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.
Which is a story I don't think even needs to be told in the first place. Even if you just want to go by today's audiences, they've already seen that even with stuff like Megamind (great movie). Death of Superman and that story you would like told treats Superman like he is a relic, in an almost religious caricature way. That is the last thing that should ever be done with Superman - they need to go the opposite way and flesh out his personality - what does he like? What doesn't he like? Make him identifiable, yet at the ame time keep him as that "icon" or "figure". We don't need stories that show how "outdated" Superman is, they need to dispel that notion completely. The whole Superman book went down after Byrne left, IMO. Byrne wrote an awesome Superman with awesome stories, second only to Birthright, IMO. I love the issue with Luthor and the boat early on where Superman picks it up. Great stuff. The chemistry/relationship between Clark and Superman was great.
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.
The only reason why anyone even cares about that book is because of the fight with Doomsday. The biggest positive I think that came out of that book was the introducton of Doomsday to the DCU. Now they have another cool toy in the sandbox. I can leave the rest.
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.
No, it does not uphold at all. I can name ten Superman stories I would recommend before ever telling someone to pick up Death of Superman. In fact, that one would be at the very bottom of the pile for me if I am introducing someone to the character. Waid and Mark Millar's Superman animated series comic would be up there for sure (great stuff, everyone should check it out if they haven't, beautiful art and stories), but not DOS. And it DID interrupt other franchises, namely
GREEN LANTERN. Mongul destroyed Coast City in it, Hal became Darth Lantern and they screwed the Green Lantern mythos up for years to come. Now granted Kyle Rayner was cool and had some good stories, but the greatest things about Green Lantern that made the character/mythos were gone! Another reason why I am not a fan of that book.
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.
There is no correlation between the Batman and Superman stories in that respect. TDK didn't go "hey, they've killed Lois and Gwen Stacy a dozen times, let's do that! That will work!", and likewise if they did a Kingdom Come adaptation they would not be doing it because of TDK. That's an essential part of that story, and is certainly no more cliche than any other aspect of each respective character's universe - characters that all have trickled down from Superman and were created as a response to Superman in the first place. Lois' death in Kingdom Come has a much greater impact than Rachel's in TDK, IMO.
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.
Going to have to just disagree here, I think she is a
little more important than Lana Lang. Only reason for that is because she was there from the beginning, there was Clark and Lois before we found out about Lana and Clark from years before. However, I can take or leave Gwen. Yes, I love the old Ditko Spider-Man comics, but I also loved the first two Sam Raimi movies, and they worked just fine without Gwen Stacy, even if MJ was somewhat of a mishmash of the two in the first film.
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.
Not necessarily, and if it is an alternate FILM universe, which is how they should eventually just do them - just tell cool stories without regard to past films, kinda like the James Bond movies did - then I don't see what the problem is. I'm not calling for it to be made anytime soon or even in the next 15 years. I'm just saying it is a great idea to do someday down the line, and you are saying "No! Never!". I don't get that.
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.
Well that is okay....because the stories are about SUPERMAN. And we wouldn't expect otherwise. I'm not calling for any cast member to be killed, but you can bet I will say they can all go before Superman. I mean...he's the whole purpose they even exist. They can't REALLY kill him. Everyone else is disposable in comparison. I'm not a big fan of these "character deaths" anyway, especially the BIG, MAIN ones. If anything is an excuse for lazy writing, it is that, because you know it's just a big fake out and they will be back in some form. But it is entertaining enough I suppose, when you do them right, sometimes, which is the point at the end of the day. But threatening to take away the things we love VS actually taking them away are two different things. I would never want any main character to stay dead which is why I don't like that they even toy with those ideas in the first place because it is just a big marketing ploy but I definitely don't want to not have those characters. It's a lose/lose for me, these "death of ____" stories. They get a big roll of the eyes from me.
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.
Supporting...protagonist? Did you make that up? In a story like Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, etc (sans JLA since they are all stars there or even Batman & Robin to an extent), there is only one protagonist. Everyone else is a supporting character, that includes Lois Lane. She is the strongest, without question, so strong she even has her own totle - "love interest" or "girlfriend". Jimmy Olsen has also been treated as more than just a "supporting character" and "co-star" throughout comics as well:
...but even when they have been "costars", they have always been introduced through Superman. "Superman's pal", "Superman's girlfriend", they only exist because of Superman and their relationships with him are always the focal point of their stories. Otherwise, they serve no purpose.
The same could be said for Steve Trevor from the Wonder Woman comics, so it is not a matter of it being a "sexist" thing or having something against women or not.
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.
I don't think it was because they thought "hey, Lois' death = cash!" but if anything rather saw it as a new thought in their story stew. Nobody had really done it before. But that's in regard to Lois Lane exclusively. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that the writers of the Batman and Spider-Man films are looking at Lois' death and Kingdom Come plot devices for elements in their stories or even pulling from a stable of "cliches" to make their movie work. I think they're just doing what they see is best for and see as the natural development of their characters.
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.
She still sucks. Give me Vicki Vale or Julie Madison any day. Hell, even the Phantasm chick, I wouldn't object to them using Andrea in a movie - in fact, I would love it! I thought it was awesome when Bruce got it on with Talia, which was crazy because she is psychotic - clearly, and then ended up with Catwoman at the end of TDKR. Batman only sleeps with crazy chicks in the Nolan universe lol. The "normal" chick didn't want him, it took a crazy chick to drag him down because only a crazy chick would actually be crazy enough to make a move. Haha. But the Rachel Dawes character was so whiney and a drag every time she was on screen. Nothing Bruce ever did was good enough. She should get an apartment with Dunst's Mary Jane where they can both date guys they know through work while messing with the guys that love them's heads. I hope she never shows up in a comic book.
t:
