The end of the Clark Kent/Lois Lane marriage

[starwolf_oakley]

Excuse me while I sigh sadly, like Will Farrell as Alex Trebek having to introduce Sean Connery yet again.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2011/06/dan-didio-signals-the-end-of-the-clark-kentlois-lane-marriage/

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/blogs/popcornbiz/DC-Comics-Major-Reboot-May-Split-Up-Superman-and-Lois-Lane-124020299.html

Why? Why?! Because Dan DiDio hates you, that's why.



“Let’s just say it's being reexamined,” says Didio, who oversees the 77-year-old comic book company, which relaunches all of its titles with 52 new #1 issues in September, “because it's something that I think is something that is so valuable to the character's story that you really want to explore all facets of it. Not just as it exists currently.”

The marriage of the leading couple of superhero-dom was initially launched as a tie-in to the planned TV nuptials of the characters in the ABC series “Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman” in 1996 and proved popular with fans who found it fresh take on the age-old love triangle between Lois, Superman and his own alter ego, Clark Kent. But it may be time to redefine their romance once again.

You have to admit, they did rush everything into one big wedding album to time it with "Lois & Clark." Maybe they want to try "A to B to C" again at their own pace. Also, the mainstream media should know that Lois Lane has known Clark's secret since 1991.

Oh, and Dan DiDio hates you. And me. And everyone that reads DC Comics.



This page from ACTION COMICS #775 isn't the best example of how Lois and Clark love each other so much it is downright irritating, but I was in a hurry.

Comments

[sherkahn]

It's a good thing I just got new gardening tools for the summer.

Let me get my pitchfork and torch....

Oh, I can't wait for ComiCon in SD this year.

[q99]

So.... has DC editorial heard about OMD?

[roguefankc]

That was actually my first thought too...and then I wanted to ask DiDio, "What exactly do you have against marriage, again?"

Seriously, it's like a superhero who's married is like the unforgivable characteristic that no writer/editor wants.

[q99]

My thought was, "Do you have anything *actually planned* for marriage-less Clark stories?"

Because over with Spidey they sure didn't.

[arbre_rieur]

Other than Spider-Man and Superman, are there any other marriages a lot of creators are against? I don't think there are.

[roguefankc]

That is sort of true, although I didn't like how they treated Hank Pym and Wasp's marriage too, and that was another major one where we have the creators saying how Wasp being dead is better for Hank as a character...

Other than those three, I can't think of anymore married superheroes.

[long_silence]

A lot of heroes used to be married but aren't anymore.

Hawkeye and Mockingbird used to be married. But apparently she applied for divorce and now he's going to hook up with Jessica Drew.

Bruce Banner and Betty Ross. But then she died and came back as Red She-Hulk.

Cyclops and Jean Grey and that just didn't end well. But no retcons were involved.

Not as many are still married.

Luke Cage and Jessica Jones. But they're safe as long as Bendis is around.

Storm and Black Panther.

And of course there's Reed Richards and Sue Storm. But they'll stay married until it's Sue's turn to die.

[icon_uk]

Wally and Linda (Though they probably have bigger problems, like "WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY?")

Ralph and Sue (Alas, it's confirmed that Identity Crisis still happened in the new DCU)

[long_silence]

Will Iris and Jay still exist in this new universe? They went through so much to turn her into Impulse, it'd be a shame to erase her now.

Are Green Arrow and Black Canary still married?

[icon_uk]

They sort of made her Impulse and then did nothing with the concept, no? (Plus I was never that struck with her in the role, she seemed to lack the, well impulsiveness for the name. I'd much rather she'd become Kid Flash and Bart had kept Impulse, but it was too late for that I suppose since Bart apparently "had" to become Kid Flash for no adequate reason)

AFAIK Ollie and Dinah have now at least separated, and probably divorced, though in their case it was the marriage which was the "WTF?" moment for me.

[calvision]

wha, in fact with all the WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY hullabaloo, I did not realise that Wally and Linda were no longer married. This makes me sad.

[icon_uk]

They are still married, I was adding to the list of

"Not as many are still married."

[calvision]

Whew!

[freezer]

And that's not counting engagements going south on fists of ham (Havok/Polaris, Justice/Firestar).

[icon_uk]

Nightwing/Starfire

[fifthie]

Haha oh man, remember that time Spider-Man was married, and manbabies everywhere were like ABOO BOO BOO, SPIDER-MAN CAN'T BE MARRIED, MAKE HIM SINGLE AGAIN, and then they did it, and... it was fucking stupid, and everything related to him being single was boring as fuck, and the only things related to him being even slightly interesting had nothing to do with his terrible relationships at all?

Have fun, Superfans!

[nickfury90]

All I remember are the fun stories created by Slott, Waid, Kelly, Van Lente, and the current great run by Dan Slott.

If this relaunch is anything like that, its gonna be some of the best Superman stories in years.

[curlyjo1]

Will Clark Kent have a love interest whose appearance changes from issue to issue? Maybe he's dating a Durlan?

[an_idol_mind]

To be fair, in a worst-case scenario, this would be like One More Day without the deal with the Devil. And while undoing the Spider-marriage got a lot of flak, I think it wouldn't have garnered the long-term hatred if the deal with the Devil wasn't involved and if Peter Parker hadn't been written as such a douche in the years following.

If the Super-marriage is undone but leaves Superman still acting like Superman and doesn't jam an endless procession of uninteresting love interests for Clark down our throats, I think I can live with it. It will suck compared to not having the marriage, but it wouldn't be intolerable.

One thing that is more important to me than the marital status of Superman is whether Lois still knows his secret. I doubt she will, but I think it was a really good dynamic to have a human lover who Clark could confide in. The same deal goes for Spider-Man and Mary Jane. Sure, they have other supers out there, but in the last couple of decades I think that Lois/Mary Jane were very useful as giving a "real world" tie to these larger-than-life superheroes. Personally, I think Lois adds a lot more to the story as someone who can support Superman and give him a real world tie than what she was in the Silver and Bronze Ages.

[q99]

While the devil thing played a roll, I honestly think it was the undoing of the marriage that got the most flak (the newspaper comic did it without the Devil thing, and they undid it do to complaints).

In-a-relationship and in the know but non-married could be interesting.

I do wonder if they really have any plans or Didio is just like Quesada in assuming unmarried is more interesting without having a solid reason why.

[jlroberson]

Heard about it? They took notes!

[droolfangrrl]

Oh #$^% no!

[turtlefu]

It's OMD!

Also, I feel like that by not having them together, this will sadly mean Lois won't have a major role in anything. You might as well say Good-bye Lois Lane!

She's an excellent character and their dynamic was interesting, fresh, and unique.

[arbre_rieur]

For decades before the marriage, Lois played a consistent major role in the Superman books. Regardless of whether the marriage gets undone, I doubt that will change anytime soon.

[icon_uk]

Agreed

[cyberghostface]

I knew it!!!

[chocochuy]

I knew Joe-phisto was the mastermind behind all the weird stuff that Didio has been doing lately. Just take a look at his evil grin as he plots how to make Didio order Ma Kent to marry a Zombie Samuel Lane (revived by Satanus), thus making Lois and Clark into "siblings", making them unable to remain married.

[mrstatham]

Wow, I think I just found the ultimate troll-face.

[chocochuy]

OK, DC Comics, we have taken enough punishment from you and we will not tolerate it any further. Don't mess with Lois and Clark or you'll end up facing a lot of losses. Some of us have grown up with the excellent romance between Lois and Clark and most of us were happy when they finally got married. It took years to get to that point on the Superman mythos but it was worth it. Superman didn't lose its edge when he got married but gained the opportunity of telling more neat stories. I simply can't understand why to murder one of the best Super-Couples (pun intended) that have ever existed.

Good stories are not the ones that change the Status Quo but the ones that provide us with an interesting storyline as well as allowing their characters to evolve.

I will go fetch mine pitchfork and torch. Tonight DC Comics will pay.

Thank you!

[roguefankc]

Good stories are not the ones that change the Status Quo but the ones that provide us with an interesting storyline as well as allowing their characters to evolve.[quote]

*applause*

Because this couldn't be said enough.

Re: Thank you!

[chocochuy]

I aim to please.

Now that we are talking about evolution, let's remember that there was a time when Lois Lane used to be obsessed with marrying Superman during the 50s-60s, she became more independent during the 70s and she truly became Superman's Girlfriend during the late 80s-early 90s. In mine personal opinion she hasn't lost her status as a fearless reporter even she is married to the world's greatest champion but gained a more open mind towards the strange stuff that plagues the universe.

Do not mess with Lois Lane-Kent (Black-Cat, creator of "Batman & Sons, knew it and so we do).

[big_daddy_d]

[chocochuy]

Excellent.

[nickfury90]

Well, interesting storylines and changes to the status quo aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go hand and hand.

[chocochuy]

Agreed, the problem is when we get a lot of reboots and changes of the Status Quo that we end up no longer recognizing our favorite stories.

I am not against changing a little bit of the Status Quo (it made wonders for Mr. Freeze who used to be a gimmicky and one-dimensional character before he was changed by Timm and Dini) but I think it's silly to assume that all changes will be welcomed by the fans.

If they are changing the Status Quo to be like it was on the 60s or 70s, then I am afraid they're not been quite original after all as well as insulting both old and new readers. I would love to see Lex Luthor back as a Mad Scientist instead of an Evil Executive. I would also like to see again the Planet Lexor as well as Luthor's wife, Ardora, because they would provide us with some interesting stories as well that those were the stories I read as a young lad (I know I was born during the Post-Crisis Era but I used to read old reprints of Superman Comics) but I wouldn't change the Status Quo to perform this dream project of mine. I would gladly do one of those "Elseworlds" stories or create an imprint a la "Marvel Adventures" that deals with special stories without screwing the main continuity. That way everybody would be happy.

[jlroberson]

I get the Dr, Fate helmet when you're done.

[benicio127]

Man, I don't expect question and answer time at the comic-cons are going to go over so well for DC this year.

[icon_uk]

They should certainly be.... interesting.

[sindra]

Wow....I thought this whole reboot thing was to mimic another attempt at a Ultimate Marvel dealio, but it looks like it's all just one big OMD that they're copying from the Book of Quesada.

Ewww....

[venatosapiens]

Which is a real shame, because if they launched an ultimate style imprint with Grant Morrison and Mark Waid and such, I would have bought every trade. Instead we got Straczynski and Geoff Johns.

No, the lack of new writers in the DCU doesn't bother me, why do you ask?

[curlyjo1]

Seriously. That would have made everyone happy. Those who want the grimdark, here's your imprint. Those who want the classic DCU (and since the grimdark is over there, can we have some fun back?), can have their comics.

But no. We must all have the reboot. Well, I won't have it. My DC collection stops here.

[chocochuy]

Ditto and Motto.

[jlroberson]

Oh, they bring in new writers. Which is to say, editor's dialoguers. Like this fellow here.

[philippos42]

You have to admit, they did rush everything into one big wedding album to time it with "Lois & Clark." Maybe they want to try "A to B to C" again at their own pace. Also, the mainstream media should know that Lois Lane has known Clark's secret since 1991.

Actually, you have it backwards: The Superman books pushed back the marriage a year to match "Lois & Clark." In that year they did "Death of Superman," "Funeral for a Friend," and "Reign of the Supermen."

[freezer]

No, no; they did rush the comic wedding forward to match Lois & Clark. The original plan was for Lois and Clark to break things off, for Lois to go on a year-long, globetrotting "walkabout" to figure out what she really wanted, and for her to return and marry Clark. The Powers That Be wanted the TV and comics marriages to synchronize, so Lois returned abruptly and they got hitched.

[fifthie]

Saying they rushed the wedding ceremony is a long cry from saying they rushed "everything" in the OP, especially in the context of implying that the writers didn't actually have a substantial amount of time to progress Lois/Clark's relationship from rivals to couple to engagement to marriage.

[starwolf_oakley]

They did take their time progressing Lois and Clark from 1986 (rivals/friends) to 1991(engagement/Clark tells Lois the Big Secret) to 1996/97 (they get married).

Lois did return abruptly. I actually posted the issue on the original scans_daily about when she decided to return to Metropolis and tell Clark she wanted to marry him again.

[fifthie]

I know the "Lois Leaves!!" arc got truncated, I'm just saying it's pretty minor beat in the scope of the overall story, and not really something I can see as anyone's major reason for wanting to redo the entire progression of their relationship.

[fifthie]

TBH I thought it was kind of a stupid arc in the first place.

[freezer]

I've heard it said here that DC and Marvel keep pulling stunts like this because they don't want new readers. I disagree.

