BvS Zach Snyder plans to speak with Frank Miller for MoS Sequel

[TheFlamingCoco]

Except you missed a HUGE component of the problem here: LOIS.

The moral triangle in a Superman movie should NOT be between Superman/Lex/Batman. It should be BETWEEN SUPERMAN/LOIS/LEX.

Do you understand how totally male-centered this movie just became? Do you understand how insulting it is for me to see the Superman mythos---a mythos that has a HUGE FEMALE LEADING PLAYER---be treated as this totally male-centric sausage fest now?

Lois Lane is not just Superman's lover/wife/partner. The Superman mythos has an ACTUAL FEMALE LEAD. It's one of the few male superhero properties that actually HAS one. The Superman mythos is female driven in a way the Batman mythos is NOT. Which is not to say that there are not AMAZING women in the Bat mythos because there are. But, in general, Batman's journey does not revolve around a WOMAN. Superman's journey DOES. Lois Lane is not just there to be the lover. She HAS A ROLE To play here and should never be shunted aside for another DUDE.

Lex Luthor is not just the enemy of Superman. He's also the enemy of LOIS LANE and she has her own hatred, history and battles to fight with him. Their history has been portrayed multiple ways over the years (I am not a fan of them having a romantic history) but no matter which way you go their relationship is significant because Lois Lane is ON TO HIM.

Fighting Lex Luthor is not a battle that Superman does alone. Lois is a huge part of that. She's helping fight the corruption from within. She's the one who gets in Lex's face publicly when CLARK KENT has to stand back. She's the one fighting the war while Superman hides in plain sight.

It's not ok to say, "Well LEx can still be a huge part of the movie because now we get a Joker/Dent/Batman triangle for Superman." NO. Because Lois Lane is not Rachel Dawes. Lois Lane is part of that moral struggle and part of that fight. She's part of that triangle. She is NOT the woman standing on the sidelines and it's wrong to MAKE her that way.

The moral battleground 'TRIANGLe" here was supposed to be Clark/Lois/Lex. There is a WOMAN who is supposed to be in the middle of this who probably is now only going to be a supporting player because BATMAN just came in and stole her role. WB has literally taken a movie where a WOMAN should have been a huge, huge part of the moral conflict and they have GUARANTEED that she will be pushed to the sidelines. They made the project more male-centric. They did.

Do you get this? I'm asking honestly. Do you understand why this is a problem? In a genre where we CANNOT seem to get a female led superhero movie to save our life, the one woman who SHOULD have been a co-lead in this movie and the heart of the conflict with Superman has now been shunted to the supporting sidelines because of Batman. There is no way it's not going to happen. And as a woman, that just depresses the hell out of me. Lois deserved more than she got in Man of Steel and Clark/Lois absolutely deserved MORE. But some of us defended the film because we figured...ok....we have a sequel. Lois will get her due in a sequel. Lois/Clark will come center stage in the sequel as it should. And now...we get THIS. So I'm sorry but I just can't be charitable to Batfans right now. Not as a female fan. Because it's bad enough I can't get a Black Widow movie or a Wonder Woman movie but now, I have to sit back and watch the female lead of the Superman mythos get pushed aside for another man.

Lois can still be a KEY player even WITH Batman. First of all, forget the World's Finest movie. It won't work now, and even if it does, it's not the movie Superman needs yet.

But if Lois conspires with Superman to take Lex down, Batman can play a peripheral role by being a mysterious character who is only unveiled in the third act.

I'm telling you, for this to be a proper MOS2, Batman would have to be a character who appears, complicates, and leaves.

As soon as it's a team-up, it all becomes silly, and the focus changes from Clark and the people around him to Superman/Batman saving the day.

Again, the only way to make this a good part II is to show Batman as a minor character in the last half hour of the movie, letting the rest be divided up with Clark, Lois, the Daily Planet, a prominent superpowered foe (not Luthor), the conspiracy against Superman, and a mysterious stalker observing both Clark and Supes (which turns out to be Batman).

By having Batman reveal his purpose during fighting, Clark can realize his ultimate form of submission would be to try to avoid conflict, only to realize that Batman doesn't take to quiet conversation well. In between blows, Superman tells him the truth, because he's afraid of physically hurting Batman, and wants to show him the gravity of the situation.

They can both stop fighting (and in Superman's case, spinning around so that Batman has a hard time holding on). Thus the VS part of the story is fulfilled.

And then having cleared up their differences, Batman can leave, knowing that Superman is stronger than he can ever be, and that at best, he can serve as back-up, and exits from the story.

Sure, some people might ask what the point of Batman was, but I'm sure there will be many commentators telling on how he is a personified representation of human fear, anger, mistrust, and obsession. And he would be too small a character to the movie to "ruin it."

But they'll probably WarMachine the final moments, and that's if the rest of the narrative was still MOS2.

The movie we get will probably be World's Finest, for good or ill.

 

[John Lambert]

Lex isnt 100% percent confirmed .

On the other hand, Lois is 100% confirmed. Of course, Lois was also in Superman III, so Lois being cast and Lois having a significant role are different stories entirely. This is why I think Lois needs to be the one to discover BW=BM.

 

[John Lambert]

I get it.

Then again, Amy Adams has already been reported to be returning. There's still a chance this could be an ensemble movie where everyone gets a chance to shine. I loved Amy as Lois in MoS.

Honestly, all of your concerns are valid but I feel like you're just using my posts as a launching pad to vent your frustration here.

Again, I was ALL FOR a movie that had Clark/Lois/Lex at the center of it. I was not clamoring for Batman to be in this movie. But he is now whether we all like it or not, and all I can do is roll with the punches at this point.

And at the same time, if JL and/or Trinity is where we're headed, Diana might end up becoming the central heroine of the DCU.

I see Lois having a role similar in size to what Pepper Pots had in the Iron Man films. And Pepper was an awesome part of those movies IMO and was given plenty to do. Especially in Iron Man 3.

Such would be an insult to Lois though, and is unacceptable. I have to admit my favorite is "Lois and Clark" where Lois at times is actually arguably a bigger character than Clark/Superman. It probably helped that a woman was the moving force behind that show. Although I have to say I hated how they did the Clark/Lois/Lex triangle, even if having Lois chose Clark over Lex, without knowing Lex is a criminal or CK=SM is nice. I just hated their taking it to the wire method of doing so.

I have to be another person to say I wish we were not seeing Batman in MOS2, but that is what we will get, so I hope they do it well.

 

[Mysteryman]

That was one of the first things I thought about when this film was announced .

 

[Audrey]

I get it.

Then again, Amy Adams has already been reported to be returning. There's still a chance this could be an ensemble movie where everyone gets a chance to shine. I loved Amy as Lois in MoS.

Honestly, all of your concerns are valid but I feel like you're just using my posts as a launching pad to vent your frustration here.

Again, I was ALL FOR a movie that had Clark/Lois/Lex at the center of it. I was not clamoring for Batman to be in this movie. But he is now whether we all like it or not, and all I can do is roll with the punches at this point.

And at the same time, if JL and/or Trinity is where we're headed, Diana might end up becoming the central heroine of the DCU.

I see Lois having a role similar in size to what Pepper Pots had in the Iron Man films. And Pepper was an awesome part of those movies IMO and was given plenty to do. Especially in Iron Man 3.

You were the one who brought up the idea of the film having a Batman/Joker/Dent triangle with Superman/Batman/Lex. I'm responding specifically to that point and explaining why that is still problematic. An "ensemble" Superman movie is probematic when only one of the people in that ensemble is a WOMAN.

Wonder Woman should be the central heroine of a Justice League movie. But this isn't a Justice League movie. It was supposed to be a Superman movie.

Lois Lane is the heroine in the Superman mythos. Wonder Woman has her OWN mythos and she should be the heroine of a Justice League film. These two things do not actually conflict despite DC Comics recent confusion/blundering of the issue.

And with all due respect, I'm sorry but the comparison to Pepper Potts is terrible and just does not work here as Pepper, as great a she was, was the definition of a supporting player in the Iron Man movies.

Pepper Potts was great in the Iron Man franchise but it was an example of a film taking a female character who does NOT have that role in the comics and then giving her a bit more to do in the movies.

Lois Lane is a 75 year old heroine and the first woman of comics. Lois Lane is more important to the Superman mythos than Pepper Potts is to Iron Man despite Pepper's recent film treatment.

And as enjoyable as Pepper was...she didn't actually have her own battle she was fighting. Outside of talking about her relationship with Tony, we barely ever heard her talk about her OWN dreams or her own history. She was basically there to be Tony's love interest which she great at. And sure we got to see her kick some butt. But she wasn't really emotionally involved in Tony's battle with the bad guy. I know everyone thought Pepper was great in Iron Man 3 but frankly I wasn't that impressed. She vanished for a HUGE portion of the movie while Tony was off alone and then showed up the end and punched a bunch of stuff. And I know, as a woman, I'm supposed to be thrilled or something when women punch people (in their underwear/bra no less) but I'd much rather have a female have a really deep role in the story where she is there from start to finish and has her own perspective as opposed to being gifted with a scene where the woman shows up to bunch some stuff to prove she's tough and can handle herself. I don't think Iron Man 3 was this great feminist achievement that people seem to think it was. But I think it fooled a lot of people into thinking it was bc our culture gets VERY fooled right now into thinking that women have to punch people to prove they are tough and kickass. That's a thing now. We assume that if women show up and throw a punch that they are kicking butt. Which is another rant for another day.

