Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62
  1. #31
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    There was also a story in the daily newspaper strip where Lois and Clark got married--I think Alvin Schwartz wrote that one--but then they had to establish that this never happened for real because it contradicted the official story in the comics.

    Which is the inevitable result of any marriage for Superman. He might be married in current continuity, but at some point someone is going to want to get back to the roots of Superman, at which point any stories about the married Superman are effectively what-if/imaginary/elseworld/alternate Earth stories. So Jerry Siegel was right--there should be and are more imaginary stories.

    I'm not convinced that Lois Lane should always settle down and marry the Man of Steel. Maybe she wants to be free, maybe marriage isn't in the cards for Lois. Or maybe Clark finds another woman and decides to make a life with her. We should always have the chance to imagine other ways the story works out--and not be stuck with just one possible outcome.

    I would point out here that the idea that Lois can’t both be “free” and be married to the man she has loved for 80 years is a strain of the exact sexism we are talking about though.

    This is a cultural issue and one women have been fighting a long time. Women like Lois should not have to be alone in order to be independent and free. There are absolutely some women who would prefer to remain uncoupled and go through life on their own. But Lois has fairly consistently for 80 years expressed fairly clearly that she wants to be with Clark/Superman.

    Women don’t have to be alone to be free. We can be free and still have the support and love of a partner. We don’t ask strong men to go it alone to prove their strength and independence and we shouldn’t ask strong women to do that either. Being alone is a perfectly valid life choice for many people and it’s a choice many people make for a variety of reasons. But it’s not a choice that Lois Lane has really ever consistently expressed wanting so I’m not sure I get the reasoning for trying to push characterization on her that, frankly, is inconsistent with who she is.

    As to your other point about Clark finding someone else to marry....why? Why is this the one aspect or the story that has to shake up? Lois is one of the founding elements of the story. She was around before he could fly and he’s loved her for that long. I don’t see people regularly arguing that Clark Kent shouldn’t be from Krypton or have different parents. I don’t see people arguing that he shouldn’t fly or have heat vision. Yet, she pre dates all that stuff. Yet, she gets treated as a variable despite being one of the only constant elements in the story. Essentially seen as replaceable by another random love interest in her own story. It’s bothersome.
    Last edited by Nelliebly; 11-17-2019 at 09:31 AM.

  2. #32
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marhawkman View Post
    Stanley Lieber had a similar reason for not wanting Spiderman to get married.
    Lee NEVER had a problem with Spider-Man getting married. He always thought it was built in to the stories.

    But Stan eventually decided it was better having him married to MJ.
    Yeah.

  3. #33
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Having big budget doesn't negate it being great. As for originality, i haven't seen anything like it in prior films. Crystal fortress, i mean. As flying man that might not be as original. But it was very much rare compared to now. where that isn't enough to captivate audiences.
    Again, i didn't say it didn't. It just didn't work for me. Romance is generally not my thing. As i said, i haven't seen it any listings.When it comes to superman romances i liked what smallville had. But i don't think it was meant to compete for romance specifics.
    I don't want to go into special effects and their precedents, because that's off-thread. My point is that Christopher Reeve is not considered by perhaps most members of the general public as "the" superman on account of how well he could toss a crystal. Anybody could have done that. What makes the Reeve Superman "definitive", in perhaps the common opinion, was how Reeve played Superman playing Clark Kent, especially his relationship with Lois. Reeve was extraordinarily good at that. Maybe you didn't care, but that was definitely why people remember Reeve more than any of the other Superman actors.

  4. #34
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post

    As far a other portrayals, I think the last couple of seasons of Smallville work in that vein. With the future and closing sequence from the 200th episode, Homecoming, being probably the peak of that for me. As far as romance comics go, Superman: Secret Identity is an elseworld but it's 2nd and 3rd issues have a narrative that is heavily focused on his relationship with Lois. From Krypton with Love is one and that's by Mark Millar and he's not even a fan of the marriage, Glasses is another, Superman One Million and All Star Superman are ones that I consider a relatively romantic Superman stories. For Tomorrow's another with a really great reunion sequence. The Smallville Season 11 comics are relationship heavily in a way that didn't descend into worrying about engagements or whatnot, and I think show you can have a sustained narrative with that when the writing is up to it.
    Smallville was great. But, It was just a cw show. And the continuing comic,i don't know if it can be called 'a great romantic saga' or something .secret identity was awesome. I forgot about that. It was great. For tomorrow, i read but that didn't work for me. Thanks for other recommendations.
    Yes, peter luck exists. But, that's a layer. What people get attracted to at first are the heroics. The look and feel of the hero, you know, the mystic . Otherwise, there are thousand characters with peter luck. With better characterisation and nuances. We want spidey to do his thing. Be amazing. I mean, sam raimi spiderman had romance. But was that the draw?not for me. his fight with green goblin was. The action was bonkers for me, seeing it as a kid.
    Again, you misunderstanding the term 'action'.Action movies need stories.Just with Action you can tell stories. The comparison of fight scenes in the amazing spiderman movies and mcu ones might be true. But the thing is the action would never be an after thought. They are very much Agrade. Heavy focus on the quality of fight scenes is pretty much treated as an essential part of the movies. As important if not more than anything.

