I'm tired of Lois, Jimmy and reporter Clark

[Auguste Dupin]

Right, but that's as close as it gets in terms of real world positions. He doesn't want the authority to be in that kind of position of power.

Dictator would be closer.
Frankly, the only way to take over permanently when you're President is to perpetuate a physical take-over, because there's legal barriers to prevent them from just deciding they have all the powers. Which means it would take just as much effort for president Superman to take over the US than it would take regular Superman.

[The World]

It's time for a shake up damn it, why can't Clark become a cop instead? The Lois relationship is also very boring, Lana and Clark's love (Smallville) was awesome and it was a breath of fresh air. Lois has no personality at all aside from I'm a brave independent women, where is the depth?

Superman's world really needs a shake up and changes because It's been the same like forever.

Anyone else feel the same? If not don't kill me plz<3

To a degree I agree with you about removing Clark from the Daily Planet. As someone with much love for the original stories penned by Siegel and Shuster I do find the Daily Planet status quo forced in this day and age. It fit in perfectly well with the original set up of Superman/Clark being a rough and tough two-fisted defender of the weak who while stronger than the common man was still vastly limited by the technology of the day and by his own capabilities. He used what resources he had around him as best he could and one of those was the Daily Star/Planet. It was a place that granted him easy access to a glut of information from around the world so he could know where he was need. It also let him make people aware of harder to notice problems that weren't as bombastic as war, genocide, mad scientist, etc. You see ultimately Clark Kent's reasons for being a journalist are due to circumstance.

However, in the modern era these explanations are fairly ineffective for someone who is out to establish real change in the world. With Clark's powers having advanced far beyond what they were in the golden age and numerous resources at his finger tips Clark no longer needs the The Daily Planet for intelligence gathering as he once did. Frankly for a person with the powers of a Kryptonian standing on a rooftop would probably be more effective than using the DP.

With the rise of the internet and social media outlets I can't see why he couldn't continue fighting the good fight for the lesser man with his words with out the Daily Planet. I mean the Young Turks are a news media outlet that runs through youtube that has supposedly amassed over a billion total views. There is a random guy from Sweden that does nothing but play video games and uploads them to youtube; he has some 26 million+ viewer/subscribers. Michelle Phan is another person who was able to parlay a youtube videoblog on makeup tutorials into a very lucrative career which she was able to get her own company out of. Any reason Clark as Superman couldn't uses the numerous social media outlets at the disposal of literally anyone in any country to inform people about the numerous issue that plague the world? To me it makes a good deal more sense especially with the way the general public side-eyes traditional news media outlets these days.

Frankly, I think a guy Clark could do quite a lot of good by using the various social media (youtube, tumblr, twitter, etc) and his good name as Superman to widen the net he would cast as regular Clark Kent. If Clark likes to write then he can do it as a hobby, but his ego shouldn't come first before the troubles befalling his common man.

Ideally I would fuse the reporter aspects with his Superman duties and have him act as a pro bono doctor while not Superman. ( So few of them in superhero fiction)

[Superlad93]

Isn't there whole "not actually american" issue going against this?
I mean, sure, he could lie about it, but that'd be kind of a messy way to start his political career (although that would create a completely new dynamic to the whole "secret identity" thing is the very exposure of his superheroic life would destroy everything he build as Clark Kent.)

It almost writes itself, huh

I'd read about that guy. Hopefully Superman of Earth 23 gets a book when all is said and done.

[Superlad93]

To a degree I agree with you about removing Clark from the Daily Planet. As someone with much love for the original stories penned by Siegel and Shuster I do find the Daily Planet status quo forced in this day and age. It fit in perfectly well with the original set up of Superman/Clark being a rough and tough two-fisted defender of the weak who while stronger than the common man was still vastly limited by the technology of the day and by his own capabilities. He used what resources he had around him as best he could and one of those was the Daily Star/Planet. It was a place that granted him easy access to a glut of information from around the world so he could know where he was need. It also let him make people aware of harder to notice problems that weren't as bombastic as war, genocide, mad scientist, etc. You see ultimately Clark Kent's reasons for being a journalist are due to circumstance.