They don't want old readers. Or at least, readers that aren't as old as Didio/JoeQ. They want the comics they remember falling in love with. And now that they're in charge, they're bring them back, one scorched earth action at a time. And if it means pissing off a literal generation of comics readers in the process, so be it. As long as they get their Bronze Age back.

[chocochuy]

What you have stated, Freezer, is both true and sad at the same time. I was born in 1988, one of the first years of the Spider-Marriage, and all the stories I read were the ones done during that period. I learned to like these stories as well as liking the stuff from Lee and Ditko as well as the Bronze Age. I would be a liar if I said I didn't like some of the old stories (I personally liked Gwen Stacy) but it's much better to remember those good days with nostalgia as well as fleshing/updating them without murdering the current status quo. It's an insult to both the older stories and modern stories to do things like OMD, an event that technically erased most of mine life. OMD reminds me of Ozymandia's plot to save the Earth by using a phony Alien attack because things will obviously change the moment the main orchestrator is no longer at a powerful position or alive. I just hope things get fixed eventually at both DC and Marvel.

[arbre_rieur]

"And if it means pissing off a literal generation of comics readers in the process, so be it."

That's not even close to happening.

[freezer]

*looks around here and other comics forums*
*checks sales records*

I stand by that statement.

[arbre_rieur]

*looks around here and other comics forums*

If you were to judge by those same forums, you'd think BLUE BEETLE and THOR THE MIGHTY AVENGER were the best-selling comics ever. Forums aren't reflective of fandom at large. They're a specific subset of fandom.

*checks sales records*

Are you remembering to factor in trade sales? (More and more people are switching from monthlies to trades.) If you are, I don't see why you think it supports your statement.

[fifthie]

Please show the trade sales numbers that back up your point.

[arbre_rieur]

Keeping in mind that DiDio became DC top dog in 2002: http://www.comichron.com/vitalstatistics/alltime.html

Granted, that's only sales to comic book shops, not bookstores, but is anyone really going to claim that trades and graphic novels are *less* of a presence in bookstores today than 10 years ago?

[fifthie]

That's not even close to happening.

excellent oppositepost

[arbre_rieur]

*mark bingo scorecard*

[fifthie]

Hahaha excellent, so you're a fan then!

[fifthie]

I've heard it said here that DC and Marvel keep pulling stunts like this because they don't want new readers. I disagree. They don't want old readers.

They don't want either.

[star_of_airdrie]

I'm shocked at this one and I know there will be more -

From Newsarama yesterday per Berganza and Harris :

"- While planning the September relaunch, DC's editorial team constructed a timeline that details the universe's history. Everything from the past that editors thought was integral and important was kept.

- DC confirmed that stories like Blackest Night, Brightest Day, Identity Crisis, Death in the Family, and Killing Joke are still part of the DCU history. In fact, editors said, some events in those stories are specifically referenced in September.

- DC would not confirm that other storylines will or will not be part of the universe's new history. (For example, we asked about Geoff Johns' recent Superman: Secret Origin story, to no avail.) Readers will have to wait and see.

- Both Action Comics and Justice League are set at the "dawning of the age of superheroes," DC said. (But that dawn doesn't appear to be too long ago, since it's being reported that they will take place only five years in the past.)

- All other September titles will be taking place in DC's "contemporary times," unless it's a period piece, like Demon Knights, Jonah Hex or Legion of Super-Heroes.?

Full article: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/dcnu-bob-harras-eddie-berganza-history-in-tact-110615.html

(of course I'm worried about Dick and Kory's past... and future)

[mrstatham]

Please. AS IF they'll dare wipe out anything Johns has had a hand in during the past five years. Green Lantern's 'staying largely' the same, so you can almost guarantee Morrison will have some sort of editorial edict not to tread near Johns' precious Silver-Age blowjob that is Secret Origin. Why would they wipe out something so recent and by their new top dog?

[jlbarnett]

How can Dick be Nightwing if the superhero age only started five years earlier?

[star_of_airdrie]

In the August issue of Batman, Dick has an 'identity crisis' of his own, and returns to Nightwing and will return to Nightwing after being Batman, so it will be a continuation of the current story. Not sure if they meant that they are compressing time...

[silicondream]

- DC confirmed that stories like Blackest Night, Brightest Day, Identity Crisis, Death in the Family, and Killing Joke are still part of the DCU history. In fact, editors said, some events in those stories are specifically referenced in September.

- DC would not confirm that other storylines will or will not be part of the universe's new history.

My goodness. It's as if they have an explicit rule that every story with sufficient graphic violence against innocents gets to stay in continuity.

[star_of_airdrie]

it's a corollary to the media's rule 'if it bleeds, it leads'

[shadowpsykie]

honestly, i am reserving judgement until it actually happens... part of me thinks they would be INSANE to change it, another part of me thinks thats what they WANT us to think....

oh look my blue lantern ring is glowing ever so bright....

[shadowpsykie]

oh one more thing... has anyone stoped to think that maybe Lois and Clark are still married, but in Action Comics and Justice League they are not because these are stories told in the "early days?" hence keeping Lois and Clark married while at the same time exploring the relationship "From the other perspectives" they were talking about?

[hawkmoondirge]

GOOD THEORY! I actually didn't think of that. I mean Lois and Clark are huge, everyone knows it so why, in a modern tale with many events still on the table, would they disregard it?

For the record, anyone else feel like the whole reboot/relaunch is not as huge as it's made out to be?

[shadowpsykie]

I agree, I think the biggest changes are Barbara walking, whatever is planed in action, and where some characters are going to be. The majority of things should be recognizable.

[jlbarnett]

Did the Killing Joke actually paralyze her, or just get her shot and the paralyzing was later? Maybe they're changing continuity so the bullet missed anything important?

[shadowpsykie]

or it happened early enough in her life that she was able to heal better. or she was still paralized but now she uses an exo suit.. we honestly don;t know

[chocochuy]

That would be great. It would provide some people with new "old" stories while the older fans would be happy to see Lois and Clark as a married couple. This would have been a better solution for OMD instead of giving us a badly done comedy sitcom with super-beings. This way all of us would win but I am afraid that Didio-seid and Joe-phisto want victory for themselves only.

[shadowpsykie]

I'm holding out until we see it on paper. getting angry about half answers that are obviously worded to stir things up only aggravate my ulcers. I have faith in DC. They are not Marvel. I like my theory, I think it fits. they have said enough that leads me to believe that more things are going to stay the same than we realize

[hawkmoondirge]

Personally, Dandido has ruined to many things I love starting with beastwars going into beast machines. Luckily, Johns,Lee and morrison run DC basiclly so they keep a lid on him

[silicondream]

Morrison has historically been against the Clark/Lois marriage, though, as have a number of other writers (see the Superman 2000 proposal, or All-Star, of course). So for all we know they and DiDidio are in agreement on this.

That wouldn't particularly bother me, personally--I liked those takes on Superman. The big difference I see between them and OMD (besides, y'know, the involvement of Satan and stuff) is that they still have Lois and Superman care about each other as much as they ever did. The rules of the relationship are changed, but the relationship's still there and it's still as intense, so the reader's emotional investment isn't squandered.

(And I say that as a Lana fan. Love her in Superboy stories, but Superman stories do need Lois.)

[freezer]

The big difference I see between them and OMD (besides, y'know, the involvement of Satan and stuff) is that they still have Lois and Superman care about each other as much as they ever did.

That's the thing: Read any BND comics - Peter and MJ clearly are still in love, are clearly each other's confidante and just as clearly can't articulate just why they aren't together.

So no; "Lois is still around" isn't exactly a guard against this whole thing sucking.

[mrstatham]

There's still a difference between the bullshit notions keeping MJ and Peter apart and the respectful manner in which even a writer who dislikes the Clark/Lois marriage, such as Morrison, has treated the characters.

[silicondream]

Read any BND comics - Peter and MJ clearly are still in love, are clearly each other's confidante and just as clearly can't articulate just why they aren't together.

But they aren't together, and that's apparently what each person wants, and each of them seems to honestly believe it's wonderful for Peter to be dating various people who aren't MJ. These are not the feelings of two people who are in love, unless they've got some sort of dissociative identity disorder (or are being written badly.)

Whereas Lois and Superman, in All-Star or the 2000 pitch, are in love and are together. They're just not married yet, and they can articulate at least some good reasons why not. Their relationship is consistent with their feelings.

Nothing, of course, guards against this whole thing sucking. But that's true whether Lois and Clark are married or not.

[freezer]

These are not the feelings of two people who are in love,

No - these are the feelings of people who are in love, think being apart is for the best... but can't say why. We (the readers) know the real reason they're not. But to have them constantly act much the same as they did ten years ago - except they're on opposite ends of a telephone call.. it makes them look kinda stupid.

