Originally Posted by
misslane
Characters can play the same roles and serve the same goals in the myth without requiring repetition. You keep mistaking the concepts of character and theme with plot and story. The point I continue to make is that Superman's supporting cast, including his primary love interest, should play the same roles in service of the same narrative goals, but that within those boundaries there is plenty of room for new plots and new stories. Writers, in other words, do not have to tell the same stories in order to stay true to the myth's core themes and characterizations.
That's not true at all. Prior to the New 52 reboot, Superman was married to Lois Lane, which was a huge departure from the plots of the past. Before the Post-Crisis era, Superman and Lois were mainly caught up in a romance centered around the triangle-for-two and only married at the end of a continuity sequence. So many Pre-Flashpoint stories had never been told before. They couldn't have been told before because the central plot elements that composed them had never happened before. For example, just a few years before the reboot, DC told a story in which Lois and Clark adopted Zod and Ursa's son, Lor-Zod a.k.a. Chris Kent. A story like this was brand new.
The Post-Crisis continuity featured significant adaptations to the myth. As I mentioned before, Superman married Lois Lane and they adopted a child. Other adaptations included: keeping Martha and Jonathan Kent alive, Superman killing a pocket universe version of Zod, Superman was never Superboy, and new characters like Steel and Cat Grant. The Post-Crisis era reinvisioned Lex Luthor as a corrupt CEO in addition to a mad scientist. Superman spent most of his early career rejecting his Kryptonian heritage, preferring to see himself as human. Despite these changes, the Post-Crisis still played with the same character dynamics and themes.
Smallville and Man of Steel both reinterpreted the Superman myth while staying true to its central themes and character dynamics, and both incarnations also featured more than just some tweaks to "minor details" in the myth. One of the bigshot longtime writers you're criticizing was the man in charge of rebooting Superman for the New 52. Grant Morrison's Action Comics #0-12 reinvented Superman for this generation. He started Superman out as a social crusader in a T-shirt and jeans who worked at the Daily Star and befriended Jimmy Olsen. Jimmy introduced Clark to Lois Lane, and they were friends and professional rivals. Morrison told a story that evolved Superman over time to a character who took on cosmic threats in addition to threats to truth and justice at home. He set the stage for Clark's decision to join the Daily Planet as well. At the heart of his groundbreaking New 52 arc was the antagonist, Vyndktvx, whose chief source of villainy was essentially a metacommentary on messing with continuity.
Only hacks and uncreative minds can be given a vast detailed continuity like Superman's and decide that the only way to renew it is to drastically alter its core elements for the sake of novelty. You need to stop using words like "rehashing" and "same song and dance" because that is not even close to what I am talking about here. There is plenty of room in Superman's mythology for reinterpretations that use new plots, characters, and stories to explore classic themes and character dynamics. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is staying true to the ideas and relationships that made the myth work in the first place.
What is creatively brain dead is suggesting that the only way to tell new stories is to fundamentally alter the core elements of a mythology that has survived for 75 years because it has evolved while also staying true to its classic concepts. Lois Lane jumping off of buildings has never been a core element of the Superman myth. It is a trope that has been used in several continuities but it is not essential. What is essential is retaining the symbolism and meaning of Lois jumping off of buildings. When Lois jumps off a building for Superman, it communicates that Lois is a risk taker who will do anything for a story, including making herself a damsel-in-distress. So you can take out the jumping off of buildings and replace it with storylines that echo the same core ideas without repeating identical plot points. There is no heresy or hypocrisy to decry here. I'm not arguing for new continuities to endlessly parrot back old plot points for the sake of tradition or nostalgia. What I'm arguing is that a myth can only succeed and endure as it reinvents itself if its new plots serve the same ultimate storytelling goals.
Well, first, I didn't say anything like this, so thanks for dragging out that particular straw man. Superman, and all protagonists of monomyths, are defined by their love interests and love lives. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Every Arthurian legend, for example, features Arthur's romance with Guinevere in some way, shape, or form. Superman's myth requires that his central love story be with Lois Lane because of the themes only their relationship can explore. It has nothing to do with your erroneous claim that Superman can't exist without Lois. Kingdom Come is a great example of a Superman story without Lois that still uses Superman's love for her in a way that is thematically consistent with his mythological canon.
Lois, in every version of the Superman mythology, does not represent his link to humanity. She represents Superman's own inherent humanity. Superman's humanity is affirmed in the specific rather than the abstract through his attraction and love for a flawed, idealistic, truth seeker. Lois doesn't give Superman his humanity; it is because Superman loves humanity, including his own, that he loves Lois Lane. They are two halves of the same whole: Lois is a human reaching for the stars and Superman is a man from the stars seeking to connect with what it means to be human. It's like concept of Yin and Yang. Both Yin and Yang have a piece of the other within them but only together can they truly be in balance.
The kind of mythological continuity I am advocating for does not require Superman never have other love interests, especially in the case of Lois Lane's death. The kind of continuity I'm referring to is one that respects Lois's role in the mythology. As long as Superman can be said to have loved Lois Lane and given their relationship a chance, then her death followed by new loves for Superman would not be apocryphal. The New 52, if it uses the Superman and Wonder Woman romance, as a springboard towards an eventual love story for Lois and Superman would also accomplish something new in the service of the same overarching goals.