wrote:

As for "washing your hands of it"....that's certainly your right. But personally, i've always found that it can be more effective to try and understand why people feel a certain way as opposed to just walking away and acting as if the people upset don't have the right to be

Iím walking away from the argument. You are just being argumentative.

Like right now, I didnít want to get into this situation Iím in.
I KNEW you were the type of person to do this. Thatís what I meant by ďwashing my hands of it.Ē But I didnít listen to my own advice.



Yeah but as I stated your going micro in your argument instead of macro. When you click back and see all those other threads, those were created to discuss specific topics. And this micro topic is already being discussed in How LongÖ.


As I stated I'm not talking about the relationship in general. I'm talking about what's happened in Superman thus far, and how I think they should take things concerning the relationship in context of Superman. I've praised Superman for actually showing some interaction, and chided Action for not doing the same. In other words, I'm explaining why I like Superman more than Action. I'm more concerned with Superman's personality than how much action there is. Clark's character and personality is relevant, and so is his relationship to Lois. That may not be an element you think is important, but it's important to me, and I was giving my opinion of the direction Superman is going in relation to those two topics. You're allowed to disagree, but I feel insulted that you've basically implied that my argument and my opinion are irrelevant.


I wasnít even talking about you. I was talking about

>Certainshades wrote:

I think they ended the marriage because they wanted Superman to have sex with other women. And I think they will do everything in their power to downplay Lois Lane and push her aside and treat her poorly to make that happen.

I think thatís just pure negativity. Unjustified and unfair opinion that doesnít belong. I tried to address it discreetly that maybe she was jumping to an unfair conclusion. But was met with argument and the fact someone said that in ďanother forum.Ē That has nothing to do with the writers at DC.
You should have asked me what I was talking about before you went off and started attacking me.
This is another reason I didnít want to post here, everything ends up in some kind of ďYOUR AGINST ME!Ē argument.

I should listen to myself more often.

Youíre not respecting my opinion at all, if you did you wouldnít attack me for expressing it.
Now both of you write a page long rebuttal attacking instead of thinking about it and trying to come to a compromise. Iím just disappointed, I canít just have a conversation.

I get it, the both of you HATE the story now and want it to go back the way it was. You have both firmly established your opinion. Can't we just be firends and move on to something else rather than beat this dead horse?


Okay, next time please clarify who you're talking to.

That's not an unfair opinion, because that's what it looks like to me as well--not so much in Superman, but I would love to see Lois take a more active role than the one she has now. I'd like to see her missing being in the trenches doing some investigative reporting, because that would seem in-character. But it seems like DC is attempting to downsize her role by putting her in a position where she's farther away from the 'action'--what most people are concerned with. You disagree, I understand. But that is my opinion as well, and I'm asking you to respect that.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Look back a few posts and you can see that we both stated that we enjoyed the last issue. I did enjoy the last issue, there are certain aspects that I'd like to see them expand upon. So evidently, I don't hate the story, I want to see improvement. There is always room for improvement. If I hated the story I wouldn't even bother talking with you, and I wouldn't have registered to this site. I've been a Superman fan for years. I want to see these characters grow and develop. I'm giving my take on what I think they should do with the characters. Not once have I said that there can't be improvement. I am giving my honest critique. We do not have to agree, in fact we can agree to disagree. But just because I don't like everything they're doing with Superman right now does not mean my opinion is 'negative' or 'unfair'. I respect your opinion, and not once have I attacked you for it, attempted to brand your opinion as invalid or unfair, and yet you insist on doing that to me. Relax, dude. We're obviously all fans here, we're just drawn to different aspects of the story. You don't want read our thoughts on this aspect, don't read it.

But now I am done because this is getting off topic.

Edited by Made of Steel on 11/01/2012 19:02


[img]http://oi55.tinypic.com/2cg0a2r.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

__

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."--Jor-El
 
A6K

>Made of Steel wrote:


But it seems like DC is attempting to downsize her role by putting her in a position where she's farther away from the 'action'--what most people are concerned with. You disagree, I understand. But that is my opinion as well, and I'm asking you to respect that.


Lois changed the outcome of the battle in issue #2, SHE was (IMO) the most important person in the issue because of the command decisions she made to aide Superman.

Who are MOST people? Because I can only think of about 4 or 5 all in these forums.
 
Made of Steel
That was meant to be read a different way. I was postulating that most people were more concerned with the action than the character development and the characters' respective roles. And so far from what I've read that's been the majority. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but I personally read for the nuances as well as an engaging plot.

I said that a while back, and I liked that. But that was just a single issue. It needs to be consistent. I want her to continue to be important, I want her to continue to have a role not just in the plot as a whole, but in Clark's life as well. I want him to take the hand offered to him and at least attempt to be the least bit social. It at least seemed to be implied that he did have feelings with her in Issue 2, at the end, but that plotline seems to have gotten buried. I want to see him come to terms with those feelings, if they are indeed there, and see him struggle with whether or not he should open up with her. But his just moping about doesn't seem more 'relatable' than he was pre-reboot. Like I said, I feel like they haven't established Clark Kent as a likeable protagonist, because right now he just looks like an antisocial loner.

Now on the other hand, I do like this Superman. He's not fully trusted by the public, but the majority see him as Metropolis's defender. He works with the police, unlike Action's Superman, and I recognize some of the qualities that I'd like to see in Superman. But I don't think he's perfect, because he seems darker and more brooding for lack of a better word. I get it, it's not easy to be him, but I really want to see him smile, just once, after making a save--or something to show that he's not depressed.

Edited by Made of Steel on 11/01/2012 19:35


[img]http://oi55.tinypic.com/2cg0a2r.jpg[/img] is not a valid Image.

__

"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."--Jor-El
 
Jump to Forum: