Oh, I was all in favor of Spider-Man being married, and especially, Aunt May knowing Peter is Spidey. It was cool, it gave Peter a little family he could talk to. How can you say Peter Parker loves May, when he's LYING to her on a regular basis? And when they moved into Avengers Tower, and May kinda hooked up with (the human) Jarvis, what's not to love about that?!? It was darling -- May took Wolverine's cigar from him and said "There will be no smoking in the kitchen"! It's the little things like this that make me love comics.
+Ben Culture Spidey being married to MJ, or married in general, was the most logical thing for his character. He's about responsibility. Marriage is a responsibility. His wife was defined by running away from responsibility and committment, but she got over that and had to keep getting over it to stay with her husband
+227060 Exactly. Marvel's most popular character is actually the most likely to settle down and have a family, so they screwed themselves with goodness!
First of all dude your in two worlds. That scene in civil war was a gag Stark and May arent getting together and even if they were that's in the movie. And this is more of an opinion, but honestly if your willing to put your loved ones in danger because you think lying means you don't love them then you have never held a dangerous secret. Most undercover terrorists don't tell they're families they are gonna blow up a building if they care about them. It's common sense and not all that different from a superheroes situation.
First of all, we were never talking about the movies in this thread, so I don't know why you brought it up. I'm ignoring that. Thanks for proving my point with your wildly-inappropriate analogy to terrorists. Of _course_ TERRORISTS keep it secret -- terrorists _kill innocent people._ Look: Aunt May or MJ knowing the truth about Peter puts them in no more danger than they were in the first place. It's his enemies learning the truth that endangers them. Gwen Stacy didn't have to know Peter was Spider-Man (and in fact she DIDN'T know, unless all you know is movies) for the Green Goblin to kidnap and kill her. The only solution to this problem is for the hero to be a loner with no personal relationships, and nobody wants to read that. I stick to my guns: If you keep your identity a secret from people you love, you not only lie to them, but when they get suspicious, you trick them, and make them doubt their intelligence or even their sanity. It's just sick. Read any number of late-40s to late-60s Superman comics. Superman is constantly playing tricks and snickering at Lois as he once again bamboozles her from confirming her suspicions. Lois is right, and Superman is a dishonest asshole. That version of Superman does not respect her. And we, the readers, could not respect either of them in such stories. This is why Marvel is right to downplay "secret identity" tropes, and even the two DCEU films are subverting the whole thing by having Lois discover what Clark can do before he's even really Superman. Secret-identity bullshit is for children.
This is why Marvel is right to downplay "secret identity" tropes, and even the two DCEU films are subverting the whole thing by having Lois discover what Clark can do before he's even really Superman. Secret-identity bullshit is for children. ...Not really. May and Mary Jane knowing Peter’s secret puts them on their guard. They’d know to run away whenever Norman Osborn shows up or to take precautions in case a villain comes looking for them. That isn’t to say Peter is necessarily in the wrong for withholding the truth from people. The fewer people know the less chance there is of everyone knowing. With Aunt May he was literally told by a doctor that if she received a sudden shock that it’d kill her so he had no choice but to lie to her, although he also didn’t want to admit to his role in Ben’s death. With Mary Jane and his other friends he actually did tell them the truth in ASM #87 which consequently got negative reactions out of them. That combined with a natural fear of rejection or uncertainty over how truthworthy they are is going to mean Peter’s naturally going to be wary of confiding in anyone. What if he confides in someone and they can’t handle the stress of keeping the secret or fall out with him and spill the beans. There are lots of perfectly morally justified reasons for keeping your secret but not from people you are close to like family. Lying to your wife is idiotic. The thing about Spider-Man being a loner with no personally connections is that that isn’t really a good solution. Because if you think about it, if a bad guy learns who he is and digs deep enough they will find out he USED to have friends and consequently target them either to hurt him or to drive him out of hiding, same deal for Aunt May. Sure, Peter’s exes are safe...so long as the villain figures he’s moved on from them, which if he’s with someone else is a surefire sign. But looking at the post-OMD era a villain who knows Peter is Spider-Man would be aware he used to be involved with the supermodel/actress Mary Jane Watson and might even know they almost got married, so she’d still be a potential target if all else fails. Her extended family might not be though but even that is debatable. More importantly if a villain targets Spider-Man’s loved ones whilst he’s busy isolating himself then he’s not going to be there to stop them. Worse though...Peter needs people. EVERYONE needs people. Nobody honestly can thrive or cope longterm withough proper human contact and relationships. To remain mentally and emotionally healthy Spider-Man NEEDS to have friends and family and by doing so it actually makes him far MORE effective than if he isolated himself. So Marvel aren’t right to downplay secret identity tropes in their comics so long as they don’t go into mean spirited territory and justify it properly. More importantly though saying secret identities is for kids is itself narrowminded. Secret identities serve as a metaphor for both the personas we all adopt within ‘working environments’ and literalize how we as human beings have different sides to our personalities and identities and attempt to navigate those to discover who we are. It’s a gloriously rich trope, fertile for storytelling. With the DCEU movies it was pure laziness and demonstrated contempt for the Superman mythology by having Lois know the truth immediately. Like with Spider-Man Superman didn’t need to trick her necessarily but there were valid reasons for not necessarily trusting her before he ultimately CONFIDED the truth in her.
Being Superman and being married at the same time would be WAY easier than being a soldier and married at the same time, because unlike soldiers - Superman can just fly really really fast back home once he saves the day. Also - why is it that Superman can be with a girlfriend while still being Superman, but he can't be married while still be Superman? Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems like that won't be a huge difference by itself.
Plus him being Superman means very little is a real threat to him. So she'd really only have to worry about things like Zod, Doomsday, Darkseid, Brainiac, and Lex Luthor's latest death ray.
I have never understood why people think it has to be one or the other. I do not see why he can't just have a wife and friends and be Superman at the same time. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it's possible and makes the most sense to me. It's not like Superman fixes every world problem and is needed 24/7 for every single thing in the world. If that was the case them he should just stop being Clark Kent and just be Suoerman. Why pretend? No offense to anyone, but the whole Superman has to sacrifice all of his happiness for the world always came off as too simplistic to me. It makes for some good drama in the short term, but it's pretty ridiculous in the long term.
