Sure you're not thinking a bit highly of yourself thinking that people with PhD's troll the message boards reading your comments?
But I digress, I will give you that.
There are several Superman fans in the Lois/clark fandom with Doctorates. I have a Doctorate myself. So....
Supporting protagonist is more descriptive of Robin then than Lois Lane. Pre marriage at least. But it really depends on the stories then. It isn't like it's a recurring thing in the comics where they have Lois Lane as the focal point or POV of the story every month or even a backup story with her.
It used to be. Lois being pushed aside in the Superman comics is a relatively new thing. There used to be alot more narratives where she shared the POV. Yes, it depends on the story. I didn't say it always happened.
As do many other supporting characters in Superman's universe.
To the same degree as Lois? Not even close. Next to Superman himself, the POV of Lois and Lex are often paramount to a Superman origin narrative. Look at Superman: Birthright or Secret Origins. Lex is the antagonist. Superman is the protagonist. Lois's POV is always almost running parallel to Clark's in terms of her concept of justice and heroism. We always hear her perspective moreso than the others.
Lois & Clark was a reimagined tongue and cheek take on the character with a romantic flair engineered that way to feature Lois as a lead (a staple of sitcoms). It's even in the title, "Lois and Clark". This is not a mainstay of the Superman comics. It's almost like doing a nick at nite show about Jimmy Olsen, IMO, not bashing L&C though because I liked it for what it was and it was my first exposure to the character growing up.
The fact that the narrative focused on romance doesn't make it tongue and cheek.
Deborah Joy Levine designed the show with Lois as the co-star not to be a staple of sitcoms but because she believed that it was time to feature Lois's POV prominantly in the narrative. She was writing in the 90's when the concept of the working woman's feminism was important and finally getting attention.
She took the concept of comics being written for men and challenged the narrative to be inclusive to women. The show had huge mainstream success.
Later seasons, that is the key term here. She is NOT that way right from the get-go?
It really depends on when you are starting your story. If you are starting your story when Clark is 15 years old (which Smallville did) then no, not right away.
If the bulk of your story is told when he's in his 20's...then she is.
And why? Because nobody gives a damn.
Umm..I give a damn. Actually, I know alot of womem who give a damn. She's one of the most interesting parts of the narrative to me and I'm heavily invested in her. Can you try not speaking for others?
Even in the comics, Lois didn't start joining in on Superman's world/narrative until she became more important to him and his narrative and by extension is the viewers/readers, i.e. when they got married/Lois discovered Clark and Superman were one and the same.
That's not true at all. Lois is the only other person present in Action #1 from 1938 besides Superman himself. She's always had a very important role in the narrative and was at the center of the dual identity for decades on end before the marriage. She has always been #2 in the story even prior to the marriage.
Now, I personally preferred the relationship when the secret was out in the open and when they were married. But that doesn't change the fact that she was still vital and important as the 3rd piece of the triangle and as the reporter prior to that.
Which is unlike the Sherlock Holmes comparison as the stories told are supposedly from ones Watson had written about Holmes, so he has to be there from the start, that is a tenet and mainstay of the character, something on which he was founded. Not so with Superman and the "Lois narrative".
Again...that's not correct. On the contrary, Lois is the only other character in the Superman myth that was there when it was founded. She was there from the start of the character and had an important role. She was there before Superman could fly. Before the Kents. Before Luthor. Before The Daily Planet.
Now, the way Lois's story has been told over the years has changed dramatically due, in part, to society's changing role of women. Obviously, a story written in 1950 isn't going to give the same perpsective as a story written in 1990 and so on. But she is the only other mainstay other than Superman himself from the beginning of his creation.
I really think calling her a "supportive protagonist" is entirely relative; it really just depends on what kind of story they are going to tell and is not a mainstay of the character or a foundational element of the Superman mythos.
Except it is. She's the only other person present in Action #1. Her importance to the narrative actually is a mainstay of the character and a foundational element of the Superman mythos.
8 out of 10 times (at least) in the Superman realm a story will be told from his perspective, his narrative, and that is the only narrative that is needed for those stories. If this were not true no one would buy the Superman comics. Present company excluded.
I think you are misunderstanding what the term means. Of course Superman stories are told from his perspective. A supporting protagonist doesn't change that fact. It's just a way of saying that there is another character that often offers perspective in a story that is greater than your average supporting character.
Superman is the star of this narrative. That's not in dispute. I would, however, dispute that his POV is the only one that is needed for a truly complete story. I think there's a reason that most of the time in live action we see her POV...because it helps us further understand the fictional world we are in and provides more emotional resonance for the story. But truly...I think you are just misunderstanding what the term means. Let's just agree to disagree.
t:
/s