[jlbarnett]

Morrison's also very pro Clark/Lois from his work in All-Star

[aeolos_sakya]

I was about to get my Red Lantern ring when I saw this. Now I'm using my blue one. Please... let this be!

[shadowpsykie]

*all will be well* :D

i've noticed that after the initial shock of all this, i am being very zen about it now.... hmm

[an_idol_mind]

I think that would be a good way to approach things.

[shadowpsykie]

i think so to. also what some have said above could work too. The writers at DC clearly like the superman lois lane RELATIONSHIP, but for some reason not the marriage (dont ask about the distinction.....) so they never said they were breaking them up, just that they wanted to explore that relationship further (that said, i still think my idea is the best way to do it, everyone knows lois and clark will be together no matter what, but i could see where watching it happen could be fun too, so with JL and Action in the past and Superman in the present they have the perfect opportunity to explore both sides of that relationship)

[an_idol_mind]

The writers at DC clearly like the superman lois lane RELATIONSHIP, but for some reason not the marriage (dont ask about the distinction.....)

I think the distinction is that a relationship can end at any given moment, while a marriage requires a divorce to end definitively. I think many creators believe that there is more drama involved when the relationship could just end suddenly. And for some reason, while it's okay to have characters like the Black Canary and Green Arrow get divorced, DC and Marvel don't want to "tarnish" their flagship characters like Superman or Spider-Man by having them become divorcees.

[stillanerd]

The writers at DC clearly like the superman lois lane RELATIONSHIP, but for some reason not the marriage (dont ask about the distinction.....)

Well the reason is because they subscribe to the idea that while Clark is in love with Lois, Lois is in love with Superman, which has pretty much been their relationship dynamic, to varying degrees, in every single Superman adaptation ever made. That's pretty much what DC has been wanting to get back to with Superman for the better part of a decade.

Theory Timm Universe

[hawkmoondirge]

Why use Bruce Timm universe/ because it makes sense.

If the universe is getting a patch job, then yes Lois and Clark may not be married. BUT, who's to say they won't GET married?

What may happen is this. They aren't married. They are co-workers. Lois only knows clark kent as a friend and crushes on supes. Clark can't reveal his identity but as Supes returns the feelings, while trying to gain love as clark.

Its just like the Timm universe.

Alliteratively, she's the end of the road, and others will come and go.

After OMD, I don't believe DC would follow Marvel's folly.

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[freezer]

What may happen is this. They aren't married. They are co-workers. Lois only knows clark kent as a friend and crushes on supes. Clark can't reveal his identity but as Supes returns the feelings, while trying to gain love as clark.

Its just like the Timm universe.

Except Justice League Unlimited showed them as a couple - not married, but Lois explicitly calls Superman "Clark" when they're alone.

If one only counts Batman/Superman:TAS as the "Timmverse" I suppose your point still stands.

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[silicone_soul]

I'm pretty sure that not only did that never happen on the show, but DC explicitly forbade having Lois know Clark's identity.

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[freezer]

"Question Authority" is the episode I was thinking of (jump to about 4:00 for the scene in question). While I was incorrect about her calling him "Clark", note how she never calls him "Superman" either. It's pretty clear she knows here.

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[an_idol_mind]

Actually, I think that story arc ends with Lois and Clark at the Daily Planet and Lois writing a story where she goes easy on Superman, stating to Clark that sometimes she's too hard on him. While you could argue that they're speaking in double entendres (why they would is anybody's guess, since they're alone in that scene), the implication definitely seems to be that she doesn't know that Superman is Clark Kent. If she did make such a discovery, I doubt they would have dealt with it off-screen anyway.

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[freezer]

Actually, I think that story arc ends with Lois and Clark at the Daily Planet and Lois writing a story where she goes easy on Superman, stating to Clark that sometimes she's too hard on him

You're thinking of the next episode, "Divided We Fall." The quote from Lois was:

"I've been as tough on the Justice League as anyone -- especially Superman. But that's because he sets such a high standard. I'm gonna cut him a break. He's only human. You know what I mean."

I suppose you could interpret that as her not knowing she's talking to Superman, if you wanted to. Personally, I can't see it any other way than "she knows, but doesn't know who's within earshot."

