Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 225
  1. #31
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    850

    Default

    New 52 feels like an Elseworlds story to me. i dont know this Superman/Clark he's so different from the Superman i grew up with, the suit, the powers and even the personality. tbh i feel like he don't have any obligation to protract this earth, i mean why should he? all the people that make his life meaningful on earth was gone. his parents dies and Lois is not his. his connection with these mere mortals that make him Clark Kent/Superman, make him want to protract the earth with all his strength. as a human, i don't care about his relationship with other gods. they live above us. when the New 52 Superman died, i don't feel anything ..i was like welp! he's dead lol. actually i was quite happy because we are getting Superfamily. finally they let Clark Kent/Superman and Lois grow as charterer after 80 years.
    Last edited by cookies; 12-05-2018 at 07:38 PM.

  2. #32
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,434

    Default

    His obligation to protect the Earth is one he gives to himself because of his love of the planet and its people, and the morals his parents instilled in him. That was the reason in the pre-Crisis days as well when his parents were gone. It was never a prerequisite that he have his parents alive and a wife and a kid in order to feel obligated to protect the planet. He loved his adopted home and its people. And its not like he had no personal relationships pre-Crisis and New 52 anyway; he still had a blood relative, friends, colleagues, lovers, etc. In other words all the reasons he had to protect the Earth in the post-Crisis continuity he had in the continuities that preceded it, and in the one that succeeded it.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 12-05-2018 at 08:41 PM.
    "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

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

  3. #33
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    850

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    the treatment of Lois in the New 52 was just terrible. She's co-starred in every single successful adaptation of the franchise. I'd like to hear anyone argue that her treatment in the New 52, beyond maybe Unchained, was not objectively bad. I get if she's not a necessary element of a Superman story for you, but she was one of the most mishandled characters in the New 52.
    IKR!! i swear they wrote Lois character like during her silver age era. i cant wait to smack these fools(the writer and Lois haters) face with Jeff Loveness's upcoming book coming out this Jan about Lois and her relationship with our home boi )
    https://youtu.be/R5ecKVUCLvg?t=511

  4. #34
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,434

    Default

    I don't consider her a co-star. She is to me the main supporting character. Now, she's been a co-star in specific, offshoot books. She was the star in Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane, and a costar in Superman Family. But in Action and Superman, and the now defunct Adventures, Man of Steel, and Man of Tomorrow, she is/was a supporting character.

    And yeah, I do argue her use in the New 52 wasn't across the board, objectively bad. I actually liked her storylines in the Superman title, despite the fact that overall, all things involved, it was by far the weaker title. Perez was giving her something new and interesting but outside interferenes and problems sabotaged his whole run. I even liked her role in Truth, its just the story around it was executed badly, and the constant falsified advertising for shock value that she was "betraying" Superman when narratively she did no such thing. Even further, I had a lot of fun with her Brainiac possession. It reminded me of all those crazy pre-Crisis transformation stories in the past. It wasn't Dickens, but I had fun. Superman had a bad look in one of those issues which marred the whole thing, unfortunately. As for Action, I thought she was used fine in Morrison's run. Finally we get to Pak's run, and that's the only time I had a significant issue. The only thing I couldn't and still can't wrap my head around today, and what I consider the only truly bad thing about how she was treated in the era, was why she was off the table for Pak to use during his Action run. She could be used everywhere else but there so that never made sense and I don't think anyone's ever offered a reason why (it wasn't because of Wonder Woman, if it was she wouldn't have been able to be used anywhere and that certainly was not the case). But that aside I actually enjoyed quite a bit of Lois in the New 52.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 12-05-2018 at 08:31 PM.
    "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

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

  5. #35
    Mighty Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    I don't consider her a co-star. She's a main supporting character.
    I can see that, but I guess it depends on how you define "main?" She's more important that your typical supporting characters and over the last 40 years has been a literal co-star in every movie, TV, cartoon, and other successful adaptation outside of the comic books. So, yes in the comics shes not the literal costar of Superman but her role in the franchise and mythos is far more important that a typical supporting character.
    Last edited by Yoda; 12-05-2018 at 08:41 PM.

  6. #36
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,434

    Default

    Basically where I distinguish from supporting character and main supporting character is that the one I give the latter title to is the one who appears the most second to the star. But co-star, I tend to only use that in books specifically designed as team titles/ensembles.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 12-05-2018 at 08:33 PM.
    "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

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

  7. #37
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cookies View Post
    New 52 feels like an Elseworlds story to me. i dont know this Superman/Clark he's so different from the Superman i grew up with, the suit, the powers and even the personality. tbh i feel like he don't have any obligation to protract this earth, i mean why should he? all the people that make his life meaningful on earth was gone. his parents dies and Lois is not his. his connection with these mere mortals that make him Clark Kent/Superman, make him want to protract the earth with all his strength. as a human, i don't care about his relationship with other gods. they live above us. when the New 52 Superman died, i don't feel anything ..i was like welp! he's dead lol. actually i was quite happy because we are getting Superfamily. finally they let Clark Kent/Superman and Lois grow as charterer after 80 years.
    He was raised here by people he loved. Why wouldn't he protect it? He made it to early adulthood with his parents and even with their deaths he carried the lessons they tought him. They don't need to be alive for him to feel obligated. Nor does he have to be married to Lois. Those three individuals are major parts of his life, but there is far more to him than just them. He has other friends. All throughout the pre Crisis era, the Kents were dead and he did not stop defending the planet. They really don't serve much of a narrative purpose alive, IMO.

