I'm tired of Lois, Jimmy and reporter Clark

[Ascended]

Except it's been reimagined as a way for Clark to affect change on a societal and systemic level by telling stories that illuminate and assist the common man. What's been a drag are the creators who choose not to do anything to show Clark working and feeling rewarded writing for the little guy.

This has already been done and has been going on for decades, at least the part of making the Daily Planet modern and online. It's digital and online with bloggers, etc.

I actually like this and was hoping that this was going to be the direction for The Daily Planet gang from the start of the New 52, and later around the time of Clark's revolt. It's one of the reasons I don't like Clarkcatropolis, because instead of taking advantage of the potential for radical transformation for all, only Cat Grant was written to go along for the ride. Clark's done nothing for the blog and Morgan Edge remains entrenched as the boss of Galaxy Media. I'd love to read Superman comics that put a stop to Clark being isolated from his colleagues and friends, as well as isolation from Cat herself given how little they actually collaborate and given the tone of toleration of their partnership, and integrate the supporting cast more seamlessly with a mission and attitude like the one you describe. That sounds a lot more inspiring and fun, and a lot better use of the traditional elements of the mythos than what's going on now. Fortunately, something like what you proposed can still happen.

Just wanted to get back to this for a moment. The bolded part especially but the entire sense of the post too.

This has been the problem, I think. Yes, the Planet has "been changing with the times" for the last decade and a half. I remember back in 2000 when that started becoming a thing. But the problem is, it never really happened. The Planet, its staff, nothing *really* ever changed. Sure, the Planet supposedly had an online news site and real-time coverage and all the bells and whistles you expect from a modern day news group....but in the comics themselves? Everyone is still standing around the same watercooler, having the same discussions, doing things the same way. Lois still talks about "front page" material and Perry still yells at Jimmy about his photos and.....none of it feels like its happening now; its all just throwbacks to the pre-digital age.

Just as Clark's blogging job has not been explored properly and all the subplots with Morgan Edge havent been touched upon, all these claims of a modern Planet have never actually amounted to anything either.

It'd be easy to bring the Planet around, all you'd have to do is introduce a subplot where Clark eventually proves Edge is corrupt, and Galaxy Media falls apart. Perry buys out the Planet name with money borrowed from Lex, keeps as much of the staff as he can (and those let go might be upset about that, laying groundwork for future stories) and you're good to go.

[Sacred Knight]

You all make good points.

Maybe I have just grown tired of Superman and his world haha

Could be the case, yeah. And in the end, absolutely zero wrong with that. As a Superman fan though I hope something comes around that sparks an interest.

[friendly-fire-press]

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.

But an old idea nonetheless. When someone washes their car they don't get a brand new car, they get a cleaned-up old car ... not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not a brand new vehicle.

Experimenting with other love interests before Superman and Lois head towards their happily ever after has been done before, too.

Nowhere near as much as the Clark/Lois dynamic has been played out and dragged out, especially over the last 20-30 years

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.

... and stagnate. Retelling the same story is not the only way myths function and endure. Superman's mythology is still growing and for that growth to have significant development ... then new ideas, relationships, status quos must be implemented to the mythology; otherwise it's just pure stagnation.

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.

Yes. That's 100% right.

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.

Firstly, I'd argue that it isn't just for novelty. Secondly, I'd argue that Lois has been so heavily over-utilised so much as a love interest over the decades, that to not use her in that way for a few years, even a generation, won't do too much damage (or "abandon[ment]") to that status ... and it certainly wouldn't come close to "reducing Superman to a mutable cipher" ... it will, as I've suggested, aid him in escaping the clutches of stagnation.

It seems pretty selfish to push for a complete abandonment of key mythological elements so that old fans get to read new stories.

Maybe. But it seems even more selfish to keep retelling the same stories (even if they are done in slightly different -- practically imperceptible -- ways) , making the mythology more and more one dimensional with each generation, just to keep old-school fans happy

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?

Yes. Because Superman is not just a mythology. It's a business. And the business is telling stories. And the more variety of stories, the better IMO. And, for the record, I'm not that much of a long time reader ... in fact, I assume you're probably more of a long time reader than I

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.

It can still be a Superman story with the same spirit, themes, etc without him being in a relationship with Lois. If you're suggesting that it's only Superman if he's in love with Lois, then I completely disagree.

[misslane]

This has been the problem, I think. Yes, the Planet has "been changing with the times" for the last decade and a half. I remember back in 2000 when that started becoming a thing. But the problem is, it never really happened. The Planet, its staff, nothing *really* ever changed. Sure, the Planet supposedly had an online news site and real-time coverage and all the bells and whistles you expect from a modern day news group....but in the comics themselves? Everyone is still standing around the same watercooler, having the same discussions, doing things the same way. Lois still talks about "front page" material and Perry still yells at Jimmy about his photos and.....none of it feels like its happening now; its all just throwbacks to the pre-digital age.

A modern news organization with updated delivery methods still has to discuss news the same way and has to obtain news in many of the same ways. HBO's The Newsroom and Netflix's House of Cards both portray modern news organizations. These shows still present their characters discussing the news and gathering news the way you might see the Daily Planet gathering and discussing news. The digital age still requires discussions about what to put on the front page. Online newspapers and blogs have front pages and top stories:



Editors will continue to argue with their photographers because digital stories need digital photos. Why wouldn't a modern news organization have conversations about photographic material? And, in general, what sorts of conversations should be happening in a newsroom set in the digital age?

Just as Clark's blogging job has not been explored properly and all the subplots with Morgan Edge havent been touched upon, all these claims of a modern Planet have never actually amounted to anything either.

This is more a symptom of the New 52's lack of interest in Clark Kent and what I suspect is a desire to keep him away from his traditional supporting cast by any means necessary.

It'd be easy to bring the Planet around, all you'd have to do is introduce a subplot where Clark eventually proves Edge is corrupt, and Galaxy Media falls apart. Perry buys out the Planet name with money borrowed from Lex, keeps as much of the staff as he can (and those let go might be upset about that, laying groundwork for future stories) and you're good to go.

I agree. It's a shame that I don't have much hope DC and its Superman creative team care about telling complex stories about journalism.

[misslane]

But an old idea nonetheless. When someone washes their car they don't get a brand new car, they get a cleaned-up old car ... not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not a brand new vehicle.

Superman himself is an old idea. Do you want to get rid of him too just because people know about him?

Nowhere near as much as the Clark/Lois dynamic has been played out and dragged out, especially over the last 20-30 years

Huh? Every Clark/Lois love story in the past 20-30 years involved a period in which other love interests were explored. The Clark/Lois love story always includes the exploration and development of other relationships for both characters. This was even more prevalent in the Pre-Crisis era in which new love interests for Lois and Clark/Superman were constantly on display.

... and stagnate. Retelling the same story is not the only way myths function and endure. Superman's mythology is still growing and for that growth to have significant development ... then new ideas, relationships, status quos must be implemented to the mythology; otherwise it's just pure stagnation.

Who said anything about telling the same story? I said telling different stories using the same core elements that ultimately serve the same goals and themes of the myth. Superman's myth has endured and evolved for 75 years while relying on the continual retelling of reinvented versions of Lois and Clark's love story. No myth has stagnated because the hero's love interest has remained the same. The key is not to tell the same story; rather, it is to tell a new story using the same basic ingredients.

Yes. That's 100% right.

I have always argued that exploring other love interests is the best way to support a Lois/Clark love story. Using a Superman/Wonder Woman romance as a formative experience for Clark is an exciting new idea that I support despite its lackluster execution in the New 52 thus far. But to explore other love interests without ever giving Lois/Clark a chance is a fundamental betrayal of the myth and its core themes. There is absolutely no way that a version of the Superman myth can be told properly without exploring a relationship with Lois Lane. That relationship can end in marriage or in tragedy, but it must exist in some form for the myth's critical components to be fully developed and realized.

Firstly, I'd argue that it isn't just for novelty. Secondly, I'd argue that Lois has been so heavily over-utilised so much as a love interest over the decades, that to not use her in that way for a few years, even a generation, won't do too much damage (or "abandon[ment]") to that status ... and it certainly wouldn't come close to "reducing Superman to a mutable cipher" ... it will, as I've suggested, aid him in escaping the clutches of stagnation.

Yeah, I didn't say anything about needing Lois to be Clark's one and only right now without allowing for any other steps along the way. But, yes, abandoning the Lois/Clark love story for a generation is exactly the sort of thing Morrison was talking about when he discussed how abandoning a character's detailed continuity reduces them to mutable ciphers.

Maybe. But it seems even more selfish to keep retelling the same stories (even if they are done in slightly different -- practically imperceptible -- ways) , making the mythology more and more one dimensional with each generation, just to keep old-school fans happy

This isn't about keeping old-school fans happy. It's quite the opposite, in fact. It is those who are familiar with Superman and bored of him who most often advocate for drastic changes. New readers haven't experienced a Lois and Clark love story enough times to be bored of it. The only fans who could be bored of Lois and Clark are old school fans who have read and experienced the bulk of Superman's canon already. It is selfish for these fans to leave new readers without their generation's Lois and Clark just because old school fans have been there and done that before them.

Yes. Because Superman is not just a mythology. It's a business. And the business is telling stories. And the more variety of stories, the better IMO. And, for the record, I'm not that much of a long time reader ... in fact, I assume you're probably more of a long time reader than I

I've only been reading Superman comics since 2011, but I've gone back and read most of his canon by now. What I find most enjoyable about reading all of those stories from the Golden Age to today is the brilliant malleability of Superman's mythology. It's deeply rewarding to read decades of stories that continue to find new ways of reinventing Superman for each generation while still retaining the core elements that define it and him. In terms of business, I'm sure you're aware that most businesses who rely on novelty over dependability and recognition are businesses that fail. Coca-Cola hasn't succeeded because its CEOs are constantly changing the formula. Consumers love brands that understand how to balance innovation with reliability.

It can still be a Superman story with the same spirit, themes, etc without him being in a relationship with Lois. If you're suggesting that it's only Superman if he's in love with Lois, then I completely disagree.

Loving Lois Lane has been a constant in every Superman continuity. It is one piece of the "detailed continuity" Morrison referred to in the quote I posted. The triangle-for-two, according to great writers like Morrison, Maggin, Busiek, Waid, and Millar, is even more vital to the maintenance of Superman's myth. Those guys would disagree with you as much as I do. Superman doesn't have to always be with Lois or always be in love with her. Each retelling of his myth, however, should be written with the goal of getting him there. One thing is for sure, a retelling of Superman's myth that never develops a Lois/Clark love story and instead favors a Diana/Clark love story is a retelling that without question cannot be thematically consistent with Superman's vast mythological canon.

[misslane]

Well I think good characters should raise questions that make us step back and wonder about them as people. Their methods and reasoning behind them.

To a certain extent, yes, but when there is really only one good answer and the answer is obvious, it's not really something worth doing. It's wrong for Superman to spy on anyone without warrants, etc. That puts him above the law, and it's unethical. He should not be constantly violating people's right to privacy, and in order to prove that what he accuses people of is correct, he'd have to be willing to testify in court under oath. In other cases, the things he would need to justify a certain position or recommendation would not be so easily accessible using only superpowers. I'm talking about paper trails, interviews, etc.

The Swedish guy and Phan make in the range of seven figures off the youtube partnership alone. Clark could live quite comfortably if he wanted to off wideoblogging.

How do you know this? Also, you've said that it would have to be Superman who does this reporting, but now you're saying Clark's doing it? I ask because isn't really okay for Superman to make money off of something he is largely only capable of doing because of his superpowers and pre-existing celebrity? I could accept the idea of Clark possibly making a living on a YouTube partnership, but then he'd be a nobody and covering topics that surely aren't as attractive to viewers as what Phan, for example, is producing for YouTube.

I’d like to think that a Superman news blog would be a guiding light for other news media to follow behind and find its way. But that’s largely because I see Superman as a lead by example sort of character.

Superman is a leader, but he doesn't have to extend that into journalism too. Journalists have a separate set of rules they must follow. What you're talking about isn't a journalist.

Besides I see this as Lois’s domain anyways. While I mainly put those suggestions for the switch up in Clark's life because of the privileges he enjoys with his powers as Superman I think showing Lois trying to change the direction of news media from the inside and watching Clark doing so from the outside could be a more unique approach than what we’ve been getting so far.

These conditions are already in place in the New 52, yet no one is doing anything with them. I also don't see the value of splitting up Lois's and Clark's identical missions, because that requires the books to clutter up the already limited space inserted between action sequences with two separate journalism storylines with separate settings, casts, and arcs. This also has the unfortunate effect of putting distance between Clark and his traditional supporting cast who, if push comes to shove, will always get the shaft in terms of page time so that Lois' side of reforming journalism would likely get less attention. All of that simply isn't necessary to me; its benefits are not worth the cost.

But Superman and Clark Kent are one in the same so Superman’s triumphs are Clark’s triumph and vice versa. And, no being a journalist doesn't stop Clark from aiding the common man, but for a man with his abilities, clout, and resources he could do infinitely more for the lesser privileged. Imagine the difference between Clark Kent writing an article about the pay gap between men and women and Superman doing a discussion on it with Wonder Woman on his personal youtube channel.

You're looking at this backwards. Clark Kent can write the articles, maintain his secret identity, collect a salary, and if that exposure is insufficient then Superman can simply publicly agree with and draw attention to the issues raised in the top notch reporting done by Mr. Kent, Miss Lane, or any reporter.

Also the “spying” would probably be no different than the usual patrolling most superheroes do when they’re out looking to see what evil is going on in the world. He’s not going to be looking through the information of Peggy-Sue and John Q. Public, but listening for cries for help, making sure all is well in the world, keeping up on practices of major businesses. I wouldn’t have him going full blown NSA.

I'm not sure how eavesdropping on conversations among politicians and businessmen would work. In order for people to believe Superman and take action, he'd have to record what he heard and saw as proof. You really think that Superman regularly spying on the rich and powerful everywhere is something that wouldn't be deeply controversial?