  5. #35
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Whereas when Spider-Man got married to Mary Jane Watson that was huge because that happened to the character from Amazing Fantasy #15 and in fact happened in 1987, the 25th anniversary of Spider-Man's origin and first appearance. It was actual lasting growth and change, and maturity. So there's a lot more at stake on a reader/writer level with Spider-Man's marriage than with any DC character because functionally it's more or less making a real canonical change. So the outrage when Spider-man's marriage was retconned in a turgid bad story was greater than in the case of say DC ending the Post-Crisis continuity and going with New 52. On a quality level, there are tons of great Spider-Man stories that work specifically with Spider-Man as a married man with Mary Jane as the most important person in his life -- Kraven's Last Hunt, To Have and to Hold, Doomed Affairs, Back in Black Web of Romance, ASM#300 whereas Superman and Lois have maybe not really had that, with them as a married couple. I mean there are great Superman/Lois love stories and emotional highpoints, but about their relationship as husband-and-wife maybe not so much.
    There's a flipside to the Marvel vs D.C. continuity argument: that the single continuity means the stakes are actually lower in some ways. By the time characters like Iris and Kara died DC had embraced the idea of meaningful and lasting change. When they rebooted those incidents were really set in stone, and the post crisis line went on with its own meaningful changes. Many of the famous ones are set in stone now, and we end up changing the continuity like articles of bedding instead of just fabreezing what's already on the bed. Meanwhile aunt May gets shot and you have to start making distinctions now to make this look serious because Peter would have to remember that whole mess with the fake aunt May. You can't just start doing a single Peter, he has to sell his marriage to the devil so he's not a divorcee, strictly speaking. And when that story sucks you have to flip flop on the idea for the next decade to have things as you like them.
    Welcome or welcome back! Please check out the updated
    CBR Community STANDARDS & RULES

  6. #36
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seismic-2 View Post
    I don't want to go into special effects and their precedents, because that's off-thread. My point is that Christopher Reeve is not considered by perhaps most members of the general public as "the" superman on account of how well he could toss a crystal. Anybody could have done that. What makes the Reeve Superman "definitive", in perhaps the common opinion, was how Reeve played Superman playing Clark Kent, especially his relationship with Lois. Reeve was extraordinarily good at that. Maybe you didn't care, but that was definitely why people remember Reeve more than any of the other Superman actors.
    Again, i didn't say anything about Christopher reeve 's acting abilities nor his portrayal of the dual identity . All i said was the romance story didn't work for me. Although i loved the comedy scenes and such. I am talking about the draw. You only remember it as great because you were drawn to it in the first place. Was the romance really the draw for the movie? For me, no. The first time i saw the movie was on hbo, i think. The thing that attracted me was the opening credit with intro reading the comic, race with the train got my attention , the crystal fortress was simply beautiful and made me an audience.

  7. #37
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuwagaton View Post
    There's a flipside to the Marvel vs D.C. continuity argument: that the single continuity means the stakes are actually lower in some ways. By the time characters like Iris and Kara died DC had embraced the idea of meaningful and lasting change. When they rebooted those incidents were really set in stone, and the post crisis line went on with its own meaningful changes. Many of the famous ones are set in stone now, and we end up changing the continuity like articles of bedding instead of just fabreezing what's already on the bed. Meanwhile aunt May gets shot and you have to start making distinctions now to make this look serious because Peter would have to remember that whole mess with the fake aunt May. You can't just start doing a single Peter, he has to sell his marriage to the devil so he's not a divorcee, strictly speaking. And when that story sucks you have to flip flop on the idea for the next decade to have things as you like them.
    That's fair. I think when you have a single continuity the stakes are higher so when you make big changes it means a far deal than more than in DC but when you screw the pooch, it makes it correspondingly harder to get over or ignore.