That's why pairing him with a fellow super heroine makes perfect sense. WW would be right by his side fighting along with him to save the world. She won't be home babysitting the kids, baking brownies & cleaning the house. She's a warrior through & through. He'd have no reason to explain anything to WW because she'd already understand & she'd be there right alongside of him, like she always has been. I don't get ppl who want Supes w/ Lois. I never really like Lois, too bitchy & has too much mouth & can't back it up. At least w/ WW she can lay the smack down. The only reason I can think of Lois & Clark being together is out of nostalgia from the old comics, where she was literally made to be his love interest. But that was in a bygone era & is an antiquated notion.
Blackton Obvious! Yeah. I never had a problem with Superman and Wonder Woman dating. Made sense to me. Frank Miller raised a good point when he said that superheroes should be with other superpeople because it's easier for them to relate to each other. But I don't get the people that say it's wrong for him to be with Lois because of him being a superhero or something like that. Yeah the relationship wouldn't be easy, but I don't see why they couldn't make it work.
Renwick Davis I feel ya. But Lois & Clark have been dating for how long now? If they can't make it work in that much time, then it's never going to happen. I personally just don't like the character of Lois & how she treats Clark. She's borderline bitchy to him. WW doesn't even treat him that badly & she knows his secret identity. To me Lois is a brat & a bully. And her ass is always getting in trouble & expects Supes to rescue her. She's purposely putting herself in danger & detracting the man from saving others. All because she's a dumbass & an inept report. I mean she's been intimately close to both Clark & Supes, yet she can't tell they are the same person, despite a damn pair of glasses. Seriously? What type of investigative journalist is she? Basically Lois is an antiquated charter from a bygone era. Gone are the days when superheroes need a damsel In distress to prove that they are a hero. Or a "love interest" to prove that they aren't gay.
its funny to me seen this sorta of rationalisation all these years later, after the new 52 crashed and burned and we have rebirth with clark , lois and their son John and seening how much people are loving this change.
I really don’t agree about the case with Superman at all. For one thing, Superman never did sacrifice his happiness for the greater good. He and Lois dated a bit even pre-crisis and he was keen for them to hook up just weirdly as Clark Kent not as Superman. The post-Crisis Superman though wasn’t like that and clearly saw no problem about having a life of his own and being Superman at the same time. It’s analogous to cops or doctors or fire fighters. After all it wasn’t like Superman was on call 24/7. He clearly took some down time and maintained personal relationships with his friends and family and that included Lois. So getting married really wasn’t that big of a deal. In fact if he was never going to get married, ship teasing him with Lois or anyone else was simply a doomed to fail scenario and a waste of time and money of everyone involved apart from the creators. Plus getting married doesn’t mean you will settle down in regards to your job. Getting married means basically no more dating (although not for some marriages). He’d still be a superhero and still be a reporter so it wasn’t like marriage = retirement and lifelong dedication to his wife. And whilst it is true that Superman II made that point the truth is...Superman II was wrong. That's the harsh truth. That ending was BS because it made it clear he's either a super man or a family man but not both...which is unrealistic because...why couldn't he be both? For Spider-Man it’s something similar as his character has been looking to basically become a normal guy like his Uncle Ben and have a house in the suburbs with a wife and kids. He’s never gonna be rid of the superheroics of his life, but that other stuff is more than doable. Furthermore, whilst Spidey got married due to a promotional push, the writers of the mid-late 1980s were building up to the wedding long in advance, they just didn't intend to follow through with it. So Spidey's marriage was an editorial mandate but one which ironically worked organically with what had been set up and yet went against the intended ending. Which was ultimately a benefit since for Spidey it made all the sense in the world for a character defined by being the everyman and juggling responsibilities to take on one of the more significant responsibilities most people go through in life. Additionally Spider-Man didn't make the decision to get married hastily. He'd aspired to get married since at least the 1970s when he was with Gwen Stacy. He proposed to Mary Jane at the end of that decade. He and Mary Jane had been practically dating without admitting it for over 2 years by the time he proposed and he'd come to realize what he wanted and who he wanted it with. And whilst he felt bad sometimes for what he put her through, he never actually regretted the decision and neither did she. As for the comparison to military wives, 1) Superman clearly did not spend 90% of his time on duty as the comics made clear 2) Lois didn't worry because...well her husband is invulnerable to most shit 3) the analogy is self-defeating. Superman wouldn't do this because of what military wives go through. But the fact that married members of the military exist in and of itself proves that this set up is more than realistic and that Lois, who is the daughter of a military man, could in theory put up with it. Couple that with Lois herself being made of steel and herself choosing to be with Clark and knowing the burden of that (remember, he 'died' shortly before the wedding) and it more than makes sense that Clark would go for this. It's kind of like saying basically military people shouldn't get married in the first place. On a side note the marriage of Lois and Clark had been planned well in advance of the TV show. the TV show actually delayed the wedding hence we got the Death of Superman
+227060 Yeah, plus the military marriages analogy doesn't really work because Superman has a ten minute commute from anyplace between Little Bohemia and the moon. Less if the Justice League teleporters aren't malfunctioning again.
>After all it wasn’t like Superman was on call 24/7. >That ending was BS because it made it clear he's either a super man or a family man but not both...which is unrealistic because...why couldn't he be both? Go back and listen to "Superman belongs to everyone". Every decision to not be on call and be with his wife is a decision not to be out helping people. Or at least, that's Bob's argument; I'm still mulling it over myself if it works, but Bob at least addresses the idea
Bob's argument is illogical. Countless cops, soldiers and social activists maintain normal lives. Such things are necesarry to keep one mentally balanced so you can continue performing such thankless tasks.
Right. More over Superman showed the ability to build superrobots that had all his powers even back when he was Superboy. Somewhere along the line it was said pollution caused the robots to malfunction and become dangerous but this left open two another alternatives: Kandor and Supergirl. Kandor (first shown in 1958) was especially problematic as its inhabitants had the means to become and remain normal sized. So why didn't they help Superman before he finally restored the whole city to full size in 1979? The Kara Zor-El Supergirl also appeared 1959 (there was a magically created Supergirl that had appeared a year earlier but she didn't last long) and she was around all the way up to Crisis in 1985.
Regarding 1:45, it is funny how many people forget that Superman got married _before_ 1996. It happened in Action Comics #484 (June 1978). Yes DC had it be the Superman and Lois Lane of Earth-Two but it still happened.
Paul DIni-Alex Ross' "Superman: Peace on Earth" sums it up nicely (besides being, you know, one of those comics illustrated by the undisputed top talent of this industry). Whenever the thought of comic-book weirdness assaults your mind, remember Alex Ross' work.
