I'm tired of Lois, Jimmy and reporter Clark

[Flash Gordon]

I wouldn't mind seeing Clark just run his own blog with Cat. The name needs a change, and it's silly that they have their own staff already, but otherwise it's a cool idea. I like Clark and Cat interacting together.

The Daily Planet can still be a major part of the books, since Lois and Jimmy are there. Clark would just be on his own work wise, but that wouldn't keep Lois and Clark from teaming up.

I'd also like to see the Daily Star. Hell, maybe Clark could take the Daily Star into the blogosphere.

[Ultra Humanite]

Interesting discussion. All I can say is I miss the Daily Planet action with Clark and his gang. This whole isolated Superman fighting and punching people gets boring, so with him being at the Daily Planet it adds an interesting dynamic to the story. And I enjoy his relationships with Lois, Perry, Jimmy, etc..

[dupersuper]

In Action #11 he (Clark/Kal) has a new secret identity called "Johnny Clark" that is a firefighter as Station #1938 following the "death" of Clark Kent in a large bomb blast at the Daily Star.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that oh-so brief detour, as - I imagine - have most writers.

This was one of the reasons I ended Perez's work

You did that!? Shame on you! Who are you to have such power??

I'd also like to see the Daily Star.

We can learn if Tobey has started seeing any one since she broke up with Maggie...

[kidstandout]

instead of going in circles again i'll leave it at this, lois jimmy and reporter clark SHOULD be a part of superman comics, but their roles and the way they are handled should not be the same way every single story. as ascended put it best, repetition leads to stagnation. if characters can't be used in ways that are truly NEW without staying faithful to the core concept, then either the characters themselves are too one dimensional or the writers are too comfortable with the old standards. saying that new ideas haven't worked is an excuse to blatantly rehash storylines for decades. maybe if they got better writers to do the main title instead mediocre washed up has beens/never was, the ideas would of been handled better. up until recently, i'd say the problem was the latter. the main reason superman as a brand has declined is because up until recently, dc has been stuck rehashing the same plots over and over again. it's so easy to say nowadays DC is shying away from their own characters when before the reboot, they essentially wrote themselves into a corner and were being crushed by the competition. you want to know why? they are creatively bankrupt, and superman took the biggest hit because of this. anyone who was into comics prior to 2011 can attest to this. it's time to take off the nostalgia glasses and face the music, a mythos like everything else in life needs to change to adapt. does that change mean chucking everything out the window? nope. but pretending that changing a few minor details and calling it new or fresh is BS, plain and simple. and frankly, i don't care what excuse longtime writers have for rehashing, just because you were a bigshot back in the good ol' days doesn't mean i as a reader have to sit through the same song and dance because your incapable of doing something fresh. go ahead and call it staying true all you like, it doesn't change the fact that your creatively brain dead. because hey if we were to stay true to the originals, lois lane would be the one jumping off a building for supes and we alllllllll know how fun that is to read..... its so convenient for so called superman purists to claim heresy when the golden standards they love wouldn't exist if dc didn't have the balls to do something different. and another thing, no character regardless of whatever symbolism behind it is present should be defined by who they are dating and or their love life. i refuse to believe superman as a character is so one dimensional, he can't exist without being with lois. you mean to tell me that she represents his link to humanity? i could of sworn he was raised by human parents, had a human upbringing and has multiple relationships with humans throughout the years. and what, when she inevitably dies before him he will be lost? saddened i can understand but do people actually expect for him to spend the rest of his life moping and screaming "i can't go on, I NEEDZ MY LOIS". or are they expecting him to go all injustice on us cause without her he can't tell right from wrong?

frankly, i'm done talking about this. to whoever disagrees don't bother replying. feel free to say it just don't quote me or expect me to care if you do.

[Joe Acro]

You did that!? Shame on you! ho are you to have such power??

Ha!

Not sure how it ended up that way, honestly. Should've said "enjoyed".

[misslane]

instead of going in circles again i'll leave it at this, lois jimmy and reporter clark SHOULD be a part of superman comics, but their roles and the way they are handled should not be the same way every single story. as ascended put it best, repetition leads to stagnation. if characters can't be used in ways that are truly NEW without staying faithful to the core concept, then either the characters themselves are too one dimensional or the writers are too comfortable with the old standards.

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.

saying that new ideas haven't worked is an excuse to blatantly rehash storylines for decades. maybe if they got better writers to do the main title instead mediocre washed up has beens/never was, the ideas would of been handled better. up until recently, i'd say the problem was the latter. the main reason superman as a brand has declined is because up until recently, dc has been stuck rehashing the same plots over and over again.

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.

it's so easy to say nowadays DC is shying away from their own characters when before the reboot, they essentially wrote themselves into a corner and were being crushed by the competition. you want to know why? they are creatively bankrupt, and superman took the biggest hit because of this. anyone who was into comics prior to 2011 can attest to this. it's time to take off the nostalgia glasses and face the music, a mythos like everything else in life needs to change to adapt.

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.

does that change mean chucking everything out the window? nope. but pretending that changing a few minor details and calling it new or fresh is BS, plain and simple. and frankly, i don't care what excuse longtime writers have for rehashing, just because you were a bigshot back in the good ol' days doesn't mean i as a reader have to sit through the same song and dance because your incapable of doing something fresh.

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.

go ahead and call it staying true all you like, it doesn't change the fact that your creatively brain dead. because hey if we were to stay true to the originals, lois lane would be the one jumping off a building for supes and we alllllllll know how fun that is to read..... its so convenient for so called superman purists to claim heresy when the golden standards they love wouldn't exist if dc didn't have the balls to do something different.