    When New 52 did Superman Truth, all they had to do was bring back Post-Crisis Lois and Clark from the shelf, give it to Dan Jurgens, and things returned. You can't do that with Marvel 616.

  8. #38
    Mighty Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Smallville was great. But, It was just a cw show.
    With a viewership that dwarfs the comic readership several times over and almost decade after it ended is still exceptionally popular on streaming services. For a while it was Hulu's most streamed series I believe. So you may dismiss it's importance, but it's popularity is undeniable and it influence a greater number of people than any comic portrayal has since probably the 1950's.

    And the continuing comic,i don't know if it can be called 'a great romantic saga' or something.
    I don't think I called it that, but maybe, I rely on hyperbole as much as anyone on the internet. But the romance with Lois is a central element of the story over the course of the ongoing comic, particularly since 1986. It's absolutely been a focus (not the only one of course) of every successful mass media adaptation of the character over the last 40 years a well, so dismiss that as not central to Superman's continued relevance and success is disingenuous.

    Yes, peter luck exists. But, that's a layer. What people get attracted to at first are the heroics. The look and feel of the hero, you know, the mystic. Otherwise, there are thousand characters with peter luck. With better characterisation and nuances. We want spidey to do his thing. Be amazing. I mean, sam raimi spiderman had romance. But was that the draw?not for me. his fight with green goblin was. The action was bonkers for me, seeing it as a kid.
    Again, you misunderstanding the term 'action'.Action movies need stories.Just with Action you can tell stories. The comparison of fight scenes in the amazing spiderman movies and mcu ones might be true. But the thing is the action would never be an after thought. They are very much Agrade. Heavy focus on the quality of fight scenes is pretty much treated as an essential part of the movies. As important if not more than anything.
    I do get what you're saying. I don't want action sequences to be an afterthought and I don't think focusing on characterization or story - romantic or otherwise - requires that to happen. But at the same time, if you acknowledge that the action sequences in the Amazing Spider-Man and MCU movies are pretty similar - what makes one set so much more popular than the other? It's not the action.

    The Raimi Spider-Man movies are far more popular than the Amazing Spider-Man series and Amazing Spider-Man has way better action sequences and special effects. It's the stories and characterization that separates the three series. Action sequences, even great ones, are a dime a dozen now.

    And even at the time it came out, the Green Goblin was kinda cheesy to a lot of people and looked like something of Power Rangers. The Raimi Spider-Man movies are popular because of character portrayals. It had good action sure, but the most iconic moment of that series is the upside down kiss.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Again, i didn't say anything about Christopher reeve 's acting abilities nor his portrayal of the dual identity . All i said was the romance story didn't work for me. Although i loved the comedy scenes and such. I am talking about the draw. You only remember it as great because you were drawn to it in the first place. Was the romance really the draw for the movie? For me, no. The first time i saw the movie was on hbo, i think. The thing that attracted me was the opening credit with intro reading the comic, race with the train got my attention , the crystal fortress was simply beautiful and made me an audience.
    If romance doesn't work for you fine, but you can't dismiss that romance is one of the driving narratives of the whole final third of the movie. The climax is Superman saying f'you to his space dad and saving both the world and his girl! The interview scene with Lois & Superman is iconic at this point - for one because it's pretty sexy, and at the time was a big deal in the context of the 1970's.
    Last edited by Yoda; 11-17-2019 at 10:15 AM.

  9. #39
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Thanks for your point on continued relevance Yoda. There's a narrative that there's somehow a downward trend that actually ties to the marriage and I don't see it holding true. I think in some sense it's what Siegel was talking about as the potential harm in a marriage, but I think those are safe to call unfounded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's fair. I think when you have a single continuity the stakes are higher so when you make big changes it means a far deal than more than in DC but when you screw the pooch, it makes it correspondingly harder to get over or ignore.

    When New 52 did Superman Truth, all they had to do was bring back Post-Crisis Lois and Clark from the shelf, give it to Dan Jurgens, and things returned. You can't do that with Marvel 616.


