DC couple you would be okay permanently breaking up

[Rakzo]

Green Arrow and Black Canary.

Easiest question from this forum.

[kurenai24]

Clark and Lois

- No legitimate reason, I just don't like Lois, there has never been an iteration of the character I liked, as a kid I actually didn't like Superman for a long time b/c I didn't like Lois. I read comics now and my opinion on the character hasn't really changed much, I've gone from disliking Lois to not really caring that she exists so yeah...

Batman and Catwoman

- I shipped them as a kid, I don't really care for it now, I especially don't care for Tom King's version, kind of think it's out of character for Batman to date villains ...although I guess she's an anti-hero now I don't really care, no to the pairing for me.

Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy (Are they still together?)

- Why are they a thing, b/c of the cartoon? This pairing is bizarre and like a parasite Harley Quinn has sucked the life out of the Posion Ivy character.

[lemonpeace]

Hawkgirl (not HawkWOMAN) and Hawkman

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Of course there was automatic negative backlash, there are fans of the marriage and fans will complain - doesn't mean all fans are hung up on the marriage, just that a certain segment is and got vocal about it. And the fact the marriage is back is also not proof of anything at all. Yes some people didn't like the marriage being erased, but some people did, and honestly it's not like we have concrete numbers on which is the greater faction. Could be that the greater portion of the fandom just want them to be close but couldn't care less about their actual marital status, we don't know.

Again, Lois and Clark are one of the most famous couples, not just in comics, but in fiction period. There's even a Wikipedia page devoted exclusively to their relationship on top of an entire television series that centered on their coupling. And honestly, can you point to a comic-book couple that is as well known?? Not even the likes of Reed and Sue Richards have as iconic a relationship as Lois and Clark.

So, I don't think its an assumption that, even if there are some fans who don't like their coupling or their marriage, its still a benchmark of the mythos that a vast majority of fans don't want to go without. And we can revert to the excuse that it was a "vocal minority" of the fans who like the marriage, but:

(a) we could just as easily make that argument about those who want it gone and
(b) at a certain point, DC made the calculation that bringing the marriage back was more profitable than going on without it. So, yes, that counts as evidence.

Erasing the marriage was just the worst example of character regression and character regression is always a bad thing.

[Agent Z]

Hawkgirl (not HawkWOMAN) and Hawkman

What's wrong with Hawkwoman? Frankly, I like that she upgraded to reflect her age.

[Anthony Shaw]

Clark and Lois. Marriage has been hurting them for almost 20 years now. Their dynamic is just so boring as it is, compared to how it used to be and what made it popular in the first place. The kid didn't help, if anything he made it worse. Problem is I don't think breaking them up in-story is a good idea. Divorce wouldn't work. Not because there's anything shameful about divorce, sometimes its necessary. But it is at the same time its nearly always a permanent "This is over". I don't want that either, because the motivation is putting the spark back. Really erasure of it ever happening is the only way to do it. It never should have been brought back.

I agree. The marriage/full blown relationships work best in outside media. Mostly due to the outside media presentation having an eventual ending. A three to five year run in animation of live action works for the marriage, but not so much in comics, imo.

[Anthony Shaw]

Bat...Cat...

I was more of a Bat & Talia fan, tbh.

[Anthony Shaw]

Dan Didio and Jim Lee.

[LP22]

Hawkgirl (not HawkWOMAN) and Hawkman

I Disagree in my opinion now that snyder's JLA is ending kendra and carter can finally establish their relationship again and be given a proper romance now that the post crisis will they won't they is part of the past.

[Vakanai]

Again, Lois and Clark are one of the most famous couples, not just in comics, but in fiction period. There's even a Wikipedia page devoted exclusively to their relationship on top of an entire television series that centered on their coupling. And honestly, can you point to a comic-book couple that is as well known?? Not even the likes of Reed and Sue Richards have as iconic a relationship as Lois and Clark.

So, I don't think its an assumption that, even if there are some fans who don't like their coupling or their marriage, its still a benchmark of the mythos that a vast majority of fans don't want to go without. And we can revert to the excuse that it was a "vocal minority" of the fans who like the marriage, but:

(a) we could just as easily make that argument about those who want it gone and
(b) at a certain point, DC made the calculation that bringing the marriage back was more profitable than going on without it. So, yes, that counts as evidence.

Erasing the marriage was just the worst example of character regression and character regression is always a bad thing.

Again, famous couple doesn't mean having to be married. As long as they have a relationship most people probably don't care one way or another if there are rings on their fingers. And of those fans who do care about that particular detail, there seems to be a split, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing. The vast majority of fans want them as some kind of couple true, although I'm sure there are a few who don't - I'm not arguing that fact, I'm saying they don't need to be married to be a couple, and that the marriage itself isn't that important nor that iconic. As for points a and b, a isn't a point, and b DC didn't make a calculation that the marriage was uber important, just that undoing the unpopular New52 was important. I doubt they really weighed it like "Should we have them together and unmarried, or married?" so much as "New52 is tanking make it like it was before!" There was no merits of marriage vs unmarried being discussed probably unless you have proof otherwise.


Clark and Lois is an important pairing - that pairing needing to be married, not important.

[TheBatman]

Batman and Catwoman.

[Rac7d*]

Preferably before they spawn a new generation.

Helena Wayne

[lemonpeace]

What's wrong with Hawkwoman? Frankly, I like that she upgraded to reflect her age.

I was differentiating the characters, I would split Hawkgirl and Hawkman but Hawkman and Hawkwoman can be together. I would keep them separate.

[Agent Z]

I was differentiating the characters, I would split Hawkgirl and Hawkman but Hawkman and Hawkwoman can be together. I would keep them separate.

My apologies for the mistake.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Again, famous couple doesn't mean having to be married. As long as they have a relationship most people probably don't care one way or another if there are rings on their fingers. And of those fans who do care about that particular detail, there seems to be a split, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing. The vast majority of fans want them as some kind of couple true, although I'm sure there are a few who don't - I'm not arguing that fact...b DC didn't make a calculation that the marriage was uber important, just that undoing the unpopular New52 was important. I doubt they really weighed it like "Should we have them together and unmarried, or married?" so much as "New52 is tanking make it like it was before!" There was no merits of marriage vs unmarried being discussed probably unless you have proof otherwise.


Clark and Lois is an important pairing - that pairing needing to be married, not important.

A few things:

1) One of the things that made the New 52 unpopular was the very dissolution of various relationships across the DCU, Lois and Clark being chief among them.

2) If by your own admission, having them together is what's important, then what is the point of them not beng married?? Like, that's something that neither you nor SK has really made a case for. No married couple has to be married to be happy together. However, that doesn't mean that they should NOT be married. Lois and Clark don't have to be married...but they are. And if they are together anyway, why not as a married couple? That's how they've existed for well over two decades at this point. And I think the idea that ther marriage is hurting either of them as characters is pretty laughable. So, again, what would be the point of dissolving the marriage??? To appeal to a small sliver of fans who don't like having Superman married or even with Lois at all??? Are there some people who don't like the marriage? Sure. But there also people who don't like Superman being weak to Kryptonite or his absurd power-levels or certain villains like Lex Luthor or Doomsday or who just don't like Superman at all. Should DC bend over backwards to appeal to those people too??

So, I guess the point is: Superman and Lois don't have to be married, but they are and have been for so long now that erasing it just seems like such an unnecessary regression (like much of the New 52 was).