Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
  1. #16
    Extraordinary Member Zero Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,305

    Default

    Stable is better to read over the long haul but short flings do create more drama which is good for storytelling. Teenage heroes need that tension of hookups, breakups, hardfeelings, lost loves, and such.

  2. #17
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qwertyuiop1998 View Post
    ... there are some cases I think they should remain short affairs. Hal, Bruce, Slade etcetcetc
    Hal, Bruce and Slade did a 3-way?!?

  3. #18
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,820

    Default

    There are some characters, like Arsenal or Cyborg, whose schtick is inherent hard luck. Their love lives should be an endless rollercoaster.

  4. #19
    Incredible Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Batman's relationships with anyone are doomed to failure. He'll never be able to give enough to himself to anyone.
    I know, I singled out those two in particular is because they seem to me more based in "dangerous flirtation/attraction" rather than any deeper emotional connection.

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoneySpider View Post
    I think a mixture of both, since that's what happens in the real world.
    Exactly. Whatever is best for the character and the themes of the series. Not every character should be the same and not every book should be the same.

  6. #21
    Extraordinary Member Jackalope89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    6,237

    Default

    Mostly stable. Hate will they/won't they and relationships/break ups solely for drama.

    But Batman's sociopathic tendencies tend to make stable relationships very difficult. Be it romantic, familial, or otherwise.

  7. #22
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Men or women short affairs in comicbooks are shallow self insert fuel to me, characters always jumping bones to other sex antics makes it feel there less of a character and more a sleezy way of fufilling hook ups for lonely nerds who project themselves into their heroes who wish they were them. Theres nothing realistic about how someone like say batman bumps uglies with say poison ivy or pg without considering there own personalities and lack of chemistry. This is how i critized wolverine and ironman, thieir massive unstable jackass loners with totally unkepmt habits of being dishonest if not horrible friends but they shag a heroine every freaking issue.

    Long term it is.

  8. #23
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,820

    Default

    This is a tough one. There are some long-term relationships that should be sacrosanct (Clark and Lois), but there are some that could deal with tension including breakups. IMO, it's especially useful when the unexpected party breaks it off/finds another (ie Black Canary or The Atom).

    It takes a delicate touch in any case.

  9. #24
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,181

    Default

    Depends. But more often than not I like an on and off type of thing to keep the tension. Ironically the one I think is most beneficial to this concept is the one so often citied as having should be untouchable: Lois and Clark. I feel their relationship has been watered down like crazy since they've been married, at least after the honeymoon was literally over. They work better with lots of tension, and that's completely absent in a stable, problem-free relationship. I actually think Bruce and Selina being married makes more sense than Superman on the grounds that there would still be tons of tension in the former due to both characters' darker natures. It would by nature be a very, very weird marriage and that would sustain it. Superman gets married and the relationship more often than not turns into a sitcom marriage. All tension is gone and whenever a weak attempt is made to try and give it some fire again its boned up in a way that just makes Lois look like a harpy and Clark look like a doormat. So I feel completely opposite as to what the outlook usually tends to be for these things. New 52 had it right, they then just screwed up in not using Lois at all in any meaningful way. Rebirth happened and its once again the most boring relationship in all of comicdom. This even with the dumb status quo changes that should at least throw a wrench in some things. But nope, vanilla as always.

    TL: DR: If you can keep the fire, stable is fine. Otherwise the carousel is the better bet.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 05-31-2020 at 07:57 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

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  10. #25
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    Depends. But more often than not I like an on and off type of thing to keep the tension. Ironically the one I think is most beneficial to this concept is the one so often citied as having should be untouchable: Lois and Clark. I feel their relationship has been watered down like crazy since they've been married, at least after the honeymoon was literally over. They work better with lots of tension, and that's completely absent in a stable, problem-free relationship. I actually think Bruce and Selina being married makes more sense than Superman on the grounds that there would still be tons of tension in the former due to both characters' darker natures. It would by nature be a very, very weird marriage and that would sustain it. Superman gets married and the relationship more often than not turns into a sitcom marriage. All tension is gone and whenever a weak attempt is made to try and give it some fire again its boned up in a way that just makes Lois look like a harpy and Clark look like a doormat. So I feel completely opposite as to what the outlook usually tends to be for these things. New 52 had it right, they then just screwed up in not using Lois at all in any meaningful way. Rebirth happened and its once again the most boring relationship in all of comicdom. This even with the dumb status quo changes that should at least throw a wrench in some things. But nope, vanilla as always.

    TL: DR: If you can keep the fire, stable is fine. Otherwise the carousel is the better bet.
    DC relstionships as one nighters dont maker sense period, or as long term outside the iconic big three and flash.