You know, I kinda want a follow up on this in the post-rebirth era. Considering that it was revealed in Rebirth that Post-Crisis Supes and Lois ended up existing side by side with their New52 counterparts and took it as a chance for them to retire to the farm.
I always thought of Wonder Woman as bisexual in that she comes from a society based entirely on honor, strength, and ability in battle. So she would be attracted more to personality than gender
I agree. I've always seen WW as being bisexual, as oppose to heterosexual or homosexual. It actually makes perfect sense. She's from an island of beautiful "immortal" warrior women & they view men as "the enemy". I see her being attracted to people based on their character traits, and not their gender. Of course the comics probably would never do this because they are too homophobic to make one of their longest standing & most iconic characters anything but heterosexual.
Never read enough Superman comics to comment on them, but Spider-Man's marriage, especially around the time MJ was pregnant, was actually interesting and showed growth. I wish they would have gone through with the "Ben Reilly becomes Spider-Man while Peter and MJ become supporting characters" thing. It would have allowed us to have our cake and eat it, too. Single Spidey with girl and money problems, while stable Peter gets his happy ending.
I disagree with the last point that Superman shouldn't be married because it would be too stressful for his wife. You're forgetting something: marriage is a two people thing. Meaning that Superman's wife should accept that part of his life. In other words, it should be her choice. And if she chooses so and accepts the consequences, then why shouldn't they be married. And about Superman facing bigger threats making that stress too much for any normal woman to handle... I'm not convinced. Considering Superman is a god-like figure himself, she should be just as confident of his husband abilities as any spouse of a solider, if not even more. Meaning that yes, she would be worried, but it's not like it would be emotional hell 24:7. Would it be an easy, happy-go-lucky marriage with no marital problems? Of course not! But that doesn't mean that it's impossible or even unlikely for it to be an overall successful marriage. Here I have to agree with something Linkara says from time to time: superhero marriages, specially those that involve a non-superhero spouse, fail because of lazy writing, not because the concept can't work. Actually, ironically Spider-Man is an example of a superhero marriage that can work if written correctly. Spidey's marriage didn't last for so long because of the eye-candy that Mary Jane was reduced to sometimes, nor it's that missed only because fans are still mad at Joe Quesada. It was because, when the stories were well written, apart from her and Peter having an incredible chemistry, Mary Jane proved again and again to be a woman that had what it takes to be married to a superhero, even if it wasn't easy. Heck, one of my favorite Spidey stories from when I was a kid involved Spidey trying to rescue MJ from some rich lunatic, only to end up with MJ RESCUING SPIDEY instead!
The underwear is a remnant of the stylization of old circus strongmen. Since that's no longer topical, the no-underwear not only makes sense, but it also looks better.
I do think that the underwear are a good signifier of "this superhero is probably a older fellow" or "this superhero was probably one of the earlier superheroes of this world".
Want Superman to get married? Find the big blue boy scout someone who likes him, has some common interests, is sufficiently powerful to keep up with Superman's world saving and is willing to help him do so at least every now and then.
I agree with Renwick Davis. If Superman was so committed to saving the world he would just give up the Clark Kent alter ego. I also agree that Superman and Wonder Woman have nothing to talk about outside of work. Saying they should be together because they're both superheroes is like saying athletes should be with other athletes. There's WAY more to marriage than being similar. In fact, I'd say that due to the fact that Diana's alter ego really isn't as central to her character as Superman's is one of the flags that show she just isn't Kal's type. Supes has consistently identified himself more as Clark than Kal-El whereas Diana is well...Diana. She doesn't have that "our world" grounding that is a major part of who Superman is. She's not really "at home" in our world, while Superman/Clark is. Lois, meanwhile, is not only a part of this regular life, but she's a tough human who doesn't hide when all the bad stuff happens. She's fighting the same fight Supes and WW are, just with the talents and tools she's got. She's seen every aspect of him: Clark, Kal-El, Superman, and she's consistently proven to be ok will all of it. Sure, Diana kicks back with Superman, but would she ultimately feel "at home" with Clark Kent? She can understand his reasons for wanting to be Clark, but it's really just not her thing. Lois meanwhile, has made herself at home in the Fortress of Solitude multiple times across different media (Superman 2, the Doomsday animated movie). Overall, Lois has just shown to be more consistently a good match for her husband. Now, if comics could just get over their mental block that getting married and having kids can't possibly be written well....
Let me address the whole Superman/Wonder Woman thing from the angle a lot of people like to take. The sex. If you say WW is one of the few women Superman can have sex with who won't be injured or killed you don't know what you're talking about. Do you honestly think Supes never banged Lois? Or Lana? Of course he did! Duh! They're man and wife! Of course Clark and Lois have had sex! So how, then, are you going to tell me that someone who's been having sex with at least two human women since he was in high school can't have sex with human women? See? Doesn't make a lot of sense, now does it? Superman can shake your hand without crushing it. He can sit in a chair without breaking it. He can blow out the candles on his birthday cake without causing a typhoon. So why is it so hard to understand for so many people that he can have sex without tearing his partner in half? Clearly his semen does not shoot like bullets, like in Hancock or something. People, he has had sex with humans. This is a fact. Confirmed. At least two of them and, honestly being a six-foot four-inch well-built man with a resemblance to Superman, I think it's safe to say we can add a few to that number. Clearly this is not a problem. So why is it that so many people don't seem to get this simple fact?
personally I think it makes him look worse, it works for spidy because his outfit is red on top and blue on the bottom, sups just looks like he's wearing no trousers...
Honestly, in some universes, the idea of a super hero or hero in general having and maintaining a romantic relationship isn't all that impossible in my eyes. In fact, I believe some main protagonist could benefit from having a romantic relationship, if done correctly. The problem is most artists, writers, videogame directors, and japanese in general, have no clue on how to show good relationships in the mainstream without cocking up their characters and that's sad. I could go into it more but eh
Ha, like to see Bob bring this up now. Good grief no one gives Lois half the credit she deserves. Hell, he doesn’t give Clark the credit he deserves. He’s SUPERMAN for fuck’s sake!
I'd have liked Clark and Diana's relationship a lot more if it were organic and honest. Had they done a story line where Clark and Lois split up so Clark goes to get comfort from Bruce and Diana and then Clark and Diana realise that they are mutually, physically attracted to each other and so enter a misguided physical relationship that then broke down over a number of years...I'd have been much more supportive of it.