However, in the modern era these explanations are fairly ineffective for someone who is out to establish real change in the world. With Clark's powers having advanced far beyond what they were in the golden age and numerous resources at his finger tips Clark no longer needs the The Daily Planet for intelligence gathering as he once did. Frankly for a person with the powers of a Kryptonian standing on a rooftop would probably be more effective than using the DP.

With the rise of the internet and social media outlets I can't see why he couldn't continue fighting the good fight for the lesser man with his words with out the Daily Planet. I mean the Young Turks are a news media outlet that runs through youtube that has supposedly amassed over a billion total views. There is a random guy from Sweden that does nothing but play video games and uploads them to youtube; he has some 26 million+ viewer/subscribers. Michelle Phan is another person who was able to parlay a youtube videoblog on makeup tutorials into a very lucrative career which she was able to get her own company out of. Any reason Clark as Superman couldn't uses the numerous social media outlets at the disposal of literally anyone in any country to inform people about the numerous issue that plague the world? To me it makes a good deal more sense especially with the way the general public side-eyes traditional news media outlets these days.

Frankly, I think a guy Clark could do quite a lot of good by using the various social media (youtube, tumblr, twitter, etc) and his good name as Superman to widen the net he would cast as regular Clark Kent. If Clark likes to write then he can do it as a hobby, but his ego shouldn't come first before the troubles befalling his common man.

Ideally I would fuse the reporter aspects with his Superman duties and have him act as a pro bono doctor while not Superman. ( So few of them in superhero fiction)

Couldn't possibly agree more with this whole post. Very well said.

[misslane]

With Clark's powers having advanced far beyond what they were in the golden age and numerous resources at his finger tips Clark no longer needs the The Daily Planet for intelligence gathering as he once did. Frankly for a person with the powers of a Kryptonian standing on a rooftop would probably be more effective than using the DP.

Doesn't that kind of behavior raise serious questions about ethics and power for Superman?

With the rise of the internet and social media outlets I can't see why he couldn't continue fighting the good fight for the lesser man with his words with out the Daily Planet. I mean the Young Turks are a news media outlet that runs through youtube that has supposedly amassed over a billion total views. There is a random guy from Sweden that does nothing but play video games and uploads them to youtube; he has some 26 million+ viewer/subscribers. Michelle Phan is another person who was able to parlay a youtube videoblog on makeup tutorials into a very lucrative career which she was able to get her own company out of.

I don't know how videoblogs work, but I question whether those millions of subscribers translates into much of an income. Clark needs to work for an actual institution so that he can receive a salary. He needs a salary because he needs the money to participate in human life and maintain his secret identity. Your examples are of people who are using social media to get their foot in the door of a larger industry.

Any reason Clark as Superman couldn't uses the numerous social media outlets at the disposal of literally anyone in any country to inform people about the numerous issue that plague the world? To me it makes a good deal more sense especially with the way the general public side-eyes traditional news media outlets these days.

The point of idealism is to not give up on something like traditional news media as irredeemable and incapable of transformation, but rather to lead it to change with the times and to form it into something that is influential and respected. The reporters and producers portrayed in Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom are good examples of people who, like you, recognize that the media is in need of reform yet, unlike you, still believe in it and so engage in a mission to improve it.

Frankly, I think a guy Clark could do quite a lot of good by using the various social media (youtube, tumblr, twitter, etc) and his good name as Superman to widen the net he would cast as regular Clark Kent. If Clark likes to write then he can do it as a hobby, but his ego shouldn't come first before the troubles befalling his common man.