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[shadowpsykie]

Timm and McDuffie were notorious for getting stuff past the radar. (ie Richie from Static shock forone), cassandra tim dick and barbara in the Justice Lords episode) her not calling him Superman, and this exchange in Question Authority could be a veiled hint to the audience, yeah we can't say it, but she knows.

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[silicone_soul]

It seems to me that Timm and co. definitely intended for her to know - and given that Lois and Superman seemed to be in an established relationship in the show, it would be more than a little creepy if she didn't - but they weren't allowed to go beyond implying it.

Re: Theory Timm Universe

[baxter2814]

I hate Superman and Lois in the Timmverse, so no thanks ;)

[mullon]

I really wish DC would be more upfront with whatever it is they are doing. It's not like they don't have access to the internet so they can't see why everyone is getting so riled up.

[stolisomancer]

Didio's had a problem for years with being unable to tell the difference between excitement and irritated controversy, hasn't he?

[darkknightjrk]

Uh...the way I read it, they're not confirming the end of the marriage at all. As a matter of fact, it more or less says that they're going to try to do something different with the marriage to make it more fresh.

[icon_uk]

Lois and Clark with optional Lana and Bruce if either/both happen to be town? Heck, throw in Jimmy for variety every now and again

[jlroberson]

AND Krypto, you cruel bastard. Don't leave him out. And the horse.

That girl sure did love that horse.

Special icon UK pandering reference

[jlroberson]

And of course Grayson, when they're in a bondage mood.

Lois is always the top.

FOr credit is due...

[silverzeo]

Not as bad OMD/OMIT, this isn't the end of a relationship, but a refreshing take of why Lois and Clark should be the perfect couple

I remember seeing a deviantART comic strip in which had Supes on a game show in which he had choose between three women: The home town girl that knows him for his entire life and understands him, the warrior woman who matches his strength in body and morals and accepts both his human and alien life; and finally: the career seeking news woman who constantly throws herself in life threatening danger for scoop ever 30 seconds, and Supes, just blind picks the third woman..

[arbre_rieur]

In Morrison we trust...

[arilou_skiff]

Yeah, I'm not sure they're actually ending the marriage (and even if they are, not permanently) at most I suspect they'll be going back to the "Clark>Lois>Superman" love triangle.

Which would be annoying since it's been done, but still.

[freezer]

How annoying, I suppose, would depend on how far back they go. As has been said by people far more articulate than me; it makes no sense to modern eyes that Lois could be around both Clark and Superman that much and not put two and two together in short order. And then, it makes just as little sense that Clark wouldn't realize that Lois wouldn't put it together eventually. Hell, you could swap Lois for Jimmy with equal validity (he isn't stupid). I don't know if Perry White has been around Superman enough to make the same type connections.

TL;DR: This only works if it's short term. The classic love triangle just wouldn't work these days.

[fifthie]

and even if they are, not permanently

If they do, it will absolutely be permanent, or at least as permanent as the people currently running DC can make it.

[cypherfdp]

Bloody fucking hell. This probably means Chris is going to be rebooted out of existence too.

I just... Jesus Christ. Did DC not pay attention to the vicious backlash OMD got? Did Joe Quesada convince Bob Harras to troll DC fans? Is Mephisto writing comic books now?

[fifthie]

Oh look, DC's doing the stupidest, least-interesting thing it's possible to do with these characters.

[fifthie]

"The literally like 70 years we spent exploring the most boring phase of this couple's relationship wasn't enough" - Dan Didio

[terabient]

THIS

Seriously, what can they do now that hasn't been done before? The Clark/Lois/Superman triangle just makes everyone involved look stupid, and having a relationship without marriage is just pointless.

[drexer]

I just got wasted yesterday and woke up half an hour ago, and NOW you're giving me a reason to get wasted right now?

Goddamnit DC, goddamnit.

[biod]

So, if DC goes crazy, can we still call him Superman?
I'm gong for the wait and see approach for now.

[jlbarnett]

as long as they're dating I suppose I'll be happy.

[icon_uk]

I'm still veering towards "different books are set at different points in time" theory. Clark and Diana dating early in both their careers would be perfectly fine, with hopefully both realising that it's not what they want, but remaining good friends and allies.

See also Samaritan and Winged Victory dating in Astro City, both great heroes in their own right who go on a date because their friends keep suggesting they should, but both quickly realising they're not compatible that way.