I liked Parker being married to Mary Jane. What I didn't like though, was McFarlane's terrible 80's shrub of red locks on her head. I liked her Romita jr style more.
Well he did say he wanted more female representation. That is why he didn't include Aquaman in the initial line up and why he chose to go with Hawkgirl instead of Hawkman.
Oh, calling the trunks "underwear." That's original. Anyway, I do think they look better. Without them it looks like Supes is wearing pajamas. I hate the new suits in the comics and movies. I wish we could get a truly bitchin' Superman costume. To me the goal is to get people to say "Huh. I was wrong. That costume is awesome after all." I think if you mute the colors but not too much, do a modernized "S"-shield, find materials that looked great on film and made Superman look awesome, and do a majestic cape Superman would be true to the iconography and undeniably cool at the same time. I think that's the way to go. And I think it can definitely be done.
Whoa there, Bob. Hit the brakes. For someone so progressive this is a surprisingly sexist point of view. Why are you putting all this on Superman? You're acting like Lois is just a bystander in all this. Did she not agree to marry Superman fully aware of his identity? And is it not, at least 50%, up to HER to decide what she's willing to endure for the sake of her marriage? See, what you're saying is "Superman is cruel to put Lois through this much anguish." But wait a minute. She signed up, did she not? Why would she not be perfectly capable of making the decision that, even though the risks are substantial, she wants to pursue the love of her life along with everything that comes with it? Those military spouses made that choice. And I would say you could make the case those women are stronger emotionally than most of us because they're willing to make that commitment. They're willing to put the greater good (as they see it anyway) above their personal concerns. Yes, it's important to live the best life you can and do right not only by other people but yourself as well. But if relationships are fully equal partnerships, and I think they should be, that means both parties know what they're doing, sign up for it, and take the good and the bad and try to make the best of it. Lois is perfectly cognizant of what she got herself into. She did it anyway. You're treating her like a helpless victim. I'm not buying it. Give the woman some credit. She's an adult. She was not ignorant of the facts. Why is it on the man in the relationship to decide what's best for his, again fully equal, female partner? Honestly this is not Bob's best moment.
+Hezekiah Ramirez The point isn't necessarily that Louis Lane is incapable of withstanding a distant relationship, or that she can't be fully supportive of her husband's heroics; the point is that DC editorial has demonstrated ZERO interest in fleshing out her motivations or character arc, and on that basis MovieBob thinks the concept of marriage conflicts with Superman's character. Given the choice between missing a romantic dinner and smashing a meteor set to annihilate the Earth, Superman MUST always choose the latter. As an ultimately moral being essentially aware of all simultaneous wrongdoing on the planet, every minute Superman wastes on himself is bought with the blood of the innocent. His consequential marital absence would have made a fine source of tension for an arc that further explored the relationship between these characters and profiled Louis Lane as exactly the sort of person you describe (empowered, patient, or fundamentally GOOD enough to accept Superman's vocation, even at the cost of her own happiness), but (to my knowledge) that arc never happened, and probably never would've happened. Ultimately, the Superman story is driven by the morality narrative of its titular character; MovieBob doesn't like the way that narrative unfolded in pre-52 continuity, at least in regards to Louis Lane. It's an opinion, to be sure. You COULD use the same logic to say that Superman shouldn't walk around as Clark Kent; Bob's choice is arbitrary to some extent. But I don't think it's necessarily misogynist.
Yet in Rebirth DC returned the New Earth Lois and Clark Kent to existence and eventually merged their history into Prime Earth continuity. On a side note _Louis_ Lane is is the cousin of Daily Planet reporter Earth-One's Lois Lane as well a construct made by Mxyzptlk ( dc.wikia.com/wiki/Louis_Lane_(Earth-One) )
If he had used them to demonstrate their capability it would have been great but most of the time WW kept asking everyone if they were ok. HG got in the way until a magic enemy and her mace was suddenly useful for a penultimate strike (couldn't anyone use it). and then in JLU we got SG as a perm-char so she could wine like a spoiled teen. It felt like the writers had no respect for the female characters, I'm a guy, I get them being attractive but why make them seem shallow and high maintenance.
There is one simple reason Superman tends to get paired off with Wonder Woman: She is one of the very very few characters in the DCU that he could have sex with without killing her.
You have never read Larry Niven's "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" (1969) ( www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html ) have you? Some of the more fun things in that piece: "Electroencephalograms taken of men and women during sexual intercourse show that orgasm resembles "a kind of pleasurable epileptic attack." One loses control over one's muscles." "All known forms of kryptonian life have superpowers." Yes that goes exactly where you think it is going. "Can the infant use his X-ray vision before birth? After all, with such a power he can probably see through his own closed eyelids. That would leave LL sterile. If the kid starts using heat vision, things get even worse. But when he starts to kick, it's all over. He will kick his way out into open air, killing himself and his mother." In fact, Superman Annual Vol 1 #3 (1993) hinted this last part may have been the reason Lois died in the possible future Waverider saw during the whole Armageddon 2001 story line. And that involved a Superman far weaker then then Earth-One Superman.
While I am on your side in this debate, I will have to note that on the one hand emphasizing Superman's nonhumanity but then basing arguments such as the incontrollable orgasmic spasms specifically on human biology is somewhat inconsistent.
Actually that is one of the first things kind of addressed in Larry Niven's "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" (1969): "Superman is an alien, an extraterrestrial. His humanoid frame is doubtless the result of parallel evolution, as the marsupials of Australia resemble their mammalian counterparts. A specific niche in the ecology calls for a certain shape, a certain size, certain capabilities, certain eating habits. Be not deceived by appearances. Superman is no relative to homo sapiens." Of course Niven avoids the obvious ramifications of that because he is writing the whole thing tongue in cheek: odds are even if Kryptonians and Tarrens could have children (questionable at best) they would sterile hybrids. Even in 1969 when Niven wrote this where were solutions to the problems presented. A red sun generator for one would solve a lot of the problems Niven presents. A weak form of X-Kryptonite would give LL superpowers preventing the death related in Superman Annual Vol 1 #3 (1993) If we use some of the imaginary tales (retconned into being alternate realities with 2005's Crisis on Infinite Earths: Absolute Edition) then Kandorians can exist at full size for years outside their bottle. Of course those have several stories where Superman and his wife had a children with no problems so yeh... On a side note Nightwing in his 'Confessions of a Superman' fan page states this: "Have you ever wished you could see a grieving Man of Steel pushed to the limits of his sanity, having a make-out session with a robot, trolling beauty contests for Lois lookalikes and tricking a woman into marrying him under the pretense of being someone else? If so, then Superman #215 (Apr 1969) has the story you've been looking for." Let's not forget he "watches Brainiac and Luthor kill two people and because he really, really doesn't like the victims, turns a blind eye while they haul off the bodies (and even says, "Thanks")" Niven''s work is nothing compared to some of the off the wall stuff DC itself put out.
