What do you think of when you hear the phrase ''classic Superman''?

[DABellWrites]

Not sure what you're arguing against...you've made my case yourself.

As I said, I meant destined in a real-world sense, not destined in-universe.

I just can't wrap my head around the whole "destined" thing. Real-world or in-universe.

[manwhohaseverything]

I always thought lyla was superman's "destiny"..too bad he got stuck on earth..lol!

[DABellWrites]

I always thought lyla was superman's "destiny"..too bad he got stuck on earth..lol!

This I can get behind!

[Jim Kelly]

I've long thought that post-Crisis Wonder Woman took the place of pre-Crisis Lana Lang, but whenever I've posted this, I've been told this is wrong. So I'd probably be better off not saying it.

The thing is Lana Lang is part of the Superman franchise--she was created for that purpose. Wonder Woman never asked to be dragged into Superman's franchise. She has her own franchise. And I feel it diminishes Wonder Woman to make her a subsidiary of the Superman franchise. But that's a topic for another forum.

May-December relationships can sometimes work out, so I wouldn't bet against Kal-El and Lyla Lerrol (or Lyla Ler-Rol), but Kal-El only met her because he had a "Somewhere in Time" adventure in Krypton's past, which made Lyla his Elise McKenna. If Krypton had never been destroyed and Kal-El grew up normally, would he still have fallen in love with this older actress from his parents' generation?

Lois is the main love interest being as she appeared at the very same time in ACTION COMICS 1 (June 1938), but that doesn't mean she's his destiny. She's an irritant from the first moment Clark meets her. So maybe she's destined to undermine him. There's the Jerry Siegel option or the Joe Shuster option.

In 1935, Joe met Joanne Carter (a.k.a. Jolan Kovacs) when he hired her to be a model for the new character he was co-creating, called Lois Lane. Shuster was in love with the beautiful model, but she was not interested. She was rather more fascinated with his partner, Jerome Siegel. Jerry married someone else, but then in 1948, after he was divorced, he happened to meet Joanne again and they were soon married.

I tend to prefer sad love stories to happy love stories, so I favour Lois as the woman who breaks Clark's heart (Joe's story) as opposed to Lois as the woman who marries Superman (Jerry's story).

[manwhohaseverything]

I remember reading about jerry siegel saying lyla being superman's perfect match or something like that..

[bat39]

I just can't wrap my head around the whole "destined" thing. Real-world or in-universe.

Fair enough. I just happened to pick that word.

The difference between the real world and in-universe is that in-universe the characters have agency...but from a real-world perspective they can be totally ''destined'' to go down whatever path (romantic or otherwise) that writers choose for them.

I've long thought that post-Crisis Wonder Woman took the place of pre-Crisis Lana Lang, but whenever I've posted this, I've been told this is wrong. So I'd probably be better off not saying it.

The thing is Lana Lang is part of the Superman franchise--she was created for that purpose. Wonder Woman never asked to be dragged into Superman's franchise. She has her own franchise. And I feel it diminishes Wonder Woman to make her a subsidiary of the Superman franchise. But that's a topic for another forum.

May-December relationships can sometimes work out, so I wouldn't bet against Kal-El and Lyla Lerrol (or Lyla Ler-Rol), but Kal-El only met her because he had a "Somewhere in Time" adventure in Krypton's past, which made Lyla his Elise McKenna. If Krypton had never been destroyed and Kal-El grew up normally, would he still have fallen in love with this older actress from his parents' generation?

Lois is the main love interest being as she appeared at the very same time in ACTION COMICS 1 (June 1938), but that doesn't mean she's his destiny. She's an irritant from the first moment Clark meets her. So maybe she's destined to undermine him. There's the Jerry Siegel option or the Joe Shuster option.

In 1935, Joe met Joanne Carter (a.k.a. Jolan Kovacs) when he hired her to be a model for the new character he was co-creating, called Lois Lane. Shuster was in love with the beautiful model, but she was not interested. She was rather more fascinated with his partner, Jerome Siegel. Jerry married someone else, but then in 1948, after he was divorced, he happened to meet Joanne again and they were soon married.

I tend to prefer sad love stories to happy love stories, so I favour Lois as the woman who breaks Clark's heart (Joe's story) as opposed to Lois as the woman who marries Superman (Jerry's story).