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.

and another thing, no character regardless of whatever symbolism behind it is present should be defined by who they are dating and or their love life. i refuse to believe superman as a character is so one dimensional, he can't exist without being with lois. you mean to tell me that she represents his link to humanity? i could of sworn he was raised by human parents, had a human upbringing and has multiple relationships with humans throughout the years. and what, when she inevitably dies before him he will be lost? saddened i can understand but do people actually expect for him to spend the rest of his life moping and screaming "i can't go on, I NEEDZ MY LOIS". or are they expecting him to go all injustice on us cause without her he can't tell right from wrong?

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.

[misslane]

Its something I cant completely put my finger on, but it feels like the Planet evolved in name only and is still stuck in the 1980's (again, in regards to their technology and how they reach people). Sure, some things in journalism and the news have not changed and likely never will. But a lot has changed and it'd be nice to see these changes taken into account to a greater degree than Perry yelling about newfangled technology he doesn't understand like some terrible cliche old man.

I've been going through 2000s era comics for newsroom scenes and other scenes related to reporting. Here's a link to a gallery of what I've collected so far. My impression is that the DP newsroom is as modern a newsroom as I would have expected back in the mid-2000s.

[friendly-fire-press]

instead of going in circles again i'll leave it at this, lois jimmy and reporter clark SHOULD be a part of superman comics, but their roles and the way they are handled should not be the same way every single story. as ascended put it best, repetition leads to stagnation. if characters can't be used in ways that are truly NEW without staying faithful to the core concept, then either the characters themselves are too one dimensional or the writers are too comfortable with the old standards. saying that new ideas haven't worked is an excuse to blatantly rehash storylines for decades. maybe if they got better writers to do the main title instead mediocre washed up has beens/never was, the ideas would of been handled better. up until recently, i'd say the problem was the latter. the main reason superman as a brand has declined is because up until recently, dc has been stuck rehashing the same plots over and over again. it's so easy to say nowadays DC is shying away from their own characters when before the reboot, they essentially wrote themselves into a corner and were being crushed by the competition. you want to know why? they are creatively bankrupt, and superman took the biggest hit because of this. anyone who was into comics prior to 2011 can attest to this. it's time to take off the nostalgia glasses and face the music, a mythos like everything else in life needs to change to adapt. does that change mean chucking everything out the window? nope. but pretending that changing a few minor details and calling it new or fresh is BS, plain and simple. and frankly, i don't care what excuse longtime writers have for rehashing, just because you were a bigshot back in the good ol' days doesn't mean i as a reader have to sit through the same song and dance because your incapable of doing something fresh. go ahead and call it staying true all you like, it doesn't change the fact that your creatively brain dead. because hey if we were to stay true to the originals, lois lane would be the one jumping off a building for supes and we alllllllll know how fun that is to read..... its so convenient for so called superman purists to claim heresy when the golden standards they love wouldn't exist if dc didn't have the balls to do something different. and another thing, no character regardless of whatever symbolism behind it is present should be defined by who they are dating and or their love life. i refuse to believe superman as a character is so one dimensional, he can't exist without being with lois. you mean to tell me that she represents his link to humanity? i could of sworn he was raised by human parents, had a human upbringing and has multiple relationships with humans throughout the years. and what, when she inevitably dies before him he will be lost? saddened i can understand but do people actually expect for him to spend the rest of his life moping and screaming "i can't go on, I NEEDZ MY LOIS". or are they expecting him to go all injustice on us cause without her he can't tell right from wrong?

frankly, i'm done talking about this. to whoever disagrees don't bother replying. feel free to say it just don't quote me or expect me to care if you do.

Quoted for truth. Eloquently stated.

[TheFearlessDefender89]

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.

You've mentioned some great points misslane, I just hope that the DC editors will keep in mind the damage they're capable of inflicting on the mythos by disregarding Lois by keeping her off panel( thereby neglecting her character development and constantly stunting her to a less-than-secondary status) and her personality being changed to suit an agenda that's so hellbent on fluffing up the readership (thats been freefalling since the 2nd year of the NU52) instead of proper investment in characters that have been around longer than most readers have been alive.

[misslane]

You've mentioned some great points misslane, I just hope that the DC editors will keep in mind the damage they're capable of inflicting on the mythos by disregarding Lois by keeping her off panel( thereby neglecting her character development and constantly stunting her to a less-than-secondary status) and her personality being changed to suit an agenda that's so hellbent on fluffing up the readership (thats been freefalling since the 2nd year of the NU52) instead of proper investment in characters that have been around longer than most readers have been alive.

Thanks, and to paraphrase something Lois once said, I live in hope.

[kidstandout]

Quoted for truth. Eloquently stated.

i wouldn't say eloquently but you get the point lol

[InsanityIsTrueSanity]

I like how they made Clark more of a reporter rather than a typist in Superman: Birthright.

[Neowing]

Clark would be a good detective too

[Lois]

Interesting discussion. All I can say is I miss the Daily Planet action with Clark and his gang. This whole isolated Superman fighting and punching people gets boring, so with him being at the Daily Planet it adds an interesting dynamic to the story. And I enjoy his relationships with Lois, Perry, Jimmy, etc..

Agreed.
I've always enjoyed Clark Kent as a reporter and his relationships with Lois, Jimmy and Perry, etc.

[dupersuper]

Clark would be a good detective too

He is a prize winning investigative reporter...

I think of it as Clark majors in science and minors in detection, while Bruce majors in detection and minors in science.