    Lois was still around as a friend, co worker and potential love interest. He exists just fine without the marriage.

  8. #38
    Mighty Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post

    And yeah, I do argue her use in the New 52 wasn't across the board, objectively bad. I actually liked her storylines in the Superman title, despite the fact that overall, all things involved, it was by far the weaker title. Perez was giving her something new and interesting but outside interferenes and problems sabotaged his whole run. I even liked her role in Truth, its just the story around it was executed badly, and the constant, falsified advertising for shock value that she was "betraying" Superman when narratively she did no such thing. Even further, I had a lot of fun with her Brainiac possession. It reminded me of all those crazy pre-Crisis transformation stories in the past. Superman had a bad look in one of those issues which marred the whole thing, unfortunately. As for Action, I thought she was used fine in Morrison's run. Finally we get to Pak's run, and that's the only time I had a significant issue. The only thing I couldn't and still can't wrap my head around today, and what I consider the only truly bad thing about how she was treated in the era, was why she was off the table for Pak to use during his Action run. She could be used everywhere else but there so that never made sense and I don't think anyone's ever offered a reason why (it wasn't because of Wonder Woman, if it was she wouldn't have been able to be used anywhere and that certainly was not the case). But that aside I actually enjoyed quite a bit of Lois in the New 52.
    Now I have to disagree. She wasn't given anything interesting to do in Perez's run. She was sidelined, pretty grossly too. With her defining characteristics as a tenacious reporter were excised and she was basically reduced to a prop to make the reader feel bad for Clark because she was sleeping with someone else. It was dressed up as "she's a independent woman now!" And even made Clark looked pretty creepy and pathetic in that whole thing. And Morrison was ok, it's been a while since I read Action, but I don't think he really gets Lois. She wasn't that great in All Star Superman either.

    The Brainiac stuff I disagree with. That whole thing just wasn't interesting to me and the whole parasite thing mars anything else. Pak probably would have written a good Lois. I don't understand that whole thing either. But it's not like many of DC's choices in that era made much sense.

  9. #39
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,434

    Default

    I found her promotion, and the growing philosophical differences between her and Clark in regards to the direction the Planet was going in, to try and survive in a modern world in which print media was dying, quite intriguing. I'll always lament it wasn't able to go anywhere because Perez got the runaround. I never got the feeling she was used as a prop just to make us feel bad for Clark. That would suggest that having a new blonde, no-name boyfriend was all she had going on. And it was definitely not. Perez was building more there with her and was planting those seeds from the beginning, but just didn't get to capitalize on it.

    I can appreciate how the Brainiac thing wasn't everyone's cup of tea. I mean, I'd have taken the above over this any day of the week but for me it was light-hearted camp. But I can appreciate that with Lobdell, he can be abrasive to a lot of fans, and I completely understand the distaste over the Parasite thing which was a dumb, unfortunate group of panels.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 12-05-2018 at 08:52 PM.
    "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

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

  10. #40
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    Basically where I distinguish from supporting character and main supporting character is that the one I give the latter title to is the one who appears the most second to the star. But co-star, I tend to only use that in books specifically designed as team titles/ensembles.
    That's how I look at it too. If your name is not on the cover of the comic, you're not a star or a co-star, you're a supporting character. You exist to service and advance the narrative and development of the person who's name is on the front of the book.

    Lois is an important supporting character. She's the most important. But unless the book was called "Lois Lane" or "Superman Family" or "Lois & Clark" or whatever, she's not a lead character.

    Team books are obviously different.

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure that *is* objective.
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

  11. #41
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,814

    Default

    And the winner for the most "Have you stopped beating your wife?" thread title goes to... Seriously, at this point, you probably would've been better off as writing the title as a declarative statement than in the form of a question.

    I think New 52 Superman was the result of a few things:

    1) The books were in terrible shape at the end of the previous decade and badly needed something big
    2) The threat of losing the Toberoff-headed lawsuit

    In short, there were a lot of bad mistakes made with Superman throughout the years, like two years of no Superman in Action Comics. And while I'm happy that Post-Crisis Superman is sort of back, after the really unspectacular way they kind of wrote him off, the way they brought him back gave me little satisfaction. I still love Superman in concept, but the comics have been pretty disappointing to me since 2015 or whenever that I only occasionally read them. Granted, I usually go several years on, several years off, but I'm not sure how or when I'll get back on the train. Maybe I'm just getting old and am content to like the idea of Superman.