Agree with you on Lana Lang. She's specifically meant to be Superman's love interest when he was a teen, and I'd argue she's another ''classic'' element of the mythos too (having appeared in nearly every major adaptation or reboot since her introduction). The Superman-Lana pairing was given equal status in the Silver Age...in every other era/version it was Superman-Lois first, or Superman-WW in the case of the New 52.

And yes, I don't think the Superman-WW relationship does justice to either franchise or character.

The Superman-Lyla relationship is an interesting one to explore and its kinda a shame we've never had a modern-day adaptation/sequel to that story (which does seem to prove my point that its not the Silver Age per say which is today considered ''classic'' but the Silver Age stuff that made it to later eras and adaptations). It isn't a relationship that could ever have existed in the ''normal'' course of Superman's life, but it happened and it was real for a short while. Hell, in the context of the Silver Age Superman, it was more real than any ''relationship'' he had with Lois or Lana at the time!

The bit about Jerry and Joe and Joanne Carter is fascinating. I was vaguely aware of it, but didn't really know all the details before! Yes, it does raise questions about whether the creators of Superman ever intended Lois and Clark to have a ''happy ending'' (or indeed if they would ever have been in agreement on that question). But the fact that Lois was based on a woman that both of Superman's creators loved, to my mind adds even more legitimacy to the Lois-Clark pairing.

[DochaDocha]

I didn't read the Post-Crisis reboot live (I started reading comics years later), but the #1s of Post-Crisis were my starting point. In retrospect, it's clear to me that WW was fulfilling the Pre-Crisis Lana role. She's hyped up as a love interest early in Byrne's run, with emphasis on "interest" because there are a few instances that show his infatuation with her, then they go out on one bad date and that was that. To me it was a side note, kind of fun, but mostly just showing Superman as having normal-like tendencies of being attracted to different women when he's young and single. No harm, no foul. Plus, it's not like entire arcs would revolve around it. It wasn't even entire issues. It'd be a page or a few panels scattered here and there until their date side-story in Action 600. They kept it minimally intrusive unless this sort of thing is positively or negatively important to you.

Here's the thing people seem to forget, though: Perez was mirroring in the WW books what Byrne was doing in Superman's. Wonder Woman was getting "dragged in" (as some people put it) in as a Superman supporting character just as much as Superman was getting "dragged in" as a Wonder Woman supporting character. And like Byrne limited the number of panels Wonder Woman showed up, Perez only sprinkled Superman here and there. After their date went sour, Superman showed up a couple times as a supportive friend, and it was mostly positive for most readers. Both characters romantically moved on but stayed in touch.

Really, other than the romance, how is that worse than what happens when Batman shows up in Superman or Superman shows up in Batman (not to mention a lot of fans see sexual subtext between the two, and some would love to see it happen)? Obviously, it's bad if the character is used badly, but at least in the Byrne/Perez stuff I thought it fit in organically and concisely.

You also could say that if WW had a Lana Lang-type pre-romance, then Superman was occupying that role. The big difference? We all knew Superman would end up with Lois. On Wonder Woman's side, Steve Trevor had one job, ONE JOB, and Perez discarded it. So we got a 25-year cycle where WW would be interested in all sorts of fellas, never quite sticking to one.

I'll give the naysayers this much: it wasn't particularly good post-marriage when WW was still crushing on Superman. That does make it feel like WW is getting "dragged in," regardless if it's happening in the Super or Wonder books.

As far as New 52 goes, you really have to accept the premise that it's a total reboot. That's too much for a lot of fans and I get it. But if you accept that premise, I thought their romantic relationship was fine. The problem for me was 1) their comic wasn't written that well after Soule left, and probably started going south with the Doomsday arc, and 2) you couldn't shake the inevitability that it wasn't going to go anywhere and they were going to bring him and Lois back together anyway. Overall, I think if you thought of WW as the new Lois, it was going to be a problem. But, if you thought of WW as the new Lana, it works as long as it's written decently.

