Should Superman/Wonder Woman be a permanent couple?

[Custodes]

I always enjoyed reading Kurt Schaffenbergers' Lois Lane more than Wonder Woman. Although, WW had her moments. Lois & Clark. Just biding my time.

[OpticDreams]

All I know is that market research showed that Man of Steel drew a larger number of female fans than any other superhero film to date, including The Avengers. Women love superheroes, but I think it would be foolish to not consider that Amy Adams, Lois Lane, and the Clark/Lois romance wasn't a selling point for the significant number of women who patronized the film. DC/WB certainly didn't run away from the Clark/Lois romance in the film they wanted to launch their own successful superhero franchise.

You keep ignoring the fact that DC can still make money off of SM/WW merchandise without writing comic books or feature films with the couple.

Nothing wrong with the Clois romance, I'm just giving my opinion that I feel that it's secondary to many other things

No, I'm not making it about SM/WW, I know they can make money of them whether they are a couple or not. What I am saying is that a companies are always looking to make more money.

[hammergiant]

They shouldn't even be a couple at all. Flies in the face of basic characterization for both Superman and Wonder Woman.

[Black Angel]

the stagnation had nothing to do with marriage, superman isn't selling better than pre-reboot

well i was talking about the character himself who had become a whiny sanctimonious lack of character development not his marriage. Still then again the marriage didn't really help any way.

And what happens when people get tired of Clark/Diana? Keep in mind that Clark and Lois was a sign of change when it happened and it's not like Clark and Diana was a new concept the new 52 came up with.

What happens if/when that happens, is what happens in comics all the time they do something to shock/awe or piss of the readers.

[misslane]

well i was talking about the character himself who had become a whiny sanctimonious lack of character development not his marriage. Still then again the marriage didn't really help any way.

For what it's worth, when Superman sales were at their worst pre-Flashpoint, Superman and Lois had been forcibly separated from each other for two years. With World of New Krypton and Grounded back to back, the Superman titles were decidedly without the marriage. The marriage had nothing to do with those two lackluster years that allegedly rationalized the reboot on DC's part.

[dangleo61288]

It won't. Clark and Lois will be back together eventually. I would like to see progress. Like them having a baby. Clark and Lois I mean.

[LordUltimus]

They shouldn't even be a couple at all. Flies in the face of basic characterization for both Superman and Wonder Woman.

Their basic characterization has been lost since the New 52 began.

[DochaDocha]

Their basic characterization has been lost since the New 52 began.

I highly disagree with this statement, at least the Superman half.

There wasn't a true uniformity to Superman's characterization at the start of New 52 (just compare what happened in Morrison's book vs. Perez's), but there was a concerted effort to bring Superman back to his Golden Age roots, and if you asked me, that's a very good thing.

Wonder Woman is a different story altogether, but then again, I'll use a Bruce Timm quote to show why whatever changes Azzarello introduced shouldn't be looked upon as necessarily bad:

[The other Justice League members] we kind of figured out who they were pretty easily, but we had a lot of discussions about Wonder Woman. With Batman, you could easily say “Batman: Year One, that’s the Batman we want to do," but with Wonder Woman we couldn’t really point to any previous version of Wonder Woman and say, “Well, yeah, that’s Wonder Woman.” We had to say, “Well, is she Lynda Carter? Is she the George Pérez Wonder Woman? Is she Xena?”

If there's an idea of "Superman-ness" that defines the "basic characterization" of the character, the idea of "Wonder Woman-ness" is far more nebulous. When I first watched the Justice League cartoon, I was pretty annoyed about their take on the character, but then I read this quote and I got a greater appreciation for the difficulty the writers had in tackling the character. I was one of those guys who'd yell, "Just use the Perez version!" but in retrospect it wasn't the easy solution I believed it to be.

[LordUltimus]

I highly disagree with this statement, at least the Superman half.

There wasn't a true uniformity to Superman's characterization at the start of New 52 (just compare what happened in Morrison's book vs. Perez's), but there was a concerted effort to bring Superman back to his Golden Age roots, and if you asked me, that's a very good thing.

Wonder Woman is a different story altogether, but then again, I'll use a Bruce Timm quote to show why whatever changes Azzarello introduced shouldn't be looked upon as necessarily bad:



If there's an idea of "Superman-ness" that defines the "basic characterization" of the character, the idea of "Wonder Woman-ness" is far more nebulous. When I first watched the Justice League cartoon, I was pretty annoyed about their take on the character, but then I read this quote and I got a greater appreciation for the difficulty the writers had in tackling the character. I was one of those guys who'd yell, "Just use the Perez version!" but in retrospect it wasn't the easy solution I believed it to be.