Lois Lane has her OWN backstory and her OWN relationship with Lex Luthor. There is a huge difference here.

If Lois Lane winds up having the same kind of role Pepper Potts had in Iron Man that would be a failure on the part of Goyer and Snyder. Not because Pepper isn't great. She is. But Lois Lane is more important and has her own journey that should be at the CENTER of a Superman narrative. It's just not enough. The Superman/Lois narrative should be at the CENTER of a Superman narrative not just something on the side to add comedic relief and a kiss at the end of the movie. Lois Lane deserves more than Pepper Potts. Potts will never be a benchmark for how she should be handled despite how enjoyable the Iron Man movies were.

I'm not trying to pick on you here because I can tell you are trying to be really thoughtful. It's just that, in the process, you have brought up some points and comparisons that sort of highlight the entire problem with this premise. The only way this fillm works and doesn't totally screw over Superman, Lex and especially Lois Lane is if Batman comes in as a supporting player with a very minimal role and is not considered a co-lead in the film. But I just do not see that happening.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I pretty much agree. MOS2 should be about Clark balancing his new life as a superhero with his regular life. Lois is a big part of that.

The plot should occur as a way of bringing the characters together and developing them, rather than a stand-alone neat story. A sequel would be hard to make as it is. I don't think Batman makes it easier.

 

[vantheman77]

I don't know why Zack would want to talk to Frank Miller of all people when Frank is not a Superman fan. If Superman loses to Batman in his own film, I don't know how Superman will recover because it would be a blow to Superman and his fans. Batman is overexposed right now.

 

[JDklip]

^ That's the ironic thing, for me. I feel like Zack has tried to give MOS heart."

I agree with you here. I feel like he and Goyer definitely tried to give MOS heart. I think they absolutely aspired to make a great film, and because they're comic book fans they tried to honor the tenets of Superman that everyone wanted to see. But I also feel like, with a character like Superman, you need to be passionate about what makes him unique and what he stands for to make sure that comes across. I just don't think these guys get that about Superman - and not in an intellectual way, but rather in a way that allows them to relate to the character. That's why I think it matters that a creative team behind Superman "get" him. Because the key to Superman for me, and I think a lot of people, has always been his humanity - his heart. That's his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. And I don't really think Snyder and Goyer relate to that.

I actually feel like he's a bigger fan of the genre and characters than Nolan is. Heck, the costume redesign is more comic-bookish than Bale's Batsuits ever were.

But Chris Nolan makes up for it with his sheer storytelling ability.

That's why his films feel "right" even when I can tell you how ridiculously out of character it is for Batman to leave someone in a doomed train."

Yep, I'm in total agreement with you here too. I love the TDK trilogy, and I like Batman a lot. But Batman leaving someone to die on a train is crazy out-of-character. His retiring is out-of-character. That's his thing - his indomitable will and commitment to being Batman is a central piece of that character. For him, there is no end to the crusade. But the Nolans are writers, and they very intimately understand story - so you forgive their lapses because the overall tale is so strong.

Again, if MOS were better, we probably wouldn't be discussing about how the climax was handled or the beacon leading Zod to Earth.

The Nolans are writers. They can "fix" something at a script level. I don't think Zack can.

"I feel like a lot of the warmth for the TDK trilogy comes from Jonah Nolan, who cares more about Batman than Chris does. Heck, POI feels more in the spirit of Batman (at times) than the trilogy."

Yep, right on again. I have no disagreements here. I feel like Chris Nolan respects Batman, but I don't know if we can really call him a fan.

"If all this sounds like a giant bashing of the TDK trilogy, it's not. If the movies weren't as well made as they are, fans would rage more."

No, it doesn't sound like bashing at all. I've been in total agreement with you on everything. We're fans and human beings, not blind zealots. We'll like things and not like things about even the most celebrated stories.

We might eventually get Batman adaptations in live action that are as well made as they are faithful.

 

[hafizbat]

You were the one who brought up the idea of the film having a Batman/Joker/Dent triangle with Superman/Batman/Lex. I'm responding specifically to that point and explaining why that is still problematic. An "ensemble" Superman movie is probematic when only one of the people in that ensemble is a WOMAN.

Wonder Woman should be the central heroine of a Justice League movie. But this isn't a Justice League movie. It was supposed to be a Superman movie.

Lois Lane is the heroine in the Superman mythos. Wonder Woman has her OWN mythos and she should be the heroine of a Justice League film. These two things do not actually conflict despite DC Comics recent confusion/blundering of the issue.

And with all due respect, I'm sorry but the comparison to Pepper Potts is terrible and just does not work here as Pepper, as great a she was, was the definition of a supporting player in the Iron Man movies.

Pepper Potts was great in the Iron Man franchise but it was an example of a film taking a female character who does NOT have that role in the comics and then giving her a bit more to do in the movies.

Lois Lane is a 75 year old heroine and the first woman of comics. Lois Lane is more important to the Superman mythos than Pepper Potts is to Iron Man despite Pepper's recent film treatment.

And as enjoyable as Pepper was...she didn't actually have her own battle she was fighting. Outside of talking about her relationship with Tony, we barely ever heard her talk about her OWN dreams or her own history. She was basically there to be Tony's love interest which she great at. And sure we got to see her kick some butt. But she wasn't really emotionally involved in Tony's battle with the bad guy. I know everyone thought Pepper was great in Iron Man 3 but frankly I wasn't that impressed. She vanished for a HUGE portion of the movie while Tony was off alone and then showed up the end and punched a bunch of stuff. And I know, as a woman, I'm supposed to be thrilled or something when women punch people (in their underwear/bra no less) but I'd much rather have a female have a really deep role in the story where she is there from start to finish and has her own perspective as opposed to being gifted with a scene where the woman shows up to bunch some stuff to prove she's tough and can handle herself. I don't think Iron Man 3 was this great feminist achievement that people seem to think it was. But I think it fooled a lot of people into thinking it was bc our culture gets VERY fooled right now into thinking that women have to punch people to prove they are tough and kickass. That's a thing now. We assume that if women show up and throw a punch that they are kicking butt. Which is another rant for another day.

Lois Lane has her OWN backstory and her OWN relationship with Lex Luthor. There is a huge difference here.

If Lois Lane winds up having the same kind of role Pepper Potts had in Iron Man that would be a failure on the part of Goyer and Snyder. Not because Pepper isn't great. She is. But Lois Lane is more important and has her own journey that should be at the CENTER of a Superman narrative. It's just not enough. The Superman/Lois narrative should be at the CENTER of a Superman narrative not just something on the side to add comedic relief and a kiss at the end of the movie. Lois Lane deserves more than Pepper Potts. Potts will never be a benchmark for how she should be handled despite how enjoyable the Iron Man movies were.

I'm not trying to pick on you here because I can tell you are trying to be really thoughtful. It's just that, in the process, you have brought up some points and comparisons that sort of highlight the entire problem with this premise. The only way this fillm works and doesn't totally screw over Superman, Lex and especially Lois Lane is if Batman comes in as a supporting player with a very minimal role and is not considered a co-lead in the film. But I just do not see that happening.

Haha are you Amy Adams? Lol JK. IMO Lois Lane is nothing more than a love interest for Superman, similar to Mary Jane for Spider-Man or Pepper Potts for Iron Man. She's not a heroine, not even close to Diana who is a legit lead character. And I'm sorry but I feel like you're grasping when you call a story about Batman and Superman a geek sausage fest and complain about the lack of a woman...It annoys me when people bring their whole gender issue when this is a movie about two male characters who happen to be the most iconic superheroes in the world. It sounds rather ridiculous to complain about Lois Lane not being as big a character as them and it reeks of feminism.

 

[The Guard]

I don't see an issue here. Frank Miller wrote one of the definitive Batman/Superman interactions, and brought a depth to their relationship and the concept of them globally, and a perspective that was somewhat lacking in comics at the time of DKR. He's still a pretty good idea man, if a bit less focused and restrained in his actual writing than he used to be. But he won't be writing the script, either.

Given Goyer's statements about Superman tackling global issues, hints at the government having issues with Superman in MOS, and the inclusion of Batman, I don't see the issue with Snyder consulting or speaking with Frank Miller to discuss the broader themes and concepts at play in DKR, which may not be adapted for this movie, but will certainly inform it based on what we've heard thus far. It doesn't mean that's the only person he's going to consult with, either. Jeez, people.

 

[hafizbat]

I think the main issue, above all else, is that Snyder is consulting the man who made Batman kick Superman's butt.

 

[BH/HHH]

I think the main issue, above all else, is that Snyder is consulting the man who made Batman kick Superman's butt.

Well that and the comment about Snyder doing what WBs wants.

 

[BatLobster]

Spoiler

You were the one who brought up the idea of the film having a Batman/Joker/Dent triangle with Superman/Batman/Lex. I'm responding specifically to that point and explaining why that is still problematic. An "ensemble" Superman movie is probematic when only one of the people in that ensemble is a WOMAN.

Wonder Woman should be the central heroine of a Justice League movie. But this isn't a Justice League movie. It was supposed to be a Superman movie.

Lois Lane is the heroine in the Superman mythos. Wonder Woman has her OWN mythos and she should be the heroine of a Justice League film. These two things do not actually conflict despite DC Comics recent confusion/blundering of the issue.

And with all due respect, I'm sorry but the comparison to Pepper Potts is terrible and just does not work here as Pepper, as great a she was, was the definition of a supporting player in the Iron Man movies.

Pepper Potts was great in the Iron Man franchise but it was an example of a film taking a female character who does NOT have that role in the comics and then giving her a bit more to do in the movies.

Lois Lane is a 75 year old heroine and the first woman of comics. Lois Lane is more important to the Superman mythos than Pepper Potts is to Iron Man despite Pepper's recent film treatment.

And as enjoyable as Pepper was...she didn't actually have her own battle she was fighting. Outside of talking about her relationship with Tony, we barely ever heard her talk about her OWN dreams or her own history. She was basically there to be Tony's love interest which she great at. And sure we got to see her kick some butt. But she wasn't really emotionally involved in Tony's battle with the bad guy. I know everyone thought Pepper was great in Iron Man 3 but frankly I wasn't that impressed. She vanished for a HUGE portion of the movie while Tony was off alone and then showed up the end and punched a bunch of stuff. And I know, as a woman, I'm supposed to be thrilled or something when women punch people (in their underwear/bra no less) but I'd much rather have a female have a really deep role in the story where she is there from start to finish and has her own perspective as opposed to being gifted with a scene where the woman shows up to bunch some stuff to prove she's tough and can handle herself. I don't think Iron Man 3 was this great feminist achievement that people seem to think it was. But I think it fooled a lot of people into thinking it was bc our culture gets VERY fooled right now into thinking that women have to punch people to prove they are tough and kickass. That's a thing now. We assume that if women show up and throw a punch that they are kicking butt. Which is another rant for another day.

Lois Lane has her OWN backstory and her OWN relationship with Lex Luthor. There is a huge difference here.

If Lois Lane winds up having the same kind of role Pepper Potts had in Iron Man that would be a failure on the part of Goyer and Snyder. Not because Pepper isn't great. She is. But Lois Lane is more important and has her own journey that should be at the CENTER of a Superman narrative. It's just not enough. The Superman/Lois narrative should be at the CENTER of a Superman narrative not just something on the side to add comedic relief and a kiss at the end of the movie. Lois Lane deserves more than Pepper Potts. Potts will never be a benchmark for how she should be handled despite how enjoyable the Iron Man movies were.

I'm not trying to pick on you here because I can tell you are trying to be really thoughtful. It's just that, in the process, you have brought up some points and comparisons that sort of highlight the entire problem with this premise. The only way this fillm works and doesn't totally screw over Superman, Lex and especially Lois Lane is if Batman comes in as a supporting player with a very minimal role and is not considered a co-lead in the film. But I just do not see that happening.

It's fine, I see where you're coming from and I'm glad there is no animosity between us.

It's unfortunate, but it does seem that one of the reactions against Superman Returns is to downplay the romance and crank up the testosterone. Man of Steel seemed like a pretty deliberate attempt to do just that. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the reality. But there were positive side effects of that too. Lois was far more than just a damsel in distress in MOS. Heck, my favorite scene in the film is her aboard the Kryptonian ship with Jor-El guiding her. She was given really cool stuff to do where I was cheering her on as much as I was Kal.

And with how much this iteration of the Superman story seems centered on how the world views and reacts to the presence of aliens/extraordinary beings on Earth, Lois being a reporter puts her at the center of that.

I look at it this way...TDK managed to give Batman, Joker, Dent and Gordon all very key satisfying roles (in addition to great supporting roles with important things to do for Alfred, Rachel and Lucius). If they can't manage to write strong parts for Bruce, Clark, Lex and Lois, it won't be due to Batman being in the story, it'll be due to Goyer and Snyder not being up to the task of writing a balanced screenplay. I hope they are.

I don't see an issue here. Frank Miller wrote one of the definitive Batman/Superman interactions, and brought a depth to their relationship and the concept of them globally, and a perspective that was somewhat lacking in comics at the time of DKR. He's still a pretty good idea man, if a bit less focused and restrained in his actual writing than he used to be. But he won't be writing the script, either.

Given Goyer's statements about Superman tackling global issues, hints at the government having issues with Superman in MOS, and the inclusion of Batman, I don't see the issue with Snyder consulting or speaking with Frank Miller to discuss the broader themes and concepts at play in DKR, which may not be adapted for this movie, but will certainly inform it based on what we've heard thus far. It doesn't mean that's the only person he's going to consult with, either. Jeez, people.

Amen. The thing is, some Superman fans seem to resent that DKReturns is considered one of the definitive Batman/Superman interactions, but that doesn't change the fact that it is widely considered to be just that.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

That comment about Snyder complying with WB, despite his own feelings with Superman, doesn't sound too good does it?

It'll be Batman vs. Superman.
An epic showdown between the two with LOTS of Kyrptonite.
Batman will be the badass.

This may keep WB's head above water in a crowded 2015, but I don't think this bodes well for the Superman franchise in the long-term.

 

[shauner111]

It'll be fine. Superman wont be anyone's chump. Maybe for a moment with Batman but it wont last. He wont be a government puppet or look stupid.

