Shoúld Lois Lane be a supporting character or a co-star in Superman books?

[MeloDet]

This is just something inspired by a comment in another thread.

I've noticed recently this is one of the many areas that Superman fans often differ in, as some fans think Lois should be a supporting character who should be there when its important to the story, while others think she's a big enough character that she should almost always be included.

Personally I've always thought that she should remain a supporting character in Superman's books, but at the same time I understand that her fans would want to see her featured more. She has in many ways grown past a typical supporting character, and that's one of the reasons I think a solo book would do her and the Superman family some good. It would allow fans of hers to have their Lois itch scratched while keeping pressure of the Superman writers to have her in every story.

Anyway, opinions?

*Edit: Damnit, could one of the mods fix the title for me?

[manofsteel1979]

Not necessarily a costar...but the most prominent of Supporting characters.

[Tony]

She is very underused in the new 52. The whole planet staff needs more screen time.

[Jim Kelly]

What's best for the character or what's best for Superman?

In the Batman comics, while I understand why it was done, I thought giving Catwoman and Harley Quinn their own comics took something away from Batman. We buy Batman comics to see those criminals making his life miserable. When they are out of the book having their own stories, it deflates all the excitement of seeing Batman tangle with those foes.

But now if it was Alfred Pennyworth or Jim Gordon having their own books or a continuing series in another book--that's okay because they aren't Batman's adversaries. And it's quite possible for them to have independent adventures while still functioning as supporting cast in Batman's books. I think it becomes a bit more tricky with Robin--if he's Batman's partner--because they are supposed to work together as a team--but since Batman goes off and has his own adventures solo and teamed with others--then I guess Robin can do the same. So long as it all balances out.

So Lois is more like the Jim Gordon character. Giving her her own adventures doesn't take away from Superman's adventures. But she's also a bit like Robin--since she should be teamed with Clark or Superman on a regular basis (I believe). The danger would be if her own book took her out of Superman's adventures almost completely. Now Lex Luthor should not have his own title--because he is an adversary and we buy the Superman comics to see those two butting heads. However, a limited series about Luthor is okay, because that can be used to build up the back story for the next clash between Lex and Superman.

By the way, I think there's a problem for Supergirl and Superboy when they aren't involved with the daily life of Superman. Their connection to Superman seems tenuous, so they don't benefit from the cross promotion except when they meet Superman for crossover events. There should be an ongoing book like Fawcett's old MARVEL FAMILY--that would feature Superman, Supergirl and Superboy as a real team--which would underline the point that they are all connected as one family.

In previous decades, Superman's solo titles really functioned more like ensemble books. Yes Superman was often the lead character--but there were a good many issues that pulled focus off Superman and onto one of the other characters. So sometimes Lois was a supporting character, sometimes she was a co-star, and sometimes she was the real star of the issue. The same went for Jimmy Olsen and other characters to a lesser extent (Lana Lang, Perry White, Morgan Edge, Steve Lombard, Cat Grant, Jose Delgado et al).

[Imacomicfan]

The superfamily is very independant from each other unlike the batfamily who is often interacting with each other. Superfamily often see each other in crossovers or when there is a battle. I would loved to see those three in each others daily lives more often too. I wish they all be close and act like family since they truely are their only family (zor-el is out there I gyess) out there, since kents died decades ago.

[Sacred Knight]

In a general sense she is and always should be the lead supporting character. With opportunities to branch out to her own tales when called for.

[UltraWoman]

I think pre-52 I would have said that she -or Metropolis in general with a probable focus on Lois- needs her/it's own book. Since the reboot, though there's been a big back-slide in terms of focus on the character within the Superbooks period. It lends itself to pushing Lois into the background and potentially out of the books nearly forever (Something that happened to Steve Trevor a time or two if I recall). Do I think it's plausible right now? I hate to say it, but there's been little development of Lois in the current books to suggest they would even consider it. Will it happen post-Convergence? It depends on the future.

[JBatmanFan05]

Not necessarily a costar...but the most prominent of Supporting characters.

Yea. Remember the Fleischer shorts?....that's her level of prominence that should be maintained generally (not every issue).

[Blacksun]

Yea. Remember the Fleischer shorts?....that's her level of prominence that should be maintained generally (not every issue).

yeah, that is good. I think is good when the character have personal arcs, a thing that lois didn't had since reboot.
when Doomed get a ongoing before lois, i think I don't want a lois ongoing for now. Not if Dc won't promote it

[Ascended]

Not necessarily a costar...but the most prominent of Supporting characters.

This.