I actually meant that the characters are completely different when you compare before and after Flashpoint. Like far more different before and after Crisis.

As for the Timm quote... meh, hard to say. Superman was always changing, the golden age version and the bronze age are practically different characters. Pre-crisis, characterization was constantly changing as continuity wasn't a big deal to DC until the eighties.

[Agent Z]

I highly disagree with this statement, at least the Superman half.

There wasn't a true uniformity to Superman's characterization at the start of New 52 (just compare what happened in Morrison's book vs. Perez's), but there was a concerted effort to bring Superman back to his Golden Age roots, and if you asked me, that's a very good thing.

Wonder Woman is a different story altogether, but then again, I'll use a Bruce Timm quote to show why whatever changes Azzarello introduced shouldn't be looked upon as necessarily bad:



If there's an idea of "Superman-ness" that defines the "basic characterization" of the character, the idea of "Wonder Woman-ness" is far more nebulous. When I first watched the Justice League cartoon, I was pretty annoyed about their take on the character, but then I read this quote and I got a greater appreciation for the difficulty the writers had in tackling the character. I was one of those guys who'd yell, "Just use the Perez version!" but in retrospect it wasn't the easy solution I believed it to be.

See, I don't get this argument. He knew about the Perez version so he must have known that was the most critically acclaimed version at the time. Yes there are different takes on the character but the same can be said of any character. It's not like he was confused between picking Adam West Batman and Denny O'Neil Batman.

[Sacred Knight]

It won't. Clark and Lois will be back together eventually. I would like to see progress. Like them having a baby. Clark and Lois I mean.

You'll have Convergence for that. And Elseworlds. And possible future tales. This will never happen with a current continuity Superman though, regardless the woman he's with.

[Blacksun]

Why do you keep making this about money? Blacksun's initial comment, which you repeatedly refuted with anecdotal evidence about merchandise sales, was only that a majority of the public roots for Superman and Lois Lane. So if Superman and Lois Lane are a popular pop culture topic, then that is evidence in her favor whether that pop culture media makes money for DC or not. Your the one grasping at straws by sidestepping the argument Blacksun made in order to present unreliable data that does nothing to refute her assertion. The fact that Superman and Wonder Woman sells some merchandise does not prove that the couple is supported by the majority of the public. It is also not a sound reason for why the couple should continue to be written into comic books or potentially feature films. The sale of merchandise shows that merchandise sells, but it does not prove that stories will sell or that merchandise couldn't continue to sell without stories to back them up; DC can break them up and still sell products.

My point is: Many people like lois and clark together, if you do the merchandising people will buy it. Many of my friends do their own t-shirts because of the lack of official merchandising. Or even buy from alternative sites that aren't official.
superman and WW can sell merchan separate and with their respective love interests. that is even better to DC, that needs to sell WW on her own. she is a feminist icon, put superman name along her is disrespectiful

[OpticDreams]

My point is: Many people like lois and clark together, if you do the merchandising people will buy it. Many of my friends do their own t-shirts because of the lack of official merchandising. Or even buy from alternative sites that aren't official.
superman and WW can sell merchan separate and with their respective love interests. that is even better to DC, that needs to sell WW on her own. she is a feminist icon, put superman name along her is disrespectiful

That's nothing more than an opinion. Also there are plenty of people who like SM/LL and many people that like SM/WW.

[DochaDocha]

I actually meant that the characters are completely different when you compare before and after Flashpoint. Like far more different before and after Crisis.

Ah, I understand. Thanks.

See, I don't get this argument. He knew about the Perez version so he must have known that was the most critically acclaimed version at the time. Yes there are different takes on the character but the same can be said of any character. It's not like he was confused between picking Adam West Batman and Denny O'Neil Batman.

I think the cartoon crew made a bad decision of not sticking to a prominent WW run (in this case, Perez) for their inspiration of the character, but on the other hand, I know that several of the creative minds involved in formulating the stories on the show were longtime comic readers, and if they couldn't pinpoint one era that's uniquely WW, then I think there's some merit to the assertion that there's not one era that universally defines the character. I don't look at the show's staff as a bunch of hacks who were handed a character and did no research whatsoever, and then did whatever they felt like. It does, however, make me wonder if it's only serious WW collectors who have the ability to pinpoint a representation of the character the embodies all the well-known aspects of the character.

TL;DR bad decision, but not an unjustifiable one.

[Blacksun]

That's nothing more than an opinion. Also there are plenty of people who like SM/LL and many people that like SM/WW.

well smLL is known by far more people