 

[kalhawj]

If this movie have no dept in story, plot, and character development and simply a vs movie like alien vs Predator or Jason vs Freddy WB will not get my money... This movie needs to be about Superman with Batman being the side character who help develop the story and plot which eventually lead to their short encounter and than teaming to defeat the villain. So far I'm not liking what I'm hearing... I hope something good enlightens us as more details about the movie is release... Right now it's gloom and doom only

 

[BatLobster]

It'll be fine. Superman wont be anyone's chump. Maybe for a moment with Batman but it wont last. He wont be a government puppet or look stupid.

I think what people are failing to realize here is that it's not epic if Superman is just made to look bad and Batman PWNS him. It does Batman no favors if Superman looks bad.

It IS epic if they're both portrayed as these awesome, larger than life beings on a collision course. Both will have their moments to shine.

 

[Audrey]

Haha are you Amy Adams? Lol JK. IMO Lois Lane is nothing more than a love interest for Superman, similar to Mary Jane for Spider-Man or Pepper Potts for Iron Man. She's not a heroine, not even close to Diana who is a legit lead character. And I'm sorry but I feel like you're grasping when you call a story about Batman and Superman a geek sausage fest and complain about the lack of a woman...It annoys me when people bring their whole gender issue when this is a movie about two male characters who happen to be the most iconic superheroes in the world. It sounds rather ridiculous to complain about Lois Lane not being as big a character as them and it reeks of feminism.

Gee, you really told me. I'm just not even sure how to respond to this because you just....you really got me here. Except that you know...you're wrong and uninformed. So that's a bummer for you.

Lois Lane is a heroine and she's the female lead of the Superman mythos. She exists as both the woman Clark loves and a heroine in her own right. She was created as a career women in an era where career women barely existed in media and this was done on purpose.

There are actual books with, you know, facts (I know..darn those facts!) written and published about this. Brad Ricca wrote a wonderful book that was published very recently that deals with this exact issue on the creation of Superman and the history of the Siegel family. It's excellent and I strongly encourage you to read it. http://www.amazon.com/Super-Boys-Ad...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375391169&sr=1-1

Just yesterday, Comics Alliance published a beautiful interview with Dana Delany where Dana talked openly about the inspiration and power she drew from Lois as a woman and how that influenced her growing up even before she took on the iconic role in the Animated Series. In fact, the entire focus of the interview is on Lois's role as a heroine. Her romantic relationship with Superman is barely mentioned in the interview. http://comicsalliance.com/dana-delany-interview-lois-lane-superman-animated-series-flashpoint/

Real life female journalists have credited Lois Lane with inspiring them to find the courage to enter the profession. Here is one such article called, "A Love Letter to Lois Lane" by a real journalism Professor at Northwestern University. http://www.amazon.com/Super-Boys-Adventures-Shuster----Creators/dp/0312643802/ref=sr_1_1/182-4331455-1242854?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375389565&sr=1-1

I won't waste time linking to the hundreds of interviews given by the other women who played her: Amy Adams, Erica Durance, Teri Hatcher, Margot Kidder who all talked, in depth, about how the character impacted them.

Of note is that when Teri Hatcher joined Facebook she shared that she was bombarded with thousands of women thanking her for playing Lois in the 90's because Lois was one of the only examples of a "career woman" on television for a lot of little girls growing up in the 90's. Hatcher has said that no matter where she goes in the world people STILL stop her because they want to talk about "Lois and Clark."

I will, however, link to this youtube video of a short documentary entitled, "Being Lois Lane" that features Noel Neill, Margot Kidder, Dana and Erica Durance as well as leadership at DC Comics talking about Lois's impact as a heroine in pop culture.

Being Lois Lane Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y95t8bAIeo

Being Lois Lane Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR9OO8CTuvM


I'll also link you to some of the great creator interviews that have taken place for Lois Lane's 75th anniversary that detail at length just how vital she is to the Superman mythos as a whole and how inspiring she's been to women for 75 years.

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/48383908030/75-years-of-lois-lane-a-chat-with-greg-rucka

Lois Lane? She’s the best reporter at the Daily Planet, and arguably the best investigative reporter in the world. She’s a woman with Superman’s courage, but without Superman’s powers to justify it. I mean… look, if you view Superman as aspirational, as the stories and adventures of a man who wants us to be ourselves at our best, then Lois is quintessentially that. She is absolutely the focus of that aspiration - brilliant, beautiful, courageous, kind, an advocate for truth and for justice, but amidst all that, always entirely human, possessed of all our foibles and insecurities and flaws. I love her fearlessness and her smarts, her morality and her ethics. I love that she’s a professional, who is legitimately good at her job, if not one of the best (even if we so-often don’t get to see that in the comics). I love that she does not surrender, and she does not back down. There’s so much there. She’s gone beyond quantification for me.--Greg Rucka

