Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 115
  1. #61
    Astonishing Member The Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan58 View Post
    In terms of comics? Silver Age Superman. It's what's often referenced when pop culture references Superman, right? The triangle of two (and the characterizations of the parties involved), the wacky powers, the near invincibility unless faced with Kryptonite or such, that picture of him sneezing away solar systems that's always posted in power level discussions, the art-style... everything there screams "classic" to me.

    Bronze Age already has this "we're updating the classics" feel, nevermind Post-Crisis. New 52 is too controversial to be called classic, Rebirth and onwards is too far down the timeline (Superman married and with a kid? That kid is now a young man and Superman himself, while Clark is Old Man Superman?) to be thought of as "classic" at this point.

    And as for Golden Age? I'd love to call that "classic Superman", but let's all be honest, the pop culture conception of Superman bears little resemblance to that guy.

    In terms of media adaptations? The Reeves movies. Love them, hate them, be indifferent to them, for a lot of people that's "classic Superman", and whether they think Superman should be like that or Superman should move away from that, it's always in terms of that being the standard.
    Yes. I agree with everything here. I believe that Silver Age Superman and Christopher Reeve Superman are the ideal of what 'classic' Superman is

  2. #62
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2022
    Posts
    4,007

    Default

    I'd say Silver Age defines classic to me. Post-Crisis makes for the more 'modern' take.

    In media, I always look to the 40s Fleischer shorts, in large parts for influencing the style of the early DCAU, but Donner of course greatly informed Smallville.

  3. #63
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The World View Post
    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.
    Yeah I know. I've been around in the online fandom long enough to remember the period during IC, when there were long debates about whether Post-COIE Superman is the same character as Pre-COIE Superman, as well as calls to restore the Pre-COIE DCU. And I remember the disappointment when IC didn't go as far as some people wanted in terms of restoring the glory days of the Silver Age and Bronze Age (though I do believe those 5 years between 2006 and 2011 did a great job creating a composite continuity that used the Post-COIE framework but added in as much Pre-COIE stuff as possible). And I know that ''classic'' is a moving target...40 years ago, its probably the Fleischer cartoons and George Reeves' show that were the ''classic'' adaptations while Donner and Lester's work was contemporary. 20 years ago, Byrne's work probably still wasn't considered ''classic'' (but fans who got into Superman during that era and who then read the back issues from the 80's that laid the foundation for the then-current Superman have since come to consider it ''classic'').

    You're also right that the New 52 did a lot to end the divide between Pre-COIE and Post-COIE in terms of what can be considered ''classic''. Ironically, on a superficial level the New 52 looked like it was an exercise in returning to a ''classic'' status quo. Superman was back to being a bachelor, with a very Golden Age-inspired Year One story. Steve Trevor was back as WW's love interest. We had the ''Big Seven'' Justice League, with Cyborg replacing Martian Manhunter. Most of the legacies had been wiped out. And yet, it didn't feel classic at all - visually, tonally and in any other sense. A major reason for that was the near-total annihilation of past continuity. Now COIE does occasionally get some flack for not being a hard reboot, but the fact that it retained about 70-80% of past continuity has ultimate worked in DC's favor, helping create a sense of history and legacy and some kind of direct link that stretched all the way back to the 1930's. The New 52 destroyed all that and I'm not entirely sure if what we have now has entirely repaired the damage.

    But who knows? In some ways, the idea of a young, single Superman in armor might be more ''classic'' than the idea of Superman's grown-up son taking over the mantle while the now greying original (whose true identity is public knowledge) is traveling the universe. So maybe someday the New 52 too will be considered ''classic''?

  4. #64
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    I'd disagree that the Byrne/Ordway Superman added in as much "as possible" from the previous regime. They found a way to add in John's favourite, Mr. Kirby, yet not a way to add in all the continuity that surrounded the King's term on Jimmy Olsen. Nothing about Galaxy Broadcasting or Morgan Edge. They had a five year gap--between the end of the MAN OF STEEL mini and the beginning of the new SUPERMAN series--which was supposed to be used for putting in a lot of that past continuity (which had to have happened given the events of MILLENNIUM), but then they didn't use that closet space for anything.

    This topic makes me think of Alan Moore's SUPREME. That begins with the new Supreme meeting all the other Supremes in the Supremacy. Moore established Original Supreme as the first Supreme, but then he also has King Supreme. And King Supreme seems to have existed in the Weisinger era--1950s and 1960s--but not the 1970s and beyond. Which kind of bugged me. It seemed like Alan Moore didn't care for the Schwartz era Superman, since there's no version of Supreme that corresponds to that.