You can still support the secret identity trope and do the charity doctor routine. I put the doctor idea forth because we know he can be this super doctor that could help tons of people that can’t receive proper medical attention in and out of the US but simply chooses not to unless they happen to be his friends. Seems fairly self centered to me.

Okay, but he could really do that and still be a regular journalist, and in many cases he doesn't do that kind of thing because he doesn't like the idea of interfering in the work that humans can do themselves.

[Blacksun]

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.

yeah sure, love someone that has the same power than you because of you are afraid of having relationships with simple humans. this is totally superman myth

[misslane]

yeah sure, love someone that has the same power than you because of you are afraid of having relationships with simple humans. this is totally superman myth

It is a worthy part of a Superman myth as long as it is used to progress how Clark (and Diana) approach future relationships with more hope and less fear. Sometimes you have to make mistakes and fail in order to learn.

[Blacksun]

It is a worthy part of a Superman myth as long as it is used to progress how Clark (and Diana) approach future relationships with more hope and less fear. Sometimes you have to make mistakes and fail in order to learn.

yes, I hope they will develop the characters to what they should be. but this kind of stuff still bother me

[misslane]

yes, I hope they will develop the characters to what they should be. but this kind of stuff still bother me

Same on both counts. It's especially galling when Lois, the DP, and the supporting cast are poorly treated and poorly used as a result.

[Auguste Dupin]

yes, a fan asked more stuff like this from johns in a comic con. Seems like we will have more of it. I don't know why people dislike so much superman supporting characters. I wonder if there is batman fans that doesn't like robins, batgirls, that he is a playboy millionaire...

Speaking from experience, quite a lot actually.
Especially if they came to love Batman from the movies, but still, even some Batman fans would rather have him as a lone vigilante than the leader of an entire Batfamilly.

[Ascended]

A modern news organization with updated delivery methods still has to discuss news the same way and has to obtain news in many of the same ways. HBO's The Newsroom and Netflix's House of Cards both portray modern news organizations. These shows still present their characters discussing the news and gathering news the way you might see the Daily Planet gathering and discussing news. The digital age still requires discussions about what to put on the front page. Online newspapers and blogs have front pages and top stories:



Editors will continue to argue with their photographers because digital stories need digital photos. Why wouldn't a modern news organization have conversations about photographic material? And, in general, what sorts of conversations should be happening in a newsroom set in the digital age?

This is more a symptom of the New 52's lack of interest in Clark Kent and what I suspect is a desire to keep him away from his traditional supporting cast by any means necessary.

I agree. It's a shame that I don't have much hope DC and its Superman creative team care about telling complex stories about journalism.

I think my point got a little muddled. Yes, of course a news site is going to have photographers, discussions about what to put at the top of their page as their headlining story, and all that. I didnt mean to say they dont.

What I meant to say was, the Planet has never felt like a truly multi-media news group, or like anything other than a traditional newspaper that has a website and maybe a token app. Well, maybe the Perez New52 stuff, when dealing with this particular thing, felt a little more modern with Lois being a television producer and whatnot.

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.

[Joe Acro]

What I meant to say was, the Planet has never felt like a truly multi-media news group, or like anything other than a traditional newspaper that has a website and maybe a token app. Well, maybe the Perez New52 stuff, when dealing with this particular thing, felt a little more modern with Lois being a television producer and whatnot.

This was one of the reasons I ended Perez's work, and was sad that he got too frustrated to stay on. He understood the idea of reinterpreting Superman for a new age.

[Blacksun]

Speaking from experience, quite a lot actually.
Especially if they came to love Batman from the movies, but still, even some Batman fans would rather have him as a lone vigilante than the leader of an entire Batfamilly.

and that would weaker Batman. I don't think Nolan movies are the best example of what batman is...Have a diverse cast for Batman is a great thing, I just started batman and comics because I saw some fun scans from batgirl/supergirl team up. I think people understimate the importance of the supporting cast.

if the daily planet didn't reflected the new multi-media world we live in, the writing needs to be done better

[Ascended]

This was one of the reasons I ended Perez's work, and was sad that he got too frustrated to stay on. He understood the idea of reinterpreting Superman for a new age.

Which is funny, given that Perez has been in comics for over thirty years and his work does not reflect a modern sensibility. But yeah, he had some really great ideas with the Planet and the Lois/Clark dynamic. His issues were dense and wonderful for world building, if a little dry and the villains were beyond lackluster.

But yeah, the Planet needs to reflect media today and it really doesnt feel like it does.

Its the reason I supported Clark's turn to blogging, and am so saddened to see all that potential story wasted and ignored. Obviously Clark was always going to return to the status quo, but this offered a great chance to do something different before coming full circle.