Superman needs to succeed as regular Clark Kent. Clark Kent is someone Superman truly is and not a facade, so to live as Clark and maintain that identity he needs a job that pays the bills. It can't just be a hobby, and Clark's work as a journalist does not prevent him from aiding the common man through his reporting. It's a little disturbing to me that in addition to unrestrained spying, you're also describing expanding Superman's role into something like a politician. Taken together, you've created an individual who raises serious questions related to ethics and power.

Ideally I would fuse the reporter aspects with his Superman duties and have him act as a pro bono doctor while not Superman. ( So few of them in superhero fiction)

I just think that's too much. You might as well call him Jesus if he's a rabble rouser, god, and miracle worker. Having a regular day job humanizes Clark as someone who experiences something similar to the common man he champions, and it supports the secret identity and human life that he likes to have for his own sake and for the sake of the loved ones who the secret identity protects.

[friendly-fire-press]

It's Lemaris...

but I laughed about a once upon a time episode.

Lois and clark is new to many people that never read comics with them. now the new 52 is for old fans or new fans?

I think when the relaunch occurred DC did mention they wanted to attract new fans/ readers ... but, first and foremost, I think the New 52, ideally speaking, was meant to try new approaches, new ideas, etc

[friendly-fire-press]

You want Clark to date a mermaid. Really a mermaid.

Yes. Absolutely. I'm not saying it should necessarily be the new status quo or anything. But it would be cool to see they're adventure/romance retold in the New 52 IMO even if it's just a one off thing, set in the past (pre Action Comics #1)

Do want her to sing "a Part of your World" when she first meets him?

LOL No

Or Maxima who is basically Johns's version of Wonder Woman in JL but an alien and in a skimper outfit.

I'd have to disagree with you there. I think Maxima and Wonder Woman are completely different characters. Furthermore, the villainous aspect of Maxima (generally speaking) could provide an interesting, and possibly intense, story that we haven't see before ie rather than simply trying to "claim" him, as she has in previous stories, she could attempt to seduce him as a means to distract him while she orders her armies to invade earth ... (or something like that, just thinking out loud)

Nothing but Clark dating a mermaid is just too out there. IMO it turns his book into an episode of Once upon a Time.

Again, I disagree. The DC Universe is filled with "out there" concepts, characters, etc ... aliens, cyborgs, amazons, robots, monsters, vampires, ghosts, Atlanteans (which is one step away from mermaids), costumed vigilantes, time-travellers, shape shifters ... the list goes on ... I don't think there's any need at all to draw the line with mermaids

[misslane]

I think when the relaunch occurred DC did mention they wanted to attract new fans/ readers ... but, first and foremost, I think the New 52, ideally speaking, was meant to try new approaches, new ideas, etc

Telling the story of how Lois and Clark find each other again in this new DCU in a brand new way is new approach to an old idea. Experimenting with other love interests before Superman and Lois head towards their happily ever after has been done before, too. The New 52 could be said to be simply taking a different path to the same destination. Frankly, that's how myths function and endure. Grant Morrison has argued, "once superhero characters have been fleshed out and rendered believable through the use of detailed continuity, they take on a firm reality of their own and henceforth cannot (or should not) be reduced again to mutable ciphers, subject to alteration at editorial whims." His characterization of the evil Vyndktvx as a manipulator of continuity for selfish corporate motives in his Action Comics run underscores this perspective on the role of continuity in superhero myths.

In other words, when the goal is to appeal to lapsed readers, current readers, and new readers with new approaches to a hero's mythology, the means to accomplish that goal should never seek to fundamentally alter core elements of that myth. Lois and Clark, in particular the triangle-for-two, is a central feature of the Superman myth that was designed to illuminate some of the most significant themes of his story. Superman's struggle to integrate his alien/human identity through the pursuit of a flawed human woman who shares his ideals and bravely strives to achieve them without special powers is critical to developing his character. Exploring other love interests, including a romance with Wonder Woman, can be a new addition that ultimately supports this essential part of the Superman myth. But to abandon Lois as a love interest entirely for the purpose of absolute novelty through reinvention is tantamount to creating an entirely new myth that reduces Superman to a mutable cipher.