Flash forward & Superman & Wonder Woman are a couple....& I think it's a great thing. It makes far more sense than Lois & Clark. P.S. I've always viewed WW as being bisexual as oppose to homosexual....because she came from an island exclusively of warrior women & it's easy to imagine that her & some of her fellow Amazons fooled around w/ each other during their functionally eternal life on an island that's full of beautiful women who are logical & not homophobic. Outside of work what does snarky, borderline bitchy, self-serving, city slicker, military brat Lois Lane & meek, reversed, polite farmboy Clark Kent have in common? If anything, Supes & WW have far more in common. They are both "aliens" who had to adjust to living in "America", they both are descended from a warrior race, & they both had to learn to use their similar super powers (strength, speed, flight, etc). Not to mention WW's island is about as low tech as living on a far. WW & Supes both are good with their hands, Lois is too "citified" to do farm work, fish, or even survive w/o tech (her cell phone, a camera, makeup, or computer ). Essentially they have the whole "god-like" thing in common & have to hide if from the world. Plus they are both among the most powerful people on the planet, they also have that in common. Lois is a mere mortal, who is only used as a damsel in distress. And Supes would have to take care not to "break" her, WW is far more durable. Aging also is a factor, since Supes' alien DNA slows his to a crawl, while WW is functionally immortal. The reason that Superman & Spidey's relationships really didn't work was because they were married to normal women. If Supes married WW, then they'd be together fighting evil & saving the world. Then they'd be able to spend their downtime together. And they'd both have an understanding of the responsibility of saving the world....something Lois would have no experience at doing or idea of. Mr. Fantastic & Invisible Woman's relationship seems to be so long lasting is because they are both superheroes & understand the duties it entails.
Bruce started pairing everyone up it was annoying. bats and wonder woman, GL and Hawk. Half the time it felt like the only reason Hawk was in it was to even out the numbers of male to female so they could all date.
I not sure what moviebob means by "modernizing" wonder woman by making her gay. But it sounds like fan fiction. Making the first female character that DC cared to even think about feminism a lesbian is extremely tone deaf. The modernizing of wonder woman would be best used in her origins of growing up on a island only populated with women.
Reboot after Reboot. Recton after Recton. Contradiction after Contradiction Plot Hole after Plot hole New different universe after new different universe All we have now is just a Gianormus Jumbled cluttered convoluted mishmash hoarding of characters plot holes, contradictions, spin offs plot twists and endless nonsense. Anything could happen.
Wearing no under over his suit - good idea. Having a girlfriend he will not kill by making a wrong move in bed - great idea. But being a big DCAU fan I kinda feel Wonder Woman and Batman were meant to be.
I'm a big DCAU fan myself & I always thought WW & Supes should be together. I though the whole flirting w/ WW & Bats was cute, but odd. Bats comes off as A-sexual & like he's not really interested in any physical human contact. WW was patterned after Supes & therefore they were actually kind of made for each other, in a sense (like Eve was made from a rib from Adam).
Oh, I was all in favor of Spider-Man being married, and especially, Aunt May knowing Peter is Spidey. It was cool, it gave Peter a little family he could talk to. How can you say Peter Parker loves May, when he's LYING to her on a regular basis?
And when they moved into Avengers Tower, and May kinda hooked up with (the human) Jarvis, what's not to love about that?!? It was darling -- May took Wolverine's cigar from him and said "There will be no smoking in the kitchen"! It's the little things like this that make me love comics.
+Ben Culture Spidey being married to MJ, or married in general, was the most logical thing for his character. He's about responsibility. Marriage is a responsibility. His wife was defined by running away from responsibility and committment, but she got over that and had to keep getting over it to stay with her husband
+227060 Exactly. Marvel's most popular character is actually the most likely to settle down and have a family, so they screwed themselves with goodness!
First of all dude your in two worlds. That scene in civil war was a gag Stark and May arent getting together and even if they were that's in the movie. And this is more of an opinion, but honestly if your willing to put your loved ones in danger because you think lying means you don't love them then you have never held a dangerous secret. Most undercover terrorists don't tell they're families they are gonna blow up a building if they care about them. It's common sense and not all that different from a superheroes situation.
First of all, we were never talking about the movies in this thread, so I don't know why you brought it up. I'm ignoring that.
Thanks for proving my point with your wildly-inappropriate analogy to terrorists. Of _course_ TERRORISTS keep it secret -- terrorists _kill innocent people._
Look: Aunt May or MJ knowing the truth about Peter puts them in no more danger than they were in the first place.
It's his enemies learning the truth that endangers them. Gwen Stacy didn't have to know Peter was Spider-Man (and in fact she DIDN'T know, unless all you know is movies) for the Green Goblin to kidnap and kill her. The only solution to this problem is for the hero to be a loner with no personal relationships, and nobody wants to read that.
I stick to my guns: If you keep your identity a secret from people you love, you not only lie to them, but when they get suspicious, you trick them, and make them doubt their intelligence or even their sanity. It's just sick. Read any number of late-40s to late-60s Superman comics. Superman is constantly playing tricks and snickering at Lois as he once again bamboozles her from confirming her suspicions. Lois is right, and Superman is a dishonest asshole. That version of Superman does not respect her. And we, the readers, could not respect either of them in such stories.
This is why Marvel is right to downplay "secret identity" tropes, and even the two DCEU films are subverting the whole thing by having Lois discover what Clark can do before he's even really Superman. Secret-identity bullshit is for children.
This is why Marvel is right to downplay "secret identity" tropes, and even the two DCEU films are subverting the whole thing by having Lois discover what Clark can do before he's even really Superman. Secret-identity bullshit is for children.
...Not really. May and Mary Jane knowing Peter’s secret puts them on their guard. They’d know to run away whenever Norman Osborn shows up or to take precautions in case a villain comes looking for them.