Lois is not a co-star. "Superman" and "Action" are not team-up books. This is not her story we're supposed to be reading about.

Now, I would totally support a Lois ongoing or mini, and have in fact mentioned my idea of a "Channel 52: Featuring Lois Lane" book several times. But Superman books are about Superman, and his relationships should serve that end, not take the focus off the title character.

Now, if you want to have an issue or a storyline that focuses on the supporting cast, (Lois included) that's one thing. That's fine. And it serves a very strong narrative purpose to see Superman and his setting through the eyes of his supporting cast once in a while. But that's only once in a while, it wouldn't work all the time.

Lois should be the main supporting character in Superman stories. She doesnt have to be in every issue or deeply involved in every plot or subplot. But she should have more panel time than any other supporting cast member. But she's not a co-star. This isn't "Lois & Clark" and I dont think such an approach would work especially well over the long term.

But I'd still read a Lois series if it ever came up. I think the character is strong enough to carry her own title (again) and still play her role in the Superman titles, much in the same manner as Robin can carry his own book but still play a part in Batman's comics.

[The World]

I'd say now is definitely the time to be vying for a Lois Lane ongoing where she can be better developed but right now Superman just isn't the pillar he needs to be for such a thing to happen. Compare it to the explosion of the Batman and Spiderman lines that's happening precisely because the characters are going strong right now.

[Lois]

Lois should definitely be the main supporting character.
IMHO I see another reboot from DC and Lois coming back to prominence one more in the Superman comics.
Have seen many a reboot from DC over the years and been a Superman fan for 50 years now.
Also, IMHO I don't think the new 52 is not going to last much longer.
Try as they might at DC right now pushing Lois into the background IMHO simply doesn't work.
Lois is also a very much beloved and prominent character in the Superman universe.
And she's a very, very important part of the Superman mythos and always will be.

[Francisco]

This.

Lois is not a co-star. "Superman" and "Action" are not team-up books. This is not her story we're supposed to be reading about.

Now, I would totally support a Lois ongoing or mini, and have in fact mentioned my idea of a "Channel 52: Featuring Lois Lane" book several times. But Superman books are about Superman, and his relationships should serve that end, not take the focus off the title character.

Now, if you want to have an issue or a storyline that focuses on the supporting cast, (Lois included) that's one thing. That's fine. And it serves a very strong narrative purpose to see Superman and his setting through the eyes of his supporting cast once in a while. But that's only once in a while, it wouldn't work all the time.

Lois should be the main supporting character in Superman stories. She doesnt have to be in every issue or deeply involved in every plot or subplot. But she should have more panel time than any other supporting cast member. But she's not a co-star. This isn't "Lois & Clark" and I dont think such an approach would work especially well over the long term.

But I'd still read a Lois series if it ever came up. I think the character is strong enough to carry her own title (again) and still play her role in the Superman titles, much in the same manner as Robin can carry his own book but still play a part in Batman's comics.

This right here. Man is a genius. Give him a cookie.

[Jon Clark]

I think Lois occupies a very unique spot. She isn't a superhero and it undermines her role in the myth and the idea of superheroes in general to make her one. She's not Catwoman who can challenge the hero on close to equal footing. She's not Robin who is meant to be a flawed version of the main hero who is being groomed to one day be an equal. If she had a Bat-equivalent it would be more of a business woman who was on Bruce Wayne's level for money and influence but totally out of her depth with detective work and physical combat.

Lois is Clark's rival. She can match him and even surpass him as a reporter, with the understanding that Clark is NOT Superman at his finest. The occasional Lois saves the day scene isn't even unwelcome. But we should never see a tale where Superman is missing and Lois fills his shoes. Lois Vs a corrupt business, your average street thug (maybe two), or helping in a disaster ... all fine plots with or without Superman's involvement. Lois single-handedly taking out Luthor, the Parasite, the Joker, etc; ... that type of stuff falls into bad writing in my not so humble opinion. It starts to make it seem like Superman only associates with people who are in the top 1% of human ability.

[Jim Kelly]

When comic books are translated to the small or big screen, they tend to involve a lot more civilian action. There's more development of ordinary mortals--who function as a vicarious window for the viewer.

I notice, as well, that in the old Batman and Superman comic strips (from the '40s), there was a lot more focus on supporting characters and the heroes in their civilian identities.

So I think, for a general audience, the non-super characters are very important. But in the comic book market, a lot of fandom just wants wall to wall super-hero action all the time.

So in the movie and TV world, Lois Lane is still an important character--nearly as important as Superman himself. In the comic book world?