It seems pretty selfish to push for a complete abandonment of key mythological elements so that old fans get to read new stories. The current generation, I suppose, shouldn't be exposed to what Superman has been for over 75 years because you and other long time readers are bored? Look, I don't mind shaking things up or trying new ways to use the tools in the toolbox, but the goal should continue to be to build towards a story with the same spirit, themes, ideas, etc. Otherwise, it's not really Superman anymore. It's a mediocre Elseworld story: a fun "What if?" but nothing more than that.

[Jim Kelly]

The publisher, the editor and the writer may not understand how to make good use of Clark, Jimmy, Lois and Perry--but I stil think these four characters are the heart of the Superman franchise.

They're the Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer for this fictional world. Mainly because they're grounded in mundane reality. The other stuff--outer space worlds, super-powered villains, fantastic threats to the planet--can be altered and omitted. But a good fictional construct needs some basic human characters (or human-like characters) that can involve the reader.

When I was a kid, I often wondered why Superman couldn't just fly around the universe in a constant state of action. But I later understood that it's the human factor that involves us in the story.

Maybe the publisher, editor and writer aren't making good use of them now. But it's important for them to be maintained as an essential part of Superman's fictional world, for when someone does come along who knows how to exploit them for all the potential that they hold.

[DochaDocha]

I'd argue that Superman is usually more interesting in his solo stories than Justice League stories, but as I thought about it throughout the past few months, a lot of fans only really know Superman thanks to the Justice League. A lot of comic fans don't read Superman titles, but they have read JL(A), which often gets 2-3x greater number of readers than the individual Supes books. They might've also learned of Superman primarily through cartoons such as Superfriends, Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, The Batman, Young Justice, or the various JL-related animated movies. On top of that, I suspect that the upcoming live-action JL movies are going to get bigger audiences than any Man of Steel movie, so expect a new generation of fans who only know Superman as a guy who fights alongside other superheroes and, to steal a Lexrules-ism, "a pointy-eared bastard" (), and won't know or even care about what he does when he's not part of the team.

I think you can only get a full-ish Superman experience if you read and watch the solo stuff, but I'm not sure I'd argue at this point that the solo stuff is absolutely necessary to enjoy and understand Superman. It'd be like living without one lung, kidney, or other non-vital organ that comes in two or more, but you can get by.

[dupersuper]

Didn't Morrison made Superman a firefighter?

Morrison? I know he's a firefighter in the Batman Beyond comic.

[UltraWoman]

Morrison? I know he's a firefighter in the Batman Beyond comic.

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. He doesn't care for the alienation of it from his (non-super) friends (Jimmy and Lois mostly). Eventually it's ret-conned back to "normal" (Mrs. Nyxly offers up one of her wishes to return things back to normal).

[kidstandout]

Telling the story of how Lois and Clark find each other again in this new DCU in a brand new way is new approach to an old idea. Experimenting with other love interests before Superman and Lois head towards their happily ever after has been done before, too. The New 52 could be said to be simply taking a different path to the same destination. Frankly, that's how myths function and endure. Grant Morrison has argued, "once superhero characters have been fleshed out and rendered believable through the use of detailed continuity, they take on a firm reality of their own and henceforth cannot (or should not) be reduced again to mutable ciphers, subject to alteration at editorial whims." His characterization of the evil Vyndktvx as a manipulator of continuity for selfish corporate motives in his Action Comics run underscores this perspective on the role of continuity in superhero myths.