That isn’t to say Peter is necessarily in the wrong for withholding the truth from people. The fewer people know the less chance there is of everyone knowing. With Aunt May he was literally told by a doctor that if she received a sudden shock that it’d kill her so he had no choice but to lie to her, although he also didn’t want to admit to his role in Ben’s death. With Mary Jane and his other friends he actually did tell them the truth in ASM #87 which consequently got negative reactions out of them. That combined with a natural fear of rejection or uncertainty over how truthworthy they are is going to mean Peter’s naturally going to be wary of confiding in anyone. What if he confides in someone and they can’t handle the stress of keeping the secret or fall out with him and spill the beans. There are lots of perfectly morally justified reasons for keeping your secret but not from people you are close to like family. Lying to your wife is idiotic.
The thing about Spider-Man being a loner with no personally connections is that that isn’t really a good solution. Because if you think about it, if a bad guy learns who he is and digs deep enough they will find out he USED to have friends and consequently target them either to hurt him or to drive him out of hiding, same deal for Aunt May. Sure, Peter’s exes are safe...so long as the villain figures he’s moved on from them, which if he’s with someone else is a surefire sign. But looking at the post-OMD era a villain who knows Peter is Spider-Man would be aware he used to be involved with the supermodel/actress Mary Jane Watson and might even know they almost got married, so she’d still be a potential target if all else fails. Her extended family might not be though but even that is debatable.
More importantly if a villain targets Spider-Man’s loved ones whilst he’s busy isolating himself then he’s not going to be there to stop them. Worse though...Peter needs people. EVERYONE needs people. Nobody honestly can thrive or cope longterm withough proper human contact and relationships. To remain mentally and emotionally healthy Spider-Man NEEDS to have friends and family and by doing so it actually makes him far MORE effective than if he isolated himself.
So Marvel aren’t right to downplay secret identity tropes in their comics so long as they don’t go into mean spirited territory and justify it properly.
More importantly though saying secret identities is for kids is itself narrowminded. Secret identities serve as a metaphor for both the personas we all adopt within ‘working environments’ and literalize how we as human beings have different sides to our personalities and identities and attempt to navigate those to discover who we are. It’s a gloriously rich trope, fertile for storytelling.
With the DCEU movies it was pure laziness and demonstrated contempt for the Superman mythology by having Lois know the truth immediately. Like with Spider-Man Superman didn’t need to trick her necessarily but there were valid reasons for not necessarily trusting her before he ultimately CONFIDED the truth in her.
Being Superman and being married at the same time would be WAY easier than being a soldier and married at the same time, because unlike soldiers - Superman can just fly really really fast back home once he saves the day.
Also - why is it that Superman can be with a girlfriend while still being Superman, but he can't be married while still be Superman? Maybe I'm just naive, but it seems like that won't be a huge difference by itself.
Plus him being Superman means very little is a real threat to him. So she'd really only have to worry about things like Zod, Doomsday, Darkseid, Brainiac, and Lex Luthor's latest death ray.
"Barbara Gordon can walk and is Batgirl again"
WAIT WHAT I HAVEN'T CAUGHT UP TO THE NEW 52 ALL THOSE NIGHTWING COVERS MAKE SO MUCH MORE SENSE NOW
I have never understood why people think it has to be one or the other. I do not see why he can't just have a wife and friends and be Superman at the same time. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it's possible and makes the most sense to me. It's not like Superman fixes every world problem and is needed 24/7 for every single thing in the world. If that was the case them he should just stop being Clark Kent and just be Suoerman. Why pretend? No offense to anyone, but the whole Superman has to sacrifice all of his happiness for the world always came off as too simplistic to me. It makes for some good drama in the short term, but it's pretty ridiculous in the long term.
That's why pairing him with a fellow super heroine makes perfect sense. WW would be right by his side fighting along with him to save the world. She won't be home babysitting the kids, baking brownies & cleaning the house. She's a warrior through & through.
He'd have no reason to explain anything to WW because she'd already understand & she'd be there right alongside of him, like she always has been.
I don't get ppl who want Supes w/ Lois. I never really like Lois, too bitchy & has too much mouth & can't back it up. At least w/ WW she can lay the smack down. The only reason I can think of Lois & Clark being together is out of nostalgia from the old comics, where she was literally made to be his love interest. But that was in a bygone era & is an antiquated notion.
Blackton Obvious! Yeah. I never had a problem with Superman and Wonder Woman dating. Made sense to me. Frank Miller raised a good point when he said that superheroes should be with other superpeople because it's easier for them to relate to each other. But I don't get the people that say it's wrong for him to be with Lois because of him being a superhero or something like that. Yeah the relationship wouldn't be easy, but I don't see why they couldn't make it work.
Renwick Davis I feel ya. But Lois & Clark have been dating for how long now? If they can't make it work in that much time, then it's never going to happen.
I personally just don't like the character of Lois & how she treats Clark.
She's borderline bitchy to him.
WW doesn't even treat him that badly & she knows his secret identity.
To me Lois is a brat & a bully. And her ass is always getting in trouble & expects Supes to rescue her. She's purposely putting herself in danger & detracting the man from saving others. All because she's a dumbass & an inept report. I mean she's been intimately close to both Clark & Supes, yet she can't tell they are the same person, despite a damn pair of glasses. Seriously? What type of investigative journalist is she?
Basically Lois is an antiquated charter from a bygone era. Gone are the days when superheroes need a damsel In distress to prove that they are a hero. Or a "love interest" to prove that they aren't gay.
"A married Superman is a boring Superman"
Enter Dan Jurgens, to prove you wrong
its funny to me seen this sorta of rationalisation all these years later, after the new 52 crashed and burned and we have rebirth with clark , lois and their son John and seening how much people are loving this change.
I really don’t agree about the case with Superman at all.
For one thing, Superman never did sacrifice his happiness for the greater good. He and Lois dated a bit even pre-crisis and he was keen for them to hook up just weirdly as Clark Kent not as Superman.
The post-Crisis Superman though wasn’t like that and clearly saw no problem about having a life of his own and being Superman at the same time. It’s analogous to cops or doctors or fire fighters. After all it wasn’t like Superman was on call 24/7. He clearly took some down time and maintained personal relationships with his friends and family and that included Lois.