[bat39]

I didn't read the Post-Crisis reboot live (I started reading comics years later), but the #1s of Post-Crisis were my starting point. In retrospect, it's clear to me that WW was fulfilling the Pre-Crisis Lana role. She's hyped up as a love interest early in Byrne's run, with emphasis on "interest" because there are a few instances that show his infatuation with her, then they go out on one bad date and that was that. To me it was a side note, kind of fun, but mostly just showing Superman as having normal-like tendencies of being attracted to different women when he's young and single. No harm, no foul. Plus, it's not like entire arcs would revolve around it. It wasn't even entire issues. It'd be a page or a few panels scattered here and there until their date side-story in Action 600. They kept it minimally intrusive unless this sort of thing is positively or negatively important to you.

Here's the thing people seem to forget, though: Perez was mirroring in the WW books what Byrne was doing in Superman's. Wonder Woman was getting "dragged in" (as some people put it) in as a Superman supporting character just as much as Superman was getting "dragged in" as a Wonder Woman supporting character. And like Byrne limited the number of panels Wonder Woman showed up, Perez only sprinkled Superman here and there. After their date went sour, Superman showed up a couple times as a supportive friend, and it was mostly positive for most readers. Both characters romantically moved on but stayed in touch.

Really, other than the romance, how is that worse than what happens when Batman shows up in Superman or Superman shows up in Batman (not to mention a lot of fans see sexual subtext between the two, and some would love to see it happen)? Obviously, it's bad if the character is used badly, but at least in the Byrne/Perez stuff I thought it fit in organically and concisely.

You also could say that if WW had a Lana Lang-type pre-romance, then Superman was occupying that role. The big difference? We all knew Superman would end up with Lois. On Wonder Woman's side, Steve Trevor had one job, ONE JOB, and Perez discarded it. So we got a 25-year cycle where WW would be interested in all sorts of fellas, never quite sticking to one.

I'll give the naysayers this much: it wasn't particularly good post-marriage when WW was still crushing on Superman. That does make it feel like WW is getting "dragged in," regardless if it's happening in the Super or Wonder books.

As far as New 52 goes, you really have to accept the premise that it's a total reboot. That's too much for a lot of fans and I get it. But if you accept that premise, I thought their romantic relationship was fine. The problem for me was 1) their comic wasn't written that well after Soule left, and probably started going south with the Doomsday arc, and 2) you couldn't shake the inevitability that it wasn't going to go anywhere and they were going to bring him and Lois back together anyway. Overall, I think if you thought of WW as the new Lois, it was going to be a problem. But, if you thought of WW as the new Lana, it works as long as it's written decently.

I broadly agree with you, though I'd disagree with Wonder Woman taking the Lana role in Post-COIE Superman's life. If anything, Byrne enhanced Lana's role as Clark's first love by having her actually be his teenage girlfriend and the first person he revealed his powers to, and later having them both deal with the emotional fallout of his decision to leave Smallvile and her behind.

Admittedly I haven't read much of the Post-COIE Superman/Wonder Woman ''romance'' such as it was...I just vaguely remember a story where Clark is at his desk at the Daily Planet daydreaming about Wonder Woman (whom he met in a previous issue). So I don't know how serious it got (or didn't) to be honest.

You're bang on about the asymmetry between Superman and Wonder Woman in that Lois Lane will always be an integral part of the Superman mythos and its de-facto deuteragonist, while Steve Trevor spent a long stretch (the Post-COIE era basically) being stripped of his status as Diana's one true love.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't really blame Byrne or Perez for pushing Wonder Woman in the Superman comics. They didn't do it that much. I do find Byrne's version of Lana Lang not that interesting--but he made it up to me with GENERATIONS where Lana is much more like her pre-Crisis self and gets to be with the Man of Tomorrow in the end.

The pre-Crisis comics did pair up Superman and Wonder Woman a few times, but not that often. Over three decades maybe only five times. And it was common to tease readers with different romances between super-folks.

It's the use of Wonder Woman later on that bugs me--especially when Clark is married to Lois.

[DochaDocha]

I broadly agree with you, though I'd disagree with Wonder Woman taking the Lana role in Post-COIE Superman's life. If anything, Byrne enhanced Lana's role as Clark's first love by having her actually be his teenage girlfriend and the first person he revealed his powers to, and later having them both deal with the emotional fallout of his decision to leave Smallvile and her behind.