In other words, when the goal is to appeal to lapsed readers, current readers, and new readers with new approaches to a hero's mythology, the means to accomplish that goal should never seek to fundamentally alter core elements of that myth. Lois and Clark, in particular the triangle-for-two, is a central feature of the Superman myth that was designed to illuminate some of the most significant themes of his story. Superman's struggle to integrate his alien/human identity through the pursuit of a flawed human woman who shares his ideals and bravely strives to achieve them without special powers is critical to developing his character. Exploring other love interests, including a romance with Wonder Woman, can be a new addition that ultimately supports this essential part of the Superman myth. But to abandon Lois as a love interest entirely for the purpose of absolute novelty through reinvention is tantamount to creating an entirely new myth that reduces Superman to a mutable cipher.

It seems pretty selfish to push for a complete abandonment of key mythological elements so that old fans get to read new stories. The current generation, I suppose, shouldn't be exposed to what Superman has been for over 75 years because you and other long time readers are bored? Look, I don't mind shaking things up or trying new ways to use the tools in the toolbox, but the goal should continue to be to build towards a story with the same spirit, themes, ideas, etc. Otherwise, it's not really Superman anymore. It's a mediocre Elseworld story: a fun "What if?" but nothing more than that.

i disagree, it's this mindset that causes people to feel like dc is just playing it safe. the formula morrison is talking about can easily be debunked by simply looking at batman or even lois lane ironically. during their first couple years. bruce wayne was vain playboy while lois was as you have said before a reflection of sexist attitudes of the time. if you really think putting a new spin on an old idea is always good, the changes needed for these two to become more multidimensional would of never happened. using new approaches to old stories is essentially rehashing, you can keep the core values of a character with out telling the same story over and over like dc has been doing for years, just look at marvel.

now you already know where i stand here, so i won't repeat what has already has been said.

i actually agree with this, i just don't believe the same plots and characters need to be used over and over to achieve this. the old characters should still be around and involved in the plot, but superman should never be limited to just them. new characters and dynamics should always be used as a means of enriching the history and make improvements to the standards of the old. now i get why having kent being a fire fighter or a cop wouldn't work, but a blogger or freelance reporter would be something that fits with his history. their are many fields clark kent could pursue that would allow him to be a social crusader ex. political activist, community activist. to say writers should not explore these ideas because it deviates too much from the classic formula is just the nostalgia talking IMO.

[misslane]

i disagree, it's this mindset that causes people to feel like dc is just playing it safe. the formula morrison is talking about can easily be debunked by simply looking at batman or even lois lane ironically. during their first couple years. bruce wayne was vain playboy while lois was as you have said before a reflection of sexist attitudes of the time. if you really think putting a new spin on an old idea is always good, the changes needed for these two to become more multidimensional would of never happened. using new approaches to old stories is essentially rehashing, you can keep the core values of a character with out telling the same story over and over like dc has been doing for years, just look at marvel.

You are responding to an argument I did not make. The evolution of Lois Lane as a character is perfect example of how to keep the core elements of a character in tact while at the same time updating the character to create new versions of the same essential story. Updating Lois to reflect that changing attitudes towards women in our culture did not require fundamentally altering her role in the Superman mythology and who she was in relation to Superman/Clark.

i actually agree with this, i just don't believe the same plots and characters need to be used over and over to achieve this.

At no point did I argue in favor of reusing the same plots. You can tell the love story between Superman and Lois in a myriad of ways without following the same plot. The way Lois and Clark fall in love in Smallville, for example, is remarkably different from how Lois and Clark fall in love in Man of Steel.

the old characters should still be around and involved in the plot, but superman should never be limited to just them. new characters and dynamics should always be used as a means of enriching the history and make improvements to the standards of the old.

I did not say Superman should be limited to the same supporting cast, but in order for a myth to continue to support itself, it needs to use its core elements to illuminate its central themes. You can use new characters and character dynamics, but the ultimate goal of those new elements should be to enrich the central themes of the core myth. You can tell the love story of Superman and Wonder Woman, for instance, if it is a means of exploring why Lois Lane is a better fit for Superman. Again, a show like Smallville, played around with the traditional plot and characterization a lot, but it also didn't fundamentally mess with the themes or character dynamics embedded in Superman's myth since 1938.

now i get why having kent being a fire fighter or a cop wouldn't work, but a blogger or freelance reporter would be something that fits with his history. their are many fields clark kent could pursue that would allow him to be a social crusader ex. political activist, community activist. to say writers should not explore these ideas because it deviates too much from the classic formula is just the nostalgia talking IMO.