    Ha, well I'd say that's all they did but not all they had to do. There were several red herrings in the idea, sometimes not intentionally, and several loose ends. Around here two ideas were extremely popular: a callback to the Morrison red-blue split, and a reference to the Sand Superman story that had been sort of brought back. We ended up with a Marvel style makeshift because they didn't want to really clear the decks again... so now for one thing, we have no idea why Lex was a Superman when the New 52 was "never" separate. The ghost of New 52 Lois hanging around Lana and all that is another can of worms. If they let continuities have better separation I think there would have been more meaningful story beats. The Rebirth thing for DC reminds me of Heroes Reborn trying to crisis up Marvel: wrong sandbox.
    Welcome or welcome back! Please check out the updated
    CBR Community STANDARDS & RULES

  10. #40
    Spectacular Member Superbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    It’s very possible that the interview I was thinking of where I got that impression was this exact interview and given the way Siegel talks here about marriage essentially only being about babies and boring daily life coupled with the content of a lot of the Silver Age stories wherein Lois was forced to focus solely on “domestic” pursuits as opposed to being able to both be married and have a career, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that there is a vein of that even in this interview.

    I have the deepest respect for Siegel and thank him for everything he gave us but he was, in this respect, acting as a man in the 1970’s and both the context of the interview and the general view on women at the time —which very much did place women in boxes of career gal or wife but, rarely, both (see Margot Kidder’s comments in the Being Lois Lane documentary where she talks about how the late 70’s felt like such an instantaneous turning point in so many respects) and that all very much impacts context here.
    It is a stretch.

    In the first of Superman/Lois marriage stories Siegel mentions writing, Lois Lane still worked at the Daily Planet while she and Superman were married. That was written in 1960, 17 years before the interview posted.

    In 1965, Sue Storm and Reed Richards got married. She did not retire, even though the way she was written was facepalm inducingly sexist even by the standards of the 1960s.

    In the 1960s, the Silver Age Hawkman and Hawgirl were a married couple, and Hawkgirl was still an active superhero.

    Hank and Janet were married in the early 1970s, and Janet did not retire as Wasp.

    Superhero comics have their share of misogyny and there were writers and editors that believed if a woman was married she should dedicate the rest of her life to that, but Siegel wasn't one of them and he wasn't alone.

    The comments he made are sexist and outdated, but he did not say anything about Lois having to quit her job if she were to marry. He did not say thing about her career.
    Last edited by Superbat; 11-17-2019 at 11:05 AM.

  11. #41
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    With a viewership that dwarfs the comic readership several times over and almost decade after it ended is still exceptionally popular on streaming services. For a while it was Hulu's most streamed series I believe. So you may dismiss it's importance, but it's popularity is undeniable and it influence a greater number of people than any comic portrayal has since probably the 1950's.



    I don't think I called it that, but maybe, I rely on hyperbole as much as anyone on the internet. But the romance with Lois is a central element of the story over the course of the ongoing comic, particularly since 1986. It's absolutely been a focus (not the only one of course) of every successful mass media adaptation of the character over the last 40 years a well, so dismiss that as not central to Superman's continued relevance and success is disingenuous.



    I do get what you're saying. I don't want action sequences to be an afterthought and I don't think focusing on characterization or story - romantic or otherwise - requires that to happen. But at the same time, if you acknowledge that the action sequences in the Amazing Spider-Man and MCU movies are pretty similar - what makes one set so much more popular than the other? It's not the action.

    The Raimi Spider-Man movies are far more popular than the Amazing Spider-Man series and Amazing Spider-Man has way better action sequences and special effects. It's the stories and characterization that separates the three series. Action sequences, even great ones, are a dime a dozen now.

    And even at the time it came out, the Green Goblin was kinda cheesy to a lot of people and looked like something of Power Rangers. The Raimi Spider-Man movies are popular because of character portrayals. It had good action sure, but the most iconic moment of that series is the upside down kiss.



    If romance doesn't work for you fine, but you can't dismiss that romance is one of the driving narratives of the whole final third of the movie. The climax is Superman saying f'you to his space dad and saving both the world and his girl! The interview scene with Lois & Superman is iconic at this point - for one because it's pretty sexy, and at the time was a big deal in the context of the 1970's.
    I didn't mean it like that. I meant quality wise, regarding smallville. Again, That wasn't meant to be a hyperbole.sorry if you felt that way. I was trying to a express feeling of this great epic love story, you know. That's what i am looking for in general with superman, i mean. Smallville is awesome. Clois was fantastic. But it isn't that.
    Again, more popular requires you to get popular. And the theatrics is the first draw towards a character. It's like a coverpage for a book that draws you in. Action in action movies are that. Ofcourse you might drop the book if content isn't solid. But, draw help sell the product. He might looked cheesy. But the fights were far from it.upside down kiss was iconic. That wasn't thing that captivated me.the thing that captivated me was the fire fight, the bridge fight, times square fight.. Etc
    I never dismissed it. I just said it isn't the draw.
    I guess, we can conclude that the theatrics, the looks and set pieces are needed for getting the audience. The other layers are needed for have stay and come back for more.