  5. #65
    Not a Newbie Member JBatmanFan05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Arkham, Mass (lol no)
    Posts
    9,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    And King Supreme seems to have existed in the Weisinger era--1950s and 1960s--but not the 1970s and beyond. Which kind of bugged me. It seemed like Alan Moore didn't care for the Schwartz era Superman, since there's no version of Supreme that corresponds to that.
    I don't believe that's accurate at all. We definitely saw a 70s style Supreme.
    Untitled (2).jpg
    http://forgottenawesome.blogspot.com...upreme-49.html
    Last edited by JBatmanFan05; 08-12-2022 at 11:30 AM.
    Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft

    Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

  6. #66
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBatmanFan05 View Post
    I don't believe that's accurate at all. We definitely saw a 70s style Supreme.
    You could be right and I didn't see it. I only remember when I read it that King Supreme left at the end of the 1960s and there was some sort of down time after that, which I took to be the Schwartz era, and this wasn't apparently part of the great King Supreme regime.

    When it comes to Superman, it's like the post-Crisis writers wanted to use bits and pieces from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, but never gave much consideration to the 1970s unless it was the New Gods stuff.

    The part of Superman that's being cleared from the history in 1987 is the previous run from 1971 - 1986.

    However, I would say that the 1970s Superman was more well thought out than anything before it. You can ignore many of the stories from the '40s, '50s and '60s because they aren't relevant to the continuity and the mythology. In the 1970s and early 1980s, E. Nelson Bridwell did a good job of identifying which previous adventures should matter in the grand scheme of things. The 1970s is when the writers and editors really try to clarify what is important to the continuity and what should be forgotten.

    All that work was simply thrown out after Bridwell's death.

  7. #67
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I'd disagree that the Byrne/Ordway Superman added in as much "as possible" from the previous regime. They found a way to add in John's favourite, Mr. Kirby, yet not a way to add in all the continuity that surrounded the King's term on Jimmy Olsen. Nothing about Galaxy Broadcasting or Morgan Edge. They had a five year gap--between the end of the MAN OF STEEL mini and the beginning of the new SUPERMAN series--which was supposed to be used for putting in a lot of that past continuity (which had to have happened given the events of MILLENNIUM), but then they didn't use that closet space for anything.

    This topic makes me think of Alan Moore's SUPREME. That begins with the new Supreme meeting all the other Supremes in the Supremacy. Moore established Original Supreme as the first Supreme, but then he also has King Supreme. And King Supreme seems to have existed in the Weisinger era--1950s and 1960s--but not the 1970s and beyond. Which kind of bugged me. It seemed like Alan Moore didn't care for the Schwartz era Superman, since there's no version of Supreme that corresponds to that.
    Yeah I was talking about the brief era between IC and Flashpoint which restored a lot of Pre-COIE stuff, particularly for Superman...not about the initial Post-COIE reboot by Byrne. Though Byrne did claim that his intent was to try and preserve as much Pre-COIE history as possible, and that it was DC that mandated he wipe the slate clean. And yeah, that 5 year gap is weird (though strictly speaking its more like a 3 year gap if you consider the actual chronology of MOS)...Byrne was told to get rid of all past continuity but he was also told that by the end of his mini Superman has to be in sync with the present-day DCU.

    The funny thing about the Bronze Age is that while it may have shaped many people's ''classic'' image of Superman, both visually and in terms of the seriousness with which the character was treated, people seldom remember it as a distinct era. People tend to remember the craziness of the Silver Age, and they then remember Donner, but they don't actually think of the 70's/early 80's comic-book Superman as a distinct interpretation of the character.

  8. #68
    Not a Newbie Member JBatmanFan05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Arkham, Mass (lol no)
    Posts
    9,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    Yeah I was talking about the brief era between IC and Flashpoint which restored a lot of Pre-COIE stuff, particularly for Superman...not about the initial Post-COIE reboot by Byrne.
    Yea, you're right that you were talking about that. I agree somewhat or largely with: "I do believe those 5 years between 2006 and 2011 did a great job creating a composite continuity that used the Post-COIE framework but added in as much Pre-COIE stuff as possible."


