A few things:
Death of Superman is a terrible comic. Yes, Doomsday VS Superman is cool, the funeral is cool, and the 4 who came to take Superman's place were cool, so was the subplot with Hal becoming Parallax, etc. But there is no way they will do a faithful adaptation of it, and I'm not sure I'd even want them to. For as many good things in the story there are at least as many bad things, the underground monsters for one thing, the whole Luthor's son with raging long hair dating clone Supergirl who is really Lex Luthor all along thing is stupid, there is just so much 90s crap in there, it is a hard read for me today. It is a mess, it's not at all self contained, unlike Kingdom Come which is in its own, self contained little world (perfect for alternate media adaptation), even Dark Knight Returns is pretty much self contained.
I don't think it's a terrible comic. I agree there is a ton of 90's era stuff in there but at it's root there is a beautiful story there about Clark, Lois and Jonathan and Martha Kent. They are the core of the story. There is also a beautiful potential message about the way in which the world has come to take Superman for granted---the way we take so many things for granted in our lives. Then he's gone and they don't know where to look. To me, this is a much more powerful way to tell this story than the failed attempt in Superman Returns.
World without a Superman is a powerful story. Watching Lois and Jonathan and Martha grieve has powerful potential.
I'm not saying it's a perfect book. Of course it's not. It's dated. But it also has some core central ideas that work.
Most importantly, the outcome of the story doesn't set the entire DCU on a dark path for years to come. It doesn't interupt other franchises. It doesn't prevent other franchises. It upholds, eventually, the core of Superman and the messageof hope.
Now I understand your feelings about seeing a pattern in superhero stories where the love interest is killed, but one, Kingdom Come was written waaaaaaay before TDK was even a thought.
Of course. But it was written after a million other stories where Lois gets brutally killed off. And a million other stories have been written since that point. Unfortunately, these things are connected now.
Sure, DarK Knight came after the fact. It doesn't change the fact that that's a story that has been done now.
Two, everyone knows Gwen Stacy dies in the comic, and that's so he can be with MJ, who he is supposed to be with, arguably his "real" love interest (she is who he is supposed to be with, IMO). Gwen Stacy is about just slightly more than the Lana Lang equivalent for Spider-Man.
No, I'd argue that Gwen is alot more important than Lana Lang. Alot more important. Yes, I prefer MJ and Peter. But I think that it's important and imperative for Peter to love Gwen first and I also think the experience of losing Gwen is part of what brings MJ and Peter together since MJ loved Gwen too. Gwen has a vital role in the Spider-Man franchise. She's paramount to Peter in that regard.
Kingdom Come is set in the far, far future, and while I don't really like how Lois Lane went out, and believe that Superman SHOULD be with Lois Lane, not Wonder Woman, I was okay with it because it made sense in the context of the story (far, far future) and was what made Superman go into retirement.
Yes, it's set far in the future in a DARK AU. It was not set in the main universe. DC made sure to establish that. Yes, it made sense in the context of that dark story. But I don't think that dark AU which was written to be a dark AU should be presented as the future of the DCU in live cinema.
I would like a JLA movie where all 7 unite. I want Superman in there at the beginning, I don't like the idea of Superman dying bringing the League together. I would rather them kill Lois before Superman because she is a supporting character, albeit the main supporting character of Superman's world.
Except of course that Superman doesn't really die. He comes back. When Lois is dead....she's dead. Never coming back. Kind of a big difference there. I totally understand that you wouldn't like for a JLA movie. No problem there. I respect your opinion.
Also, Lois Lane is arguably the supporting protagonist of the Superman mythos. She's not the protagonist but she's a bit more than the supporting player and has been treated as the co-star at various times throughout history.
Rachel Dawes, I hated that character, and was happy to see her go in TDK. I would have rather they used one of Batman's love interests from the comics in the Nolan films to begin with, even if they did die at some point. Almost any would have been good. That is where I deduct points from the Nolan films, personally. I was just saying that I don't believe it is an intentional trend here or pattern with killing off the "love interests", maybe lazy writing on some parts, I think that's just how it worked out with a lot of them. Nobody was trying to copy someone else.
Oh see, I do disagree there. I do think there has been copying involved because of the lazy writing. Part of the reason Lois Lane kept getting killed in AU Superman stories was because people saw the success of Kingdom Come and completely misunderstood that Mark Waid didn't mean the book to be a how-to guide but meant it as a warning.
Rachel Dawes was created and treated as a disposable character. I understand alot of people didn't like her. I used to be of that opinion. But i've been trying to look closer at her lately and find some value and worth there that I may have missed before. I'd like to appreciate her.