  12. #42
    Spectacular Member Superbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    With a viewership that dwarfs the comic readership several times over and almost decade after it ended is still exceptionally popular on streaming services. For a while it was Hulu's most streamed series I believe. So you may dismiss it's importance, but it's popularity is undeniable and it influence a greater number of people than any comic portrayal has since probably the 1950's.
    Smallville's viewership was at its highest when Clark/Lana was the main love story.

  13. #43
    Spectacular Member Stick Figure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    140

    Default

    I think giving consideration to comments made in the 70’s is pointless. That’s a different world all together. The most important thing to me as a reader is that characters reflect our culture as it is now. Evolution is the most important thing to me. A single Superman that hid behind glasses and bumbled around while romancing Lois isn’t remotely appealing to me. The characters are married so now progressing forward is the most important thing. Keep them moving. More kids. Maybe changing cities. They just can’t remain static.
    The comics as they are now probably have more depth than ever before. Superman is being allowed to change.

  14. #44
    Spectacular Member Superbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stick Figure View Post
    I think giving consideration to comments made in the 70’s is pointless. That’s a different world all together. The most important thing to me as a reader is that characters reflect our culture as it is now. Evolution is the most important thing to me.
    And that's why Superman and Batman should hook up.

  15. #45
    Mighty Member Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    1,432

    Default

    He didn't, and frankly I disagree with him on that front because it essentially betrays the outdated idea that marriage is the death of a man's relevance; once married, men are accessories to their wife's role as homemaker and everything revolves around matrimony. It's repulsive but still seems to permeate the minds of many men in charge at both the big two. That sort of sexist mindset needs to die. Marriage doesn't weaken any character or person's resolve or their ambitions, and no, it doesn't limit creativity. You lose the one plotline of "new girlfriend, who dis" or braindead love triangles when two points have to be Superman and Lois, which everyone just knows is endgame anyway. Who, I ask, is going to usurp Lois as Clark's primary love interest in media? Diana? That's not going to work and, frankly, does nothing for Diana as a character or IP.

    Getting married means Clark does have another character who he can actually express himself truthfully to, someone he can work with; akin to how writers had Robin tag along just so Bruce can actually talk to someone without any guard, this allows writers a lot more freedom to have Clark get his ideas across to the reader rather than monologues. In fact, he can bounce his ideas off her cynicism and refine them better, giving a writer a perfectly logical cipher for which to tackle Clark's idealism in a growing cynical world. Giving him a kid also opens a lot of storytelling options. You may not like them, sure, I understand that. Just as one may not like the marriage, but it's additive so long as the writer's views on relationships is healthy. To be honest, a lot of the mindset I get from editorial is that a wedding band is a prison marker that links them to "the ol' bitch and chain" and I'm sick and tired of it.

    I've heard fine reasons for why to absolve it from fans, but from editorial it's always the stock "limits stories" response that reeks of misogyny, however veiled. I've always enjoyed superhero relationships, from friendship to romantic, and every time I hear why Arthur and Mera need to be apart, I roll my eyes. How is being single more relatable than having a relationship unless you've literally never been in one and the latter feels like some sort of whammy prize? I can relate to most characters DC publishes because I'm a human being and I have empathy. It's not hard. I don't need to be a woman to understand what Diana feels when she misses her mother and I don't need to be married to appreciate Arthur and Mera or Lois and Clark being married. In fact, it's inspiring to see people making those commitments work in such a cynical age.

    Superman's creators had a very specific character in mind and refined him over their tenure as his caretakers, but he's long since been solely their vision. Dick Grayson was intended to be a child self-insert for Batman and has developed into a young adult who is his own man, very much against the intentions of Bob Kane (who would never care so long as the checks came in). These characters are allowed to grow beyond their creators and that's why they've snowballed into what's essentially mythology. I respect Siegel and Shuster's contributions to Superman and I always consider their intentions with the character when thinking if something is in-character for Clark, but ultimately he's grown a lot bigger than they ever intended and needs to be able to evolve if he's to endure. I agree that there's evolving and then outright revising the character. It's a delicate line to walk, but it stands to reason that two people who clearly love each other would one day get married and embrace a new chapter of their lives together as opposed to will-they-won't-they-well-they-will-but-only-when-we're-willing-to-make-this-an-ending-so-it's-actually-just-us-spinning-plates-hey-look-Mxy's-back!

Posting Permissions

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