    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    You're also right that the New 52 did a lot to end the divide between Pre-COIE and Post-COIE in terms of what can be considered ''classic''. Ironically, on a superficial level the New 52 looked like it was an exercise in returning to a ''classic'' status quo. ..And yet, it didn't feel classic at all - visually, tonally and in any other sense. .. The New 52 destroyed all that and I'm not entirely sure if what we have now has entirely repaired the damage.
    Absolutely agree.
    Last edited by JBatmanFan05; 08-12-2022 at 01:12 PM.
    Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft

    Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

  9. #69
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    So I just got back from watching DC's League of Super-Pets which I thoroughly enjoyed! And the film really got me thinking about the discussion we've all been having about the ''classic Superman'' on this thread.

    First off, I think this film very much depicts a ''classic Superman''. And when we break down the elements that make it feel ''classic'' I do feel it validates the points I, and a few others, have been making here.

    Some very mild SPOILERS for the film follow

    The look of Krypton is totally borrowed from Donner's Superman, as is the idea of a holographic guide (in this case, Krypto's father Dog-El!) The William's Superman theme plays several times in the movie. Krypto saves Lois from a helicopter crash in what is almost certainly a reference to the Donner movie.

    There's a bit of Silver Age and Bronze Age stuff in there. Krypto himself of course originated in the Silver Age, and in particular the idea of him being a sentient being capable of human-like thought. You have multiple variations of Kryptonite. And Luthor's iconic green battlesuit is very much present. Tonally, the idea of Superman and the Justice League being rundown by a bunch of super-powered animals seems like something straight out of the Silver Age, though the story is given a pretty modern sensibility.

    The Post-COIE mythos heavily influences this movie. Clark and Lois are in a serious relationship and Clark is planning to propose. Luthor is very much the corrupt CEO of LexCorp (though, as mentioned above, he's also a mad scientist and super-villain with a battlesuit).

    Last but not least, Superman's wearing a Fleischer-inspired suit with black in the logo!

    All these elements - a blend of Silver Age, Donner, Post-COIE and Fleischer - together make this version of Superman and his world feel pretty ''classic'' to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    You could be right and I didn't see it. I only remember when I read it that King Supreme left at the end of the 1960s and there was some sort of down time after that, which I took to be the Schwartz era, and this wasn't apparently part of the great King Supreme regime.

    When it comes to Superman, it's like the post-Crisis writers wanted to use bits and pieces from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, but never gave much consideration to the 1970s unless it was the New Gods stuff.


    The part of Superman that's being cleared from the history in 1987 is the previous run from 1971 - 1986.

    However, I would say that the 1970s Superman was more well thought out than anything before it. You can ignore many of the stories from the '40s, '50s and '60s because they aren't relevant to the continuity and the mythology. In the 1970s and early 1980s, E. Nelson Bridwell did a good job of identifying which previous adventures should matter in the grand scheme of things. The 1970s is when the writers and editors really try to clarify what is important to the continuity and what should be forgotten.

    All that work was simply thrown out after Bridwell's death.
    You're right. The Bronze Age is a pretty neglected era of DC. And yet its what laid the foundations for the modern DCU and cemented the ''classic'' versions of many characters, Superman included. This era shaped the way many people see Superman, even though actual story elements from this era have been expunged from continuity and never really restored.

    People may recognize this as ''classic'' Superman...



    But they'd be hard-pressed to remember this...


  10. #70
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    That's a weirdly "uncool" image of C.K. that doesn't ring any bells for me. Doing an image search on Google just brings up the comicbookreligion use of it--but where did they get it from? The lettering on the camera isn't the kind of thing you'd see in most comic books. And the villain--"Sagittarius"--I don't remember from any Superman comics. Maybe it's from THE WORLD'S GREATEST SUPERHEROES comic strip. The inks look distinctly Vince Colletta. The penciller isn't any of the big guns. It doesn't look like Tuska. Possibly José Delbo.

  11. #71
    Astonishing Member Adekis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,889

    Default

    To me, Classic Superman is hard to set down hard limits for, but easy to give the definitive example: George Reeves.

    Superman-George-Reeves-Adventures-TV-series-c.jpg

    Reeves' Superman predated the Legion of Super-Heroes and Fort Superman. He predated Krypto. He predated Brainiac and Kandor and Supergirl. The trappings of the high Silver Age were not yet in place. Yet neither was he as scaled back as the early Golden Age. He clearly flew, he fought criminals physically, but not lethally as early Golden Age Superman would occasionally. His opponents were usually just particularly creative mobsters. He was strong enough to knock an asteroid off-course, but not strong enough to do it undamaged.