Admittedly I haven't read much of the Post-COIE Superman/Wonder Woman ''romance'' such as it was...I just vaguely remember a story where Clark is at his desk at the Daily Planet daydreaming about Wonder Woman (whom he met in a previous issue). So I don't know how serious it got (or didn't) to be honest.

You're bang on about the asymmetry between Superman and Wonder Woman in that Lois Lane will always be an integral part of the Superman mythos and its de-facto deuteragonist, while Steve Trevor spent a long stretch (the Post-COIE era basically) being stripped of his status as Diana's one true love.

Hmmm, you may be right. Maybe a more correct way of putting it is Wonder Woman was just a new love interest for the new continuity and just leave it at that.

IIRC, there wasn't a whole lot to Byrne's take on their "romance," other than assorted lead-up to Action 600 story. Really, the only particularly impactful parts of Byrne's take were that 1) he had feelings (that were short-lived) and 2) the Action 600 story ends with Superman saying something like, "Call me Clark," meaning WW was in on the secret. That ended up setting the table for Perez's side, which I honestly thought was the more interesting perspective of their friendship. In an age where Superman's relationship with his classic BFF was skewing so adversarial, I thought it was nice Superman had one that was wholesome. Not sure why a lot of fans don't like this; maybe stuff later on in the Post-Crisis run bothered them. I dunno.

[Francisco]

The image that comes to mind when I hear the phrase classic Superman is Christopher Reeve flying in space, turning to the camera and smiling.

[Yoda]

The Lois/Clark/Superman dynamic is definitely part of the "classic" baseline of the Superman mythos. I think the triangle for two is the classic encapsulation of it, though you can run into issues in 2022 given the nature of the triangle for two being kinda skeevy and creepy through a modern lens. But they have adapted and dealt with that over the years with the takes shown in Man of Steel and Superman & Lois handling it very well from my POV. I'm sure MAWS will handle it well given the people behind it. The marriage is the natural evolution, but I don't think that has risen to "classic" yet.

But really, respectfully I think you only kidding yourself if you are trying to argue that Lois & Superman are not a central part of the mythos and one of the top best known romances in pop culture if not literature as a whole. Quiet literally up there with Romeo & Juliet for awareness of a romantic pairing. This has been true for basically the entire publishing history with a couple of detours here and there. But most definitely since the Donner movies cemented the mythos in a not insignificant part as a love story. This clearly carried over through Lois & Clark, Smallville, Man of Steel and now Superman & Lois and MAWS. Its just cemented into the fabric of the character now. I don't see any real substantive argument against that holding any real weight.

You cannot seriously argue that Lyra Lyall holds any significance to a "classic" take on Superman. Lana's role is the high school romance, and I'd agree Wonder Woman has probably supplanted her - in the comics - in the role of the non-serious relationship before Lois. Early Post-Crisis handled Superman/Wonder Woman a lot better than 2000's era did. And by that point the stories with Wonder Woman were really making her come off pretty bad (though Lana under Chuck Austen got it the worst). Though I find the pairing really ranges from boring under most takes to outright offensive under people like Frank Miller.

Plus, the fact that most times a writer will literally have to kill Lois to make any other pairing viable cements the idea that really Lois is THE romantic partner in the mythos.

[Johnny Thunders!]

The image that comes to mind when I hear the phrase classic Superman is Christopher Reeve flying in space, turning to the camera and smiling.

Whenever I hear about Deadpool or She Hulk breaking the fourth wall, I think of this and Superman smiling and winking at the reader from Golden Age comics on down.

[The Frog Bros]

The image that comes to mind when I hear the phrase classic Superman is Christopher Reeve flying in space, turning to the camera and smiling.

Whenever I hear about Deadpool or She Hulk breaking the fourth wall, I think of this and Superman smiling and winking at the reader from Golden Age comics on down.

Jerry Seinfeld knew what's up...

tumblr_mifew5ubFK1rm4mpho1_1280.jpg

"Maybe I will, Lois... maybe I will."

[The World]

If you had gone into this topic prior to Flashpoint the line where "classic" stopped was at '87 which was what the fanbase used to fight over in terms of Byrne's Marvelization of the character versus the original intent of the people that built Superman into what he was actually suppose to be. It wasn't until the N52 where the Post-Crisis writers/fans did an about face and started seeing classic status as a way to claim authenticity over the new kids on the block.