• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Could the Superman books survive without Lois Lane

Zeu

Sidekick
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
0
Points
31
In a bold move, the DC editors decide to ax Lois Lane and find a new superheroine love interest for Clark/Supes, breaking 70 years of tradition.

Do you think the Superman books could survive without Lois or has she become as much part of the mythos as the "S" symbol in his chest?
 
Sure. He'd wear some derivative crap version of his costume for awhile. Go a little nuts in space. Brood. And then Alex Ross would paint a classic Superman cover heralding his return (they'd just have to pay him more than usual, since the whole Lois thing would piss him off).
 
Zeu said:
In a bold move, the DC editors decide to ax Lois Lane and find a new superheroine love interest for Clark/Supes, breaking 70 years of tradition.

Do you think the Superman books could survive without Lois or has she become as much part of the mythos as the "S" symbol in his chest?
yes,... yes,... YES YES,.....


YES!!!!!!!



THANK YOU DC!!!!!!!:)
 
^^^^^ It's not happening. The guy's just asking could Supes go on without Lois.
 
Sigh.

I'm thinking an Atlantean ****e would be better for Superman than Lois "I'm reckless because I know he'll save me" Lane.


ARRRGH!!
 
Zeu said:
In a bold move, the DC editors decide to ax Lois Lane and find a new superheroine love interest for Clark/Supes, breaking 70 years of tradition.

Do you think the Superman books could survive without Lois or has she become as much part of the mythos as the "S" symbol in his chest?


It would never happen... WB (not DC) would never allow the character to be "tainted" like that. Same as Disney would never allow Mickey to be with someone other than Minnie.
 
Varient said:
Sigh.

I'm thinking an Atlantean ****e would be better for Superman than Lois "I'm reckless because I know he'll save me" Lane.


ARRRGH!!


sounds like you haven't read a Superman comic in over a decade
 
I don't what the problem with Lois is anyway. The thought of Superman being with someone else other than Lois chills me to the bone. I mean come on, it's Superman and Lois Lane. It's hammered into my conscious
that these two are meant for one another. Even if Superman wasn't with Lois, he would have to be with a human girl otherwise he's even more far-fetched. Lois keeps him human IMO.
 
Theres no point in splitting them up. I mean could the series survive. Well....


Sure they could survive but look at it this way.

X-men - jean grey = emma frost
Spiderman+reconned gwen stacey= sex with green goblin and 2 kids


Point is, stop messing with the love interests. Clark and lois is as natural as icecream and sprinkles.
 
Yeah, I'm gonna have to give you a big fat no on this one as well. I like Supes and Lois the way they are. But, be aware, that should they do this, Mark Miller might get his shot at doing Superman his way. And if you've seen some of the ideas he's had for Supes you'd beg them to spare Lois' life.
 
I like Clark and Lois together. In fact, the only place I don't like them together is in Smallville, and that's just because they drop these ridiculously ham-fisted foreshadows of their predestined future relationship in every goddamn scene.
Lackey said:
It would never happen... WB (not DC) would never allow the character to be "tainted" like that. Same as Disney would never allow Mickey to be with someone other than Minnie.
Mickey should so kick Donald's ass and get some sweet, sweet Daisy lovin'.
 
Superman couldn't survive without Lois. I mean, he turned down Wonder Woman a 1000 years after Lois had died because he could never love another woman.
They belong with eachother.
 
newmexneon said:
Superman couldn't survive without Lois. I mean, he turned down Wonder Woman a 1000 years after Lois had died because he could never love another woman.
They belong with eachother.

Yeah,.. the complete STUPIDITY of that concept,... that a man could go celebate for over 1000 years - 700 of those years after he forgot lois lanes name AND turn down WonderWoman?

If ,..... IF your lifespan were extended by even two hundred years of good youthful health,.. it is improbable to believe that you'd pine away for someone dead for over a hundred of those years with prime womanhood right under your hands just waiting for you to help her get her blue star-spangled drawls off.