  12. #42
    Mighty Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    I found her promotion, and the growing philosophical differences between her and Clark in regards to the direction the Planet was going in, to try and survive in a modern world in which print media was dying, quite intriguing. I'll always lament it wasn't able to go anywhere because Perez got the runaround. I never got the feeling she was used as a prop just to make us feel bad for Clark. That would suggest that having a new blonde, no-name boyfriend was all she had going on. And it was definitely not. Perez was building more there with her and was planting those seeds from the beginning, but just didn't get to capitalize on it.
    I see it as they took a character that for the preceding 25 years had been one that went out, got her hands dirty, and chased the stories into someone who essentially for the entirety of Perez's run sat behind a desk or on the phone. That's not how I see Lois Lane. Clark as a blogger was a better take and any Lois Lane from the Bronze Age on probably would have walked out with him.

    I may overstated the prop part, but that closing scene of Superman 1 is just gross in my opinion. Clark looks pathetic. Lois looks terrible. It's just bad.
    Last edited by Yoda; 12-05-2018 at 08:58 PM.

  13. #43
    Astonishing Member superduperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Metropolis USA
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    What was DC thinking? They were thinking they wanted to win over younger fans. What do you suppose the average age of a comic reader is these days? Most of the ones I've seen in my LCS are in their thirties or older. DC understood that in order to survive they need kids again. This was supposed to be what won them over. It clearly didn't work. I loved New 52. And the idea that it "objectively" was a bad idea is, quite frankly, kind of insulting. It was an experiment. And one could argue it failed for a number of reasons. I supported it because I felt like he needed a clean slate and this is the closest to one he's ever gotten. And there is no doubt that his history was a mess before the reboot. But apparently that's what older fans wanted as that's clearly what they've gone back to. There were a lot of creative decisions that harmed the reboot but, let's be honest, there were a lot of fans who were just never going to support him either. I don't think the Super-fan base can ever be united over anything. DC may just have to cut their losses and decide to only appease one set of fans. And it looks like they've, for the most part, chosen the post-Crisis fans.

    Maybe someday they'll decide to do a New 52 style universe as an Ultimates type thing. I hope they do. But clearly it's not going to be the mainstream universe. Personally, I think they've burned out the "suspension of disbelief" rule too many times with their origin reboots. Especially with the last one and the merger of the two.
    Now listen to me, Clark! This great strength of yours--you've got to hide it from people or they'll be scared of you!

  14. #44
    Mighty Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    That's how I look at it too. If your name is not on the cover of the comic, you're not a star or a co-star, you're a supporting character. You exist to service and advance the narrative and development of the person who's name is on the front of the book.

    Lois is an important supporting character. She's the most important. But unless the book was called "Lois Lane" or "Superman Family" or "Lois & Clark" or whatever, she's not a lead character.

    Team books are obviously different.

    EDIT: I'm pretty sure that *is* objective.
    Television
    Series Regular: The leads of a television series (someone who appears in the main credits and posters/advertising).

    Co-Star: An actor who supports a scene or two. For instance, a grocery store clerk or bank teller who helps a principal actor. Co-Stars normally have lines, but on occasion a casting director will cast a non-speaking co-star.

    Film
    Lead: The main character in a film.
    Supporting Lead: A smaller part then the lead that still plays an intricate part of the story.
    Supporting: A character that simply pushes the story forward for the sake of the lead or supporting lead characters. The equivalent of a television co-star.
    In television or film parlance Lois would be a series regular or a supporting lead.

  15. #45
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I see it as they took a character that for the preceding 25 years had been one that went out, got her hands dirty, and chased the stories into someone who essentially for the entirety of Perez's run sat behind a desk or on the phone. That's not how I see Lois Lane. Clark as a blogger was a better take and any Lois Lane from the Bronze Age on probably would have walked out with him.

    I may overstated the prop part, but that closing scene of Superman 1 is just gross in my opinion. Clark looks pathetic. Lois looks terrible. It's just bad.
    She went behind a desk to try and do what she felt needed to be done to save the profession that she loved. She wasn't doing it just for more money or because she was tired of the game. It weighed on her too, that much was made perfectly clear but she was willing to make sacrifices to save the Planet. That's definitely how I see Lois Lane. Clark on the other hand was not so willing to adapt to that degree. And neither were painted as wrong, just of different, passionate minds with their hearts in the right place. I would have loved to see where it all went.

    As for the end of #1, yeah it was definitely designed to make Clark look like the "loser". But I don't see how it made Lois look terrible. She was with a guy in the privacy of her own home and answered a call at her door. Jonathan was a little too forward when he introduced himself but she herself wasn't trying to throw anything in Clark's face. We're supposed to feel bad for Clark as the lonely guy there but it wasn't at the expense of having Lois be cruel or anything like that.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 12-05-2018 at 09:21 PM.
    "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

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •