DC couple you would be okay permanently breaking up

[Vakanai]

A few things:

1) One of the things that made the New 52 unpopular was the very dissolution of various relationships across the DCU, Lois and Clark being chief among them.

2) If by your own admission, having them together is what's important, then what is the point of them not beng married?? Like, that's something that neither you nor SK has really made a case for. No married couple has to be married to be happy together. However, that doesn't mean that they should NOT be married. Lois and Clark don't have to be married...but they are. And if they are together anyway, why not as a married couple? That's how they've existed for well over two decades at this point. And I think the idea that ther marriage is hurting either of them as characters is pretty laughable. So, again, what would be the point of dissolving the marriage??? To appeal to a small sliver of fans who don't like having Superman married or even with Lois at all??? Are there some people who don't like the marriage? Sure. But there also people who don't like Superman being weak to Kryptonite or his absurd power-levels or certain villains like Lex Luthor or Doomsday or who just don't like Superman at all. Should DC bend over backwards to appeal to those people too??

So, I guess the point is: Superman and Lois don't have to be married, but they are and have been for so long now that erasing it just seems like such an unnecessary regression (like much of the New 52 was).

1) Yes, the dissolution of the relationship, not necessarily that of the marriage.

2) Even with them being together, there's a difference between married and non-married couples. Married people live together, unmarried people don't have to but they can. Unmarried couples can take time away from each other without it being too serious, whereas for a married couple one would be expecting divorce right around the corner. Someone can try and tempt someone in an unmarried relationship without coming across as a total homewrecker. It's easier for an unmarried couple to keep secrets from each other. There's less pressure for an unmarried couple to take that next step and have children (I do not like giving Superman a kid). And on and on, the relationships are different even when the two are together, and there's a lot of interest in an unmarried Clark and Lois we don't get to see (how long did they really *actually* date officially before marriage?). And that's not even to mention that some writer's could more easily write around Lois if they suck at writing her character but otherwise are great Superman writers, while other writers can come in and still make great use of her and her dynamic with Clark.

My point is, there's a lot people can like about then not being married, for various reasons. They don't have to be unmarried, but they've been unmarried for so much of their history that making them married all the time just feels like an unnecessary step.

[Badou]

Harley and Ivy would be my choice. They work better as friends with maybe some casual flirting, but putting them in an actual romantic relationship completely missed the point of their dynamic I feel like. They are less interesting as a couple and it forces them to be written differently.

Outside that I can't think of any other relationship that I dislike. I feel mostly indifferent to nearly all DC romances these days because the vast majority feel so uninspired and repetitive. I can't remember the last time there was a romance between two characters where I was actually intrigued and surprised by it and wanted to see more of it.

[friendly-fire-press]

Clark and Lois. Marriage has been hurting them for almost 20 years now. Their dynamic is just so boring as it is, compared to how it used to be and what made it popular in the first place. The kid didn't help, if anything he made it worse. Problem is I don't think breaking them up in-story is a good idea. Divorce wouldn't work. Not because there's anything shameful about divorce, sometimes its necessary. But it is at the same time its nearly always a permanent "This is over". I don't want that either, because the motivation is putting the spark back. Really erasure of it ever happening is the only way to do it. It never should have been brought back.

Quoted for truth.

I totally agree. The marriage between Superman and Lois Lane never should have been brought back.

[j9ac9k]

I was differentiating the characters, I would split Hawkgirl and Hawkman but Hawkman and Hawkwoman can be together. I would keep them separate.

I 100% second that emotion.

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Bat and Cat. I'd be for Batman and Catwoman written by not Tom King.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

1) Yes, the dissolution of the relationship, not necessarily that of the marriage.

Well, the state of their relationship was that they were a married couple. Again, people tend not to like regression.

2) Even with them being together, there's a difference between married and non-married couples. Married people live together, unmarried people don't have to but they can. Unmarried couples can take time away from each other without it being too serious, whereas for a married couple one would be expecting divorce right around the corner. Someone can try and tempt someone in an unmarried relationship without coming across as a total homewrecker. It's easier for an unmarried couple to keep secrets from each other. There's less pressure for an unmarried couple to take that next step and have children (I do not like giving Superman a kid). And on and on, the relationships are different even when the two are together, and there's a lot of interest in an unmarried Clark and Lois we don't get to see (how long did they really *actually* date officially before marriage?). And that's not even to mention that some writers could more easily write around Lois if they suck at writing her character but otherwise are great Superman writers, while other writers can come in and still make great use of her and her dynamic with Clark.

Except, we already got to see all of that!! Lois and Clark already went through their years of will-they/won't-they and the years of them being jealous and of having other love interests. Off the top of my head, I can think Lori Lemaris, Lana Lang, Lyla Lerrol, Maxima, and even his flirtation with Wonder Woman for at least a few years before he and Lois got serious. Clark had his years of being single and having relationships with other women, but in the end, he and Lois realized they were meant to be together and got married. There's a term for that. It's called character development.

Imagine if your favorite TV show had a will-they/won't-they couple who finally got together after years of dancing around each other and even got married. And then, between seasons, the network decided to erase all of that and the season premiere started with the characters acting as if their romance never happened. That's essentially what DC did with the New 52. So, yeah, that's absolutely one of the reasons it failed. It erased all of that character development.

If you want to read stories about a single Clark Kent, there's a whole bunch of back issues (and even alternate reality versions) that you can choose from.

My point is, there's a lot people can like about then not being married, for various reasons. They don't have to be unmarried, but they've been unmarried for so much of their history that making them married all the time just feels like an unnecessary step.

Well, when one gets married, it tends not to be only a part-time gig. It's a life decision. And again, it's one of the few examples of genuine character progression in comics. I mean, who else was Clark going to marry?? Lois was always endgame for him. She's the love of his life. So, I'm sorry, but it just seems stupid to undo it just so that we can retread territory that's already been well tread just so they can end up back together again. Plus, it been over 20 years since they got married. Its a benchmark of the mythos now.

For a comparable situation: There are absolutely fans who don't see Dick Grayson as anything else but Robin and think all of the other Robins and Dick becoming Nightwing should be wiped away from continuity. DC should absolutely and positively NOT give those fans what they want.

[KangMiRae]

BatCat should be deleted. WonderBat is where it's at anyway.

[Decoy]

Kyle and Sorank.....oh wait, they broke up already........(is Alex still dead?)

[Franny6422]

Dan Didio & Jim Lee

[Vakanai]

Well, the state of their relationship was that they were a married couple. Again, people tend not to like regression.



Except, we already got to see all of that!! Lois and Clark already went through their years of will-they/won't-they and the years of them being jealous and of having other love interests. Off the top of my head, I can think Lori Lemaris, Lana Lang, Lyla Lerrol, Maxima, and even his flirtation with Wonder Woman for at least a few years before he and Lois got serious. Clark had his years of being single and having relationships with other women, but in the end, he and Lois realized they were meant to be together and got married. There's a term for that. It's called character development.

Imagine if your favorite TV show had a will-they/won't-they couple who finally got together after years of dancing around each other and even got married. And then, between seasons, the network decided to erase all of that and the season premiere started with the characters acting as if their romance never happened. That's essentially what DC did with the New 52. So, yeah, that's absolutely one of the reasons it failed. It erased all of that character development.

If you want to read stories about a single Clark Kent, there's a whole bunch of back issues (and even alternate reality versions) that you can choose from.



Well, when one gets married, it tends not to be only a part-time gig. It's a life decision. And again, it's one of the few examples of genuine character progression in comics. I mean, who else was Clark going to marry?? Lois was always endgame for him. She's the love of his life. So, I'm sorry, but it just seems stupid to undo it just so that we can retread territory that's already been well tread just so they can end up back together again. Plus, it been over 20 years since they got married. Its a benchmark of the mythos now.

For a comparable situation: There are absolutely fans who don't see Dick Grayson as anything else but Robin and think all of the other Robins and Dick becoming Nightwing should be wiped away from continuity. DC should absolutely and positively NOT give those fans what they want.

I kind of feel like this debate has become circular and repetitive, so I'm just going to say agree to disagree.

(Although I disagree on the whole no regression/character development=good thing, I believe comics should stick with the illusion of change rather than actual substantial status qou changes, but that's a different argument entirely.)

[Osiris-Rex]

Alex Danvers and Kelly Olsen. Just not seeing any chemistry between them like there was with Alex and Maggie Sawyer. And Kelly is just too passive and lacking in personality for Alex. Alex needs a woman with an attitude.

[BlackClaw]

Dan Didio and Dc comics as a whole.

Serious answer: Superman and Wonder Woman. I always felt that the only reason they were paired up was so that Superman didn’t have to worry about (literally) tearing a girl apart in bed.

[Sandy Hausler]

Is there a new or classic DC coupling you would be okay with permanently breaking up?

Clark Kent and Lois Lane. She always annoyed me, and I liked the Superman/Wonder Woman hookup.

[Sandy Hausler]

Idk if break up is the right word given the off again on again depiction of the relationship, but never do Constantine x Zatanna again.

I am so with you with that.

[Sacred Knight]

I kind of feel like this debate has become circular and repetitive, so I'm just going to say agree to disagree.

(Although I disagree on the whole no regression/character development=good thing, I believe comics should stick with the illusion of change rather than actual substantial status qou changes, but that's a different argument entirely.)

Agreed. Its not black and white that progression is good, regression is bad. Character development can and should be good things. Lore progression can and should be a good thing. But it can, does, and has gone bad before, and when it does there's no shame in reverting. Now some people don't think its gone bad at all. Cheers to that. I do. So its not a case of not supporting character growth, or lore growth, or not understanding what those things are. Its just believing there are indeed times where some developments wear out, or were never good in the first place.