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/48624946890/75-years-of-lois-lane-a-chat-with-bryan-q-miller

Lois embodies everything about the Human spirit that Clark aspires to protect and preserve. She’s his grounding element - the thing that reminds him not only what he’s fighting for, but why. Regardless of the state of their romantic involvement, Lois Lane is the person that motivates Superman in his day-to-day life. The Kents built him from the ground up. The House of El gives him his legacy. Lois Lane gives Clark Kent his future. .....Lois Lane is Clark Kent’s Superman ---Bryan Q. Miller

http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/48874005196/75-years-of-lois-lane-a-chat-with-mindy-newell

My Lois goes where angels fear to tread. My Lois stands by her friends. My Lois believes in truth, justice, and the American way. My Lois believes in the First Amendment and freedom of the press and will go to jail to protect a source. My Lois keeps a bottle of Scotch in the bottom drawer of her desk. My Lois can swear like a sailor and cry like a baby. ....
Superman needs Lois because she humanizes him. Without Lois, Superman will always stand apart—the man who fell apart-the man who fell to earth, the star child, the literal Alien. Lois is the doppleganger for a humanity that embraces the Stranger.---Mindy Newell

What interests me most about Lois is the fact that she has the same sort of moral initiative and moral compass that Superman has, and Clark has, and in that he sees a kindred spirit. Sometimes as a woman, as a reporter, as a good guy, she’s someone who stands alone against tremendous adversity (in this book, too, life threatening adversity), and it reminds him of what he stands for as well. In that way, they are kindred spirits. And so, that sort of twin relationship where they have that sexual tension, they have that romantic tension, but at the end of the day, what I think it is is he admires her, he looks up to her, and she looks up to Clark as much as she doesn’t want to admit it--Scott Snyder

Wonder Woman is a different kind of heroine. She's a superheroine with her own book and her own mythos. I love Wonder Woman btw. I'm a HUGE fan of Wonder Woman. But Wonder Woman is not the heroine of the Superman mythos. That's not her job. And Lois Lane is not LESSER than Wonder Woman bc she doesn't wear a sexy costume or have physical power. That's not how this works. There is no such thing.

Mary Jane Watson is wonderful and a huge and important part of the Spider-Man mythos. She is not just a love interest either. Pepper Potts was a great character in the Iron Man film franchise but has nowhere near the importance or impact or either Lois Lane or Mary Jane Watson in the source material and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

As for your other comments....Am I Amy Adams? I wish! Then I'd have 4 Oscar nominations and I'd have made out with Henry Cavill! How awesome would THAT be?

And I honestly hope my post reeked of feminism because feminism only means that we want men and women to be treated equally and I'll never be ashamed to want that in my narratives by you or anyone else.

So thanks so much for your comment! Looks like you have some reading to do though since you clearly aren't so informed. But thanks for playing!

 

[Audrey]

Amen. The thing is, some Superman fans seem to resent that DKReturns is considered one of the definitive Batman/Superman interactions, but that doesn't change the fact that it is widely considered to be just that

It's considered one of the definitive Batman/Superman interactions by BATMAN fans and by fans who are ignorant of the Superman mythos.

It's not widely considered to be a definitive interpretation by people who genuinely love Superman and are actually educated on his mythos and the character.

The Dark Knight Returns is not a Batman/Superman story. It's a BATMAN story that has Superman in it and he's portrayed very poorly in it. It's not a definitive ANYTHING for Superman. It's only definitive to people who know NOTHING about Superman.

Therein lies the problem.

Yes, I resent that a story that is told from Batman's POV that was written by a man who HATES Superman and absolutely does not understand him, love him or care about him is a narrative that is considered a "definitive" interaction for Superman. Why wouldn't a Superman fan resent that? It's logical to resent something that insulting to something we love.

 

[Shikamaru]

I read the title of this thread and got chills up my spine.

Well, any chance of this movie being even decent are gone now.

 

[BatLobster]

It's considered one of the definitive Batman/Superman interactions by BATMAN fans and by fans who are ignorant of the Superman mythos.

It's not widely considered to be a definitive interpretation by people who genuinely love Superman and are actually educated on his mythos and the character.

The Dark Knight Returns is not a Batman/Superman story. It's a BATMAN story that has Superman in it and he's portrayed very poorly in it. It's not a definitive ANYTHING for Superman. It's only definitive to people who know NOTHING about Superman.

Therein lies the problem.

Perhaps definitive is the wrong word. But it's certainly iconic.

It's important to remember that there are plenty of comic book readers who are fans of both Batman and Superman and are informed about both, who enjoy The Dark Knight Returns.

It's not a definitive portrayal of Superman at all. It's a warped bizarro "what if?" interpretation of him. But it is the most famous and iconic encounter between the two characters in their 75 year history. It's just the way it is.