So getting married really wasn’t that big of a deal. In fact if he was never going to get married, ship teasing him with Lois or anyone else was simply a doomed to fail scenario and a waste of time and money of everyone involved apart from the creators.
Plus getting married doesn’t mean you will settle down in regards to your job. Getting married means basically no more dating (although not for some marriages). He’d still be a superhero and still be a reporter so it wasn’t like marriage = retirement and lifelong dedication to his wife.
And whilst it is true that Superman II made that point the truth is...Superman II was wrong. That's the harsh truth. That ending was BS because it made it clear he's either a super man or a family man but not both...which is unrealistic because...why couldn't he be both?
For Spider-Man it’s something similar as his character has been looking to basically become a normal guy like his Uncle Ben and have a house in the suburbs with a wife and kids. He’s never gonna be rid of the superheroics of his life, but that other stuff is more than doable.
Furthermore, whilst Spidey got married due to a promotional push, the writers of the mid-late 1980s were building up to the wedding long in advance, they just didn't intend to follow through with it. So Spidey's marriage was an editorial mandate but one which ironically worked organically with what had been set up and yet went against the intended ending.
Which was ultimately a benefit since for Spidey it made all the sense in the world for a character defined by being the everyman and juggling responsibilities to take on one of the more significant responsibilities most people go through in life.
Additionally Spider-Man didn't make the decision to get married hastily. He'd aspired to get married since at least the 1970s when he was with Gwen Stacy. He proposed to Mary Jane at the end of that decade. He and Mary Jane had been practically dating without admitting it for over 2 years by the time he proposed and he'd come to realize what he wanted and who he wanted it with. And whilst he felt bad sometimes for what he put her through, he never actually regretted the decision and neither did she.
As for the comparison to military wives,
1) Superman clearly did not spend 90% of his time on duty as the comics made clear
2) Lois didn't worry because...well her husband is invulnerable to most shit
3) the analogy is self-defeating. Superman wouldn't do this because of what military wives go through. But the fact that married members of the military exist in and of itself proves that this set up is more than realistic and that Lois, who is the daughter of a military man, could in theory put up with it.
Couple that with Lois herself being made of steel and herself choosing to be with Clark and knowing the burden of that (remember, he 'died' shortly before the wedding) and it more than makes sense that Clark would go for this.
It's kind of like saying basically military people shouldn't get married in the first place.
On a side note the marriage of Lois and Clark had been planned well in advance of the TV show. the TV show actually delayed the wedding hence we got the Death of Superman
+227060 Yeah, plus the military marriages analogy doesn't really work because Superman has a ten minute commute from anyplace between Little Bohemia and the moon. Less if the Justice League teleporters aren't malfunctioning again.
>After all it wasn’t like Superman was on call 24/7.
>That ending was BS because it made it clear he's either a super man or a family man but not both...which is unrealistic because...why couldn't he be both?
Go back and listen to "Superman belongs to everyone". Every decision to not be on call and be with his wife is a decision not to be out helping people. Or at least, that's Bob's argument; I'm still mulling it over myself if it works, but Bob at least addresses the idea
Bob's argument is illogical. Countless cops, soldiers and social activists maintain normal lives. Such things are necesarry to keep one mentally balanced so you can continue performing such thankless tasks.
Right. More over Superman showed the ability to build superrobots that had all his powers even back when he was Superboy. Somewhere along the line it was said pollution caused the robots to malfunction and become dangerous but this left open two another alternatives: Kandor and Supergirl.
Kandor (first shown in 1958) was especially problematic as its inhabitants had the means to become and remain normal sized. So why didn't they help Superman before he finally restored the whole city to full size in 1979?
The Kara Zor-El Supergirl also appeared 1959 (there was a magically created Supergirl that had appeared a year earlier but she didn't last long) and she was around all the way up to Crisis in 1985.
Regarding 1:45, it is funny how many people forget that Superman got married _before_ 1996. It happened in Action Comics #484 (June 1978). Yes DC had it be the Superman and Lois Lane of Earth-Two but it still happened.
Paul DIni-Alex Ross' "Superman: Peace on Earth" sums it up nicely (besides being, you know, one of those comics illustrated by the undisputed top talent of this industry).
Whenever the thought of comic-book weirdness assaults your mind, remember Alex Ross' work.
Bob talking about comic books is the best of Bob.
0:55 And that's exactly what happened...
You know, I kinda want a follow up on this in the post-rebirth era. Considering that it was revealed in Rebirth that Post-Crisis Supes and Lois ended up existing side by side with their New52 counterparts and took it as a chance for them to retire to the farm.
I always thought of Wonder Woman as bisexual in that she comes from a society based entirely on honor, strength, and ability in battle. So she would be attracted more to personality than gender
wouldn't that make her more PANsexual?
good point! I actually didn't know what pansexual meant when I wrote this comment so, my bad
***** no worries!
I agree. I've always seen WW as being bisexual, as oppose to heterosexual or homosexual.
It actually makes perfect sense. She's from an island of beautiful "immortal" warrior women & they view men as "the enemy". I see her being attracted to people based on their character traits, and not their gender. Of course the comics probably would never do this because they are too homophobic to make one of their longest standing & most iconic characters anything but heterosexual.
Blackton Obvious! that would actually be demisexual, being attracted to someone upon establishing a strong emotional connection with them
I laughed when Bob brought up the Fantastic Four cause he actually had a good point there.
Never read enough Superman comics to comment on them, but Spider-Man's marriage, especially around the time MJ was pregnant, was actually interesting and showed growth. I wish they would have gone through with the "Ben Reilly becomes Spider-Man while Peter and MJ become supporting characters" thing. It would have allowed us to have our cake and eat it, too. Single Spidey with girl and money problems, while stable Peter gets his happy ending.
I disagree with the last point that Superman shouldn't be married because it would be too stressful for his wife.
You're forgetting something: marriage is a two people thing. Meaning that Superman's wife should accept that part of his life. In other words, it should be her choice. And if she chooses so and accepts the consequences, then why shouldn't they be married.
And about Superman facing bigger threats making that stress too much for any normal woman to handle... I'm not convinced. Considering Superman is a god-like figure himself, she should be just as confident of his husband abilities as any spouse of a solider, if not even more. Meaning that yes, she would be worried, but it's not like it would be emotional hell 24:7.
Would it be an easy, happy-go-lucky marriage with no marital problems? Of course not! But that doesn't mean that it's impossible or even unlikely for it to be an overall successful marriage.
Here I have to agree with something Linkara says from time to time: superhero marriages, specially those that involve a non-superhero spouse, fail because of lazy writing, not because the concept can't work.
Actually, ironically Spider-Man is an example of a superhero marriage that can work if written correctly. Spidey's marriage didn't last for so long because of the eye-candy that Mary Jane was reduced to sometimes, nor it's that missed only because fans are still mad at Joe Quesada. It was because, when the stories were well written, apart from her and Peter having an incredible chemistry, Mary Jane proved again and again to be a woman that had what it takes to be married to a superhero, even if it wasn't easy. Heck, one of my favorite Spidey stories from when I was a kid involved Spidey trying to rescue MJ from some rich lunatic, only to end up with MJ RESCUING SPIDEY instead!
Robert Kirkman's "Invincible" touches this topic
Well he's certainly changed his mind on the undies that's for sure.
Well there's a red belt at least to break up all that blue but you're right.
The underwear is a remnant of the stylization of old circus strongmen. Since that's no longer topical, the no-underwear not only makes sense, but it also looks better.
I do think that the underwear are a good signifier of "this superhero is probably a older fellow" or "this superhero was probably one of the earlier superheroes of this world".
it looks worse actually
Want Superman to get married? Find the big blue boy scout someone who likes him, has some common interests, is sufficiently powerful to keep up with Superman's world saving and is willing to help him do so at least every now and then.
That intro was so meta it broke the meter...
I agree with Renwick Davis. If Superman was so committed to saving the world he would just give up the Clark Kent alter ego. I also agree that Superman and Wonder Woman have nothing to talk about outside of work. Saying they should be together because they're both superheroes is like saying athletes should be with other athletes. There's WAY more to marriage than being similar. In fact, I'd say that due to the fact that Diana's alter ego really isn't as central to her character as Superman's is one of the flags that show she just isn't Kal's type. Supes has consistently identified himself more as Clark than Kal-El whereas Diana is well...Diana. She doesn't have that "our world" grounding that is a major part of who Superman is. She's not really "at home" in our world, while Superman/Clark is. Lois, meanwhile, is not only a part of this regular life, but she's a tough human who doesn't hide when all the bad stuff happens. She's fighting the same fight Supes and WW are, just with the talents and tools she's got. She's seen every aspect of him: Clark, Kal-El, Superman, and she's consistently proven to be ok will all of it. Sure, Diana kicks back with Superman, but would she ultimately feel "at home" with Clark Kent? She can understand his reasons for wanting to be Clark, but it's really just not her thing. Lois meanwhile, has made herself at home in the Fortress of Solitude multiple times across different media (Superman 2, the Doomsday animated movie). Overall, Lois has just shown to be more consistently a good match for her husband. Now, if comics could just get over their mental block that getting married and having kids can't possibly be written well....
I wonder how Bob feels that now that Supermarriage is back in canon?
Let me address the whole Superman/Wonder Woman thing from the angle a lot of people like to take. The sex. If you say WW is one of the few women Superman can have sex with who won't be injured or killed you don't know what you're talking about. Do you honestly think Supes never banged Lois? Or Lana? Of course he did! Duh! They're man and wife! Of course Clark and Lois have had sex! So how, then, are you going to tell me that someone who's been having sex with at least two human women since he was in high school can't have sex with human women? See? Doesn't make a lot of sense, now does it? Superman can shake your hand without crushing it. He can sit in a chair without breaking it. He can blow out the candles on his birthday cake without causing a typhoon. So why is it so hard to understand for so many people that he can have sex without tearing his partner in half? Clearly his semen does not shoot like bullets, like in Hancock or something.
People, he has had sex with humans. This is a fact. Confirmed. At least two of them and, honestly being a six-foot four-inch well-built man with a resemblance to Superman, I think it's safe to say we can add a few to that number. Clearly this is not a problem. So why is it that so many people don't seem to get this simple fact?
hey did anyone else notice he still hasn't done the death and rebirth of super man? just saying he did say he would back at the green lantern episodes
personally I think it makes him look worse, it works for spidy because his outfit is red on top and blue on the bottom, sups just looks like he's wearing no trousers...
But what is the belt gonna hold up now? WHAT DOES THE BELT HOLD UP NOW, BOB?!
bob was in favor of ditching the underwear, thats a bit of irony that came back to bite him
Honestly, in some universes, the idea of a super hero or hero in general having and maintaining a romantic relationship isn't all that impossible in my eyes. In fact, I believe some main protagonist could benefit from having a romantic relationship, if done correctly. The problem is most artists, writers, videogame directors, and japanese in general, have no clue on how to show good relationships in the mainstream without cocking up their characters and that's sad. I could go into it more but eh
I'm glad super man doesn't have his red underwear anymore.
Ha, like to see Bob bring this up now. Good grief no one gives Lois half the credit she deserves. Hell, he doesn’t give Clark the credit he deserves. He’s SUPERMAN for fuck’s sake!
I'd have liked Clark and Diana's relationship a lot more if it were organic and honest. Had they done a story line where Clark and Lois split up so Clark goes to get comfort from Bruce and Diana and then Clark and Diana realise that they are mutually, physically attracted to each other and so enter a misguided physical relationship that then broke down over a number of years...I'd have been much more supportive of it.
I liked Parker being married to Mary Jane. What I didn't like though, was McFarlane's terrible 80's shrub of red locks on her head. I liked her Romita jr style more.
Well he did say he wanted more female representation. That is why he didn't include Aquaman in the initial line up and why he chose to go with Hawkgirl instead of Hawkman.
Superman, as created and until 1985 was not a farmboy.
I love the power couple that is Wonder woman and Superman.
Moore thought the same, but DC didn't allow it.
Sorry but they ARE pairing Supes & Wondy in "New52" now.
Superman single again
Superman no longer wearing underwear on outside
Well played, DC
To be fair that has only ever been, as far as I can tell, in the Bruce Timm DC Animated Universe.
I'm still waiting for the moment when supers can be in poly relations.And no not just a few of the 3rd tier ones.
The Belt should be gold, the red belt just doesn't work. Reminds everyone too much that the undies used to be there.
Oh, calling the trunks "underwear." That's original. Anyway, I do think they look better. Without them it looks like Supes is wearing pajamas. I hate the new suits in the comics and movies. I wish we could get a truly bitchin' Superman costume. To me the goal is to get people to say "Huh. I was wrong. That costume