  11. #26
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,181

    Default

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these characters should constantly have one night stands with their love interest in question. Nor do they need need to be sleeping around constantly in a weak attempt to look cool, unless its kinda in their character DNA like Hal or something. Just that the "sacrosanct" label generally does more harm than good with most relationships. In fiction, steady just isn't as interesting. Drama on some level is inherently more intriguing. Its not commentary on the real world, its purely a fictional entertainment thing. Its why most romance novels end when a couple definitively get together. The ride, and the fun, is over.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 06-01-2020 at 11:15 AM.
    "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

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  12. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    Depends. But more often than not I like an on and off type of thing to keep the tension. Ironically the one I think is most beneficial to this concept is the one so often citied as having should be untouchable: Lois and Clark. I feel their relationship has been watered down like crazy since they've been married, at least after the honeymoon was literally over. They work better with lots of tension, and that's completely absent in a stable, problem-free relationship. I actually think Bruce and Selina being married makes more sense than Superman on the grounds that there would still be tons of tension in the former due to both characters' darker natures. It would by nature be a very, very weird marriage and that would sustain it. Superman gets married and the relationship more often than not turns into a sitcom marriage. All tension is gone and whenever a weak attempt is made to try and give it some fire again its boned up in a way that just makes Lois look like a harpy and Clark look like a doormat. So I feel completely opposite as to what the outlook usually tends to be for these things. New 52 had it right, they then just screwed up in not using Lois at all in any meaningful way. Rebirth happened and its once again the most boring relationship in all of comicdom. This even with the dumb status quo changes that should at least throw a wrench in some things. But nope, vanilla as always.

    TL: DR: If you can keep the fire, stable is fine. Otherwise the carousel is the better bet.
    I don't know what Lois and Clark stories you've been reading but there has hardly, if ever, been a time where their relationship was without problems.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 06-01-2020 at 11:30 AM.

  13. #28
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,181

    Default

    Well they were married in '96, so 24 years worth minus the time apart in the New 52. And I stand by it, since they've been married more often than not they've been fine. The juggling of one side of the equation being Superman is generally lip-service at absolute best. I acknowledged they have been written with problems before, but like I said, when its done its contrived and one or both are always mischaracterized to force it, with usually Lois getting the worst of it because they default to her being the bitch. Though Clark is a cowering loser too so he doesn't get off that much better, but he's usually the sympathetic one at least. Then there's some cheap and lazy solution to default back to wedded bilss, like Lois was actually Parasite all along or something.

    So its either perfect bliss or horribly characterized issues. Neither displaying the chemistry which made them peas in a pod for half a century. This is why today we get cheesy meta statements such as in Superman Reborn where we're just told "The multiverse wills it!". They had more chemistry flirting in Andy Diggle's brief stint on Action in the New 52 than they've had in the entire Rebirth initiative, and in at least a decade before that.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 06-01-2020 at 11:49 AM.
    "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

    "“Your boos mean nothing, I’ve seen what makes you cheer!”

  14. #29
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    51,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these characters should constantly have one night stands with their love interest in question. Nor do they need need to be sleeping around constantly in a weak attempt to look cool, unless its kinda in their character DNA like Hal or something. Just that the "sacrosanct" label generally does more harm than good with most relationships. In fiction, steady just isn't as interesting. Drama on some level is inherently more intriguing. Its not commentary on the real world, its purely a fictional entertainment thing. Its why most romance novels end when a couple definitively get together. The ride, and the fun, is over.
    I personally prefer when they continue featuring a relationship after they've gotten together rather then ending it at that point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacred Knight View Post
    Well they were married in '96, so 24 years worth minus the time apart in the New 52. And I stand by it, since they've been married more often than not they've been fine. The juggling of one side of the equation being Superman is generally lip-service at absolute best. I acknowledged they have been written with problems before, but like I said, when its done its contrived and one or both are always mischaracterized to force it, with usually Lois getting the worst of it because they default to her being the bitch. Though Clark is a cowering loser too so he doesn't get off that much better, but he's usually the sympathetic one at least. Then there's some cheap and lazy solution to default back to wedded bilss, like Lois was actually Parasite all along or something.

    So its either perfect bliss or horribly characterized issues. Neither displaying the chemistry which made them peas in a pod for half a century. This is why today we get cheesy meta statements such as in Superman Reborn where we're just told "The multiverse wills it!". They had more chemistry flirting in Andy Diggle's brief stint on Action in the New 52 than they've had in the entire Rebirth initiative, and in at least a decade before that.
    I'd argue plenty of adaptions have been able to keep the chemistry going even after they have gotten together.

    But I also like the cute Lois and Clark moments we had during Rebirth, so I might be biased .

Posting Permissions

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