    I don't want to just set down the show in a vacuum as the only thing that matters. Comics from this time period also had a Superman with a similar vibe to that show, a similar type of stories. More likely to get weird than the show but also less likely to do so than the later comics after the Silver Age really kicked off around '58 - perhaps not coincidentally, around the time after the show was cancelled.

    From that point on, the world gets wilder and weirder, and way, way more fun in my opinion! The Silver Age is one of my favorite periods for Superman! And as others have said, from 1971 onward, the Bronze Age vibe is more of "updating the classics," giving the Silver Age world more depth and nuance, and yes, more focus on the angst.


    But that said, when creators outside of comics, think of Superman, and try to recreate Superman Classic, they usually leave out the bigger universe and just recreate the status quo of George Reeves. When the Salkinds made Superman the Movie, they left out Galaxy Broadcasting and just kept the newspaper. When Deborah Joy LeVine created Lois & Clark, they ended up calling it "The New Adventures of Superman", invoking George Reeves again. Paul Dini and Bruce Timm have mentioned taking inspiration from George Reeves as well, particularly for Clark Kent, and even Zack Snyder of all people has mentioned that his strongest early memory of Superman is, you guessed it! George Reeves. Also John Byrne, who worked in comics but who was explicitly doing a "back to basics" thing, modeled a lot of his version on... his understanding, let's say, of Reeves' Superman. As much frustration as I've occasionally had with Byrne's work, I think there's something to the fact that "Superman Basics" were considered to exclude all that wonderful Silver Age iconography.

    "Superman Classic," in its purest form, was what we had after the pure Golden Age, but before that cool Silver Age stuff started quite showing up in force.

    001 Superman by Wayne Boring.jpg
    Last edited by Adekis; 08-15-2022 at 04:15 PM.
    "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

  12. #72
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,478

    Default

    I freaking loved how george reeves superman used to just walk through walls busting it..
    "People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"

  13. #73
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adekis View Post
    To me, Classic Superman is hard to set down hard limits for, but easy to give the definitive example: George Reeves.

    Superman-George-Reeves-Adventures-TV-series-c.jpg

    Reeves' Superman predated the Legion of Super-Heroes and Fort Superman. He predated Krypto. He predated Brainiac and Kandor and Supergirl. The trappings of the high Silver Age were not yet in place. Yet neither was he as scaled back as the early Golden Age. He clearly flew, he fought criminals physically, but not lethally as early Golden Age Superman would occasionally. His opponents were usually just particularly creative mobsters. He was strong enough to knock an asteroid off-course, but not strong enough to do it undamaged.

    I don't want to just set down the show in a vacuum as the only thing that matters. Comics from this time period also had a Superman with a similar vibe to that show, a similar type of stories. More likely to get weird than the show but also less likely to do so than the later comics after the Silver Age really kicked off around '58 - perhaps not coincidentally, around the time after the show was cancelled.

    From that point on, the world gets wilder and weirder, and way, way more fun in my opinion! The Silver Age is one of my favorite periods for Superman! And as others have said, from 1971 onward, the Bronze Age vibe is more of "updating the classics," giving the Silver Age world more depth and nuance, and yes, more focus on the angst.


    But that said, when creators outside of comics, think of Superman, and try to recreate Superman Classic, they usually leave out the bigger universe and just recreate the status quo of George Reeves. When the Salkinds made Superman the Movie, they left out Galaxy Broadcasting and just kept the newspaper. When Deborah Joy LeVine created Lois & Clark, they ended up calling it "The New Adventures of Superman", invoking George Reeves again. Paul Dini and Bruce Timm have mentioned taking inspiration from George Reeves as well, particularly for Clark Kent, and even Zack Snyder of all people has mentioned that his strongest early memory of Superman is, you guessed it! George Reeves. Also John Byrne, who worked in comics but who was explicitly doing a "back to basics" thing, modeled a lot of his version on... his understanding, let's say, of Reeves' Superman. As much frustration as I've occasionally had with Byrne's work, I think there's something to the fact that "Superman Basics" were considered to exclude all that wonderful Silver Age iconography.

    "Superman Classic," in its purest form, was what we had after the pure Golden Age, but before that cool Silver Age stuff started quite showing up in force.

    001 Superman by Wayne Boring.jpg
    Yeah, I think you've zeroed in on another specific era in Superman history that doesn't get talked about much but is pretty instrumental to shaping our understanding of the ''classic Superman''.