That was one story that made Superman seem like a chump, And Wonderwoman seem like a unassuming weak, wallflower of a woman.
 
storyteller said:
Theres no point in splitting them up. I mean could the series survive. Well....


Sure they could survive but look at it this way.

X-men - jean grey = emma frost
Spiderman+reconned gwen stacey= sex with green goblin and 2 kids


Point is, stop messing with the love interests. Clark and lois is as natural as icecream and sprinkles.

When i first looked at that i thought it said natural as ice cream and spiders. wow.
 
just die for that... ugh

as it was pointed out in the IC thread with my E2 supes idea, hed have nothing left... its what keeps him going more then anything... people get shot every day but superman doesnt race around the world at top speed to try to save them... hed be cold and eventually end up just running **** with an iron fist till WW or Bats get sick of his **** and decide they cant get through to him and BOOM ollie shoots him with an exploding kryptonite boxing glove arrow courtesy of bruce wayne
 
I doubt Superman would get too cold if Lois died. He knows he's more a symbol to the world than a mere individual trying to do a job. I'm sure he'd sulk and get all grim for a while, but I think he'd be all right in the long run.
 
Ok, whats up with all these goddamn fans who hate Peter Parker and MJ and Clark and Lois being married?
 
Darthphere said:
Ok, whats up with all these goddamn fans who hate Peter Parker and MJ and Clark and Lois being married?

They are afraid of evolution... they can only be dating because thats how they remember them growing up... same losers that didnt like morrisons x-men... i still think his stuff is the most original and daring AND entertaining since claremonts heyday... but they were afraid of evolving the characters too much so now we have house of M... blah...
 
sethcohen said:
They are afraid of evolution... they can only be dating because thats how they remember them growing up... same losers that didnt like morrisons x-men... i still think his stuff is the most original and daring AND entertaining since claremonts heyday... but they were afraid of evolving the characters too much so now we have house of M... blah...

morrisons was piss poor,i dont care which direction they wanted to go,it was just piss poor writing.
 
I thought most of Morrison's run was pretty good, myself. The last few arcs sucked, but stuff like "Riot at Xavier's" was great.
sethcohen said:
They are afraid of evolution... they can only be dating because thats how they remember them growing up... same losers that didnt like morrisons x-men... i still think his stuff is the most original and daring AND entertaining since claremonts heyday... but they were afraid of evolving the characters too much so now we have house of M... blah...
Actually, I think it's the opposite: they're afraid of stagnation. It's a lot easier to expose a character to different experiences and story possibilities when he's single and basically has a revolving door of romantic interests. Taking the main character and the same spouse and keeping them interesting is a lot harder.

Of course, on the other side of the fence (where I am, since I like Peter and Clark in their marriages), one could point out that a writer worth his salt would be able to make the marriage interesting or use it as a stable foundation to shift the focus so other interesting situations could be built.
 
TheCorpulent1 said:
Of course, on the other side of the fence (where I am, since I like Peter and Clark in their marriages), one could point out that a writer worth his salt would be able to make the marriage interesting or use it as a stable foundation to shift the focus to other interesting situations could be built.

exactly!
 
TheCorpulent1 said:
I thought most of Morrison's run was pretty good, myself. The last few arcs sucked, but stuff like "Riot at Xavier's" was great.

Actually, I think it's the opposite: they're afraid of stagnation. It's a lot easier to expose a character to different experiences and story possibilities when he's single and basically has a revolving door of romantic interests. Taking the main character and the same spouse and keeping them interesting is a lot harder.

Of course, on the other side of the fence (where I am, since I like Peter and Clark in their marriages), one could point out that a writer worth his salt would be able to make the marriage interesting or use it as a stable foundation to shift the focus so other interesting situations could be built.


I just dont see why the hate, its like it was a logical step forward in their lives. Unlike a BP and Storm wedding, which some people opposed to the Peter/MJ, Clark/Lois marriages actually endorse.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"