I didn't say writers shouldn't explore these ideas. I'm saying they have, and they've turned out to not work for Clark. There actually aren't that many fields that allow Clark to be the kind of activist he wants to be in the way in wants to be one. Clark loves writing, and he needs to have a job that gives him a lot of freedom to set his own schedule and make what he will out of his assignments. The problem I have with Clark as a blogger or freelance reporter is that it's not different enough to warrant moving him out of the Daily Planet. Clark can blog for the Daily Planet, and he can work for the DP in a capacity that gives him the freedom he requires. Clark as a blogger or freelance journalist just reeks of change for the sake of change. He's still doing the same job with essentially the same demands.

[kidstandout]

You are responding to an argument I did not make. The evolution of Lois Lane as a character is perfect example of how to keep the core elements of a character in tact while at the same time updating the character to create new versions of the same essential story. Updating Lois to reflect that changing attitudes towards women in our culture did not require fundamentally altering her role in the Superman mythology and who she was in relation to Superman/Clark.



At no point did I argue in favor of reusing the same plots. You can tell the love story between Superman and Lois in a myriad of ways without following the same plot. The way Lois and Clark fall in love in Smallville, for example, is remarkably different from how Lois and Clark fall in love in Man of Steel.



I did not say Superman should be limited to the same supporting cast, but in order for a myth to continue to support itself, it needs to use its core elements to illuminate its central themes. You can use new characters and character dynamics, but the ultimate goal of those new elements should be to enrich the central themes of the core myth. You can tell the love story of Superman and Wonder Woman, for instance, if it is a means of exploring why Lois Lane is a better fit for Superman. Again, a show like Smallville, played around with the traditional plot and characterization a lot, but it also didn't fundamentally mess with the themes or character dynamics embedded in Superman's myth since 1938.



I didn't say writers shouldn't explore these ideas. I'm saying they have, and they've turned out to not work for Clark. There actually aren't that many fields that allow Clark to be the kind of activist he wants to be in the way in wants to be one. Clark loves writing, and he needs to have a job that gives him a lot of freedom to set his own schedule and make what he will out of his assignments. The problem I have with Clark as a blogger or freelance reporter is that it's not different enough to warrant moving him out of the Daily Planet. Clark can blog for the Daily Planet, and he can work for the DP in a capacity that gives him the freedom he requires. Clark as a blogger or freelance journalist just reeks of change for the sake of change. He's still doing the same job with essentially the same demands.

i'm not talking about her role per say, but the overall idea that putting a new coat of paint on a Cadillac el dorado makes it fresh even though the interior is still the same.

it seems like your doing exactly that for clois which is again just putting a new spin on an old idea.

i agree up until the bolded part, but let's not retread old battle grounds shall we. IMO smallville is another example of the same analogy from my first point. while it does handle certain plots better then most of the superman stuff in the couples years that preceded it, it was basically a retelling of grounds that were already covered before. mythos need to expand and evolve, not retread. the ideals from what has been done before should be kept, but that can be done without reusing the same plots, dynamics and supporting characters. just ask spiderman.

the few instances where they have and it didn't work and can all be atributed to bad writers. best example, scott lobdell. the idea of him no longer working with the daily and doing his own thing with kat was good, but executed poorly. a better writer like morrison or pak would of been capable of making it work. and just because attempts to move the plot forward didn't work doesn't mean they should just stop trying. clark being his own boss and not having to pander to perry is more then enough to warrant not being at the daily. you already said you don't know what being a blogger entails in full, how would you know how different it would be from being in the daily?