    When we talk about the Golden Age, we tend invariably to talk about the original Siegal/Shuster Superman, and how radically different he is from the versions that followed. But for most of the 40's, and going into the early 50's, Superman had already crystallized into something very close to the version most modern fans know. This is also the era of the first adaptations - the radio show, the Fleischer cartoons, the movie serials, and eventually the George Reeves TV show - all of which shaped the larger audience's understanding of Superman. And in the early 50's, there was an effort to bring consistency across the comics and the TV show - which is why the 50's comics had Superman on some pretty mundane slice-of-life adventures, or busting street criminals, since that's what the TV show stuck to, along with the occasional sci-fi story.

    And you're right when you say that doing the Classic Superman is recreating the status quo of George Reeves (and the comics of that broad era). Perhaps due to my age and the Superman media I was exposed to as a kid, I viewed the Bronze Age/early Post COIE era and Donner as the ''classics'', but I guess for the creators who actually worked on those, it was this late Golden Age/pre-Silver Age era that was ''classic''.

    You've also reiterated my point that a lot of the excesses (some might say fun craziness!) of the Silver Age aren't really part of what we consider the ''classic Superman''. Maybe that's because the ''classic Superman'' archetype was already in place before the Silver Age? And every attempt at adaptation/reinvention since the Silver Age has been a return to that archetype?

    Thanks a lot for your post. It's advanced my own understanding of what makes for a ''classic'' Superman immensely!

  14. #74
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    I'm disappointed no one else has tried to play comic book detective. I'd like to know where that panel came from.

    I see adaptations to other media as being on a delay, so it's hard to use the "Classic" term for them in the same way we use it for comic books. When it comes to Superman, I consider the comic books the Definitive Concept.

    The original 1966 stage play of IT'S A BIRD…IT'S A PLANE…IT'S SUPERMAN was clearly nostalgic for the past and using old comic books for its source material. David Newman and Robert Benton, who wrote the book for the musical, probably were just as influenced by the two Kirk Alyn serials from 1948 and 1950. That seems a stronger influence than the George Reeves version or contemporary comic books at the time.

    David Newman and Robert Benton, along with Leslie Newman, were the script doctors brought in to make changes to Mario Puzo's screenplay for the first two Christopher Reeve movies--with Tom Mankiewicz writing the final draft. And you can see the Newman and Benton touches in those movies as they're drawing from the same influences as in their musical.

    LOIS AND CLARK: THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN is maybe taking more from the THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN T.V. show. It's supposed to be an adaptation of the Mike Carlin edited comics of the day, but it brings in a lot of goofy baggage from the distant past that Carlin would have torched with a flame thrower.

    SMALLVILLE, on the face of it, seems to owe its basic concept to the Byrne reboot and Jeph Loeb's SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS--although I'd say it's more DAWSON'S CREEK mixed with ROSWELL, in the beginning. But a lot of the ideas come straight out of Classic Superboy comics--such as the idea that Lex and Clark are friends.

    MAN OF STEEL, as well as the sequels, might be more up to date, but it's really drawing on the comics from the 1990s for its ideas--so it's also twenty years out of date.

    This makes sense because 1) it takes a long time to develop a concept from any source material and 2) the creatives tend to be folks who are looking at the Superman from their childhood for inspiration.

    As for Classic comic books, here's what I said on that other thread--

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I split the history of comic books in the United States and Canada into two broad eras: the Classic and the post-Classic.

    The Classic is when essentially analog methods of production were used to create comics--everyone had to do everything by hand, digital was not an option, people often had to be in the same room to collaborate on projects.

    The post-Classic is when new means of production came into fashion--offset printing instead of letterpress, digital colour separations, using computers to draw and ink pages, storing images on CMYK files, digital lettering, sending in scripts and art via electronics instead of taking them into the office by hand or mailing them in by express post, the shutting down of physical offices.

    The transition was over a long period of time, but the crunch came in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

    This makes it easy to say what is Classic and what is post-Classic.
    --I think this is the most objective I can be, without bringing my personal bias into it.

  15. #75
    Not a Newbie Member JBatmanFan05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Arkham, Mass (lol no)
    Posts
    9,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I'm disappointed no one else has tried to play comic book detective. I'd like to know where that panel came from.
    Finally cracked it: World's Finest #235 by Haney and Dillin

    https://view-comic.com/worlds-finest-235/


    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    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 . . 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.
    Yes. I myself wish Lois didn't know Clark was Superman, that's the most classic, that triangular version of the dual romance.
    Last edited by JBatmanFan05; 08-16-2022 at 06:59 AM.
    Things I love: Batman, Superman, AEW, old films, Lovecraft

    Grant Morrison: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real.”

Posting Permissions

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