Plenty of Batman fans hate DKReturns too. It's a controversial book. But nobody can argue that it's an influential and iconic work. Many comic writers of today had their minds blown reading that for the first time in '86, and may not have gotten into comics if not for that experience. It was the "gateway drug" for a lot of people.

 

[shauner111]

I read the title of this thread and got chills up my spine.

Well, any chance of this movie being even decent are gone now.

Don't be dramatic people. Miller has said himself that he only did that to Superman because he was appearing in a Batman story. This might actually be a little more Superman than batman or at least equal so Zack and Miller will talk about doing a version of his Returns story. Meaning Superman will be done different. And Bruce wont be in his 50s.

 

[BH/HHH]

Don't be dramatic people. Miller has said himself that he only did that to Superman because he was appearing in a Batman story. This might actually be a little more Superman than batman or at least equal so Zack and Miller will talk about doing a version of his Returns story. Meaning Superman will be done different. And Bruce wont be in his 50s.

This is just about Miller not wholly what you said.

As I said before though he said that, then years later treat him even worse in Strikes Again and All Star B&R. Let me ask you this, you work for a company are you going to say bad things about one of its major characters?

I agree about people overreacting though.

 

[Audrey]

Perhaps definitive is the wrong word. But it's certainly iconic.

It's important to remember that there are plenty of comic book readers who are fans of both Batman and Superman and are informed about both, who enjoy The Dark Knight Returns.

It's not a definitive portrayal of Superman at all. It's a warped bizarro "what if?" interpretation of him. But it is the most famous and iconic encounter between the two characters in their 75 year history. It's just the way it is.

Plenty of Batman fans hate DKReturns too. It's a controversial book. But nobody can argue that it's an influential and iconic work. Many comic writers of today had their minds blown reading that for the first time in '86, and may not have gotten into comics if not for that experience. It was the "gateway drug" for a lot of people.

Well, to that...I'd say a few things.

How do I say this without it coming off really mean? LOL There are plenty of people in this world who are "fans" of certain things without actually having any real understanding about them.

I'm sure there are people who are comic book readers who "like" Superman who like Dark Knight Returns. But then, unfortunately, I have to question what kind of fans they are and what kind of understanding they have of the character. There are plenty of people out there who "like" Superman but believe some totally untrue and ridiculous things about him. Not all "fans" have the same level of intelligence, understanding and ability to process the problems with a problematic text. So the fact that some people are ok with it doesn't really hold muster for me. Superman is a ridiculously misunderstood figure and even plenty of people who "like" him don't always get him.

Second, yes...it's a messed up, AU of Superman. The trouble is....almost every single AU that features Batman and Superman features a warped bizarro "what if" of Superman. This is a consistent problem with this character.

The most recent example is Injustice Gods Among Us. That features a warped "what if" for Superman. The problem is...it's become a rather huge trend for the "what if" for Superman to paint him horrifically. There are alot of reasons for this and none of them speak highly about the way WB manages Superman and the way DC Comics treats the character.

There are so many avenues with a "what if" story and, at some point, it does become offensive that the " go to" in a "what if" with Superman tends to lead down such a lazy, character assasination riddled path. Just as it's become really, really lazy (and blisteringly insulting) that the "what if" for Lois Lane seems to ALWAYS be to murder her in some grisly, horrible way. At some point, there actually is a problem with the "what if" here bc these characters are repeatedly thrown under the bus. (Which specifically, Frank Miller killed Lois off in Dark Knight Returns, in part, bc he wanted to paint Superman poorly and felt he couldn't do it with Lois around. It was lazy.)

As for the "gateway" comic for people....that may have been true in 1986. I was only 4 years old in 1986. So the people to which it was a "gateway comic" are much older than me now and I'm already 30 years old. So we are talking here about a group of fans who are a bit older and I would, guess, are almost exclusively male.

Now, personally, my "gateway" into comics was Death of Superman in the early 90's. And I would venture that "Death of Superman" is actually the "gateway" for a lot of modern Superman fans.

So I guess my question is...if we are talking about "gateway comics" for a Superman movie....why aren't we talking about Death and Return of Superman? Because, THAT was really more of the "gateway" comic for the current generation of readers and it was a book that was actually FOCUSED on Superman and about Superman. Batman was also in THAT story.

(I'm honestly not trying to argue here. I think you've made some great points and you're very thoughful. I'm just raising some other questions.)

 

[Shikamaru]

Don't be dramatic people. Miller has said himself that he only did that to Superman because he was appearing in a Batman story. This might actually be a little more Superman than batman or at least equal so Zack and Miller will talk about doing a version of his Returns story. Meaning Superman will be done different. And Bruce wont be in his 50s.

That's not why I'm worried. In fact, I wish that the Frank Miller of today was the same Frank Miller of the 1980's. Today's Frank Miller has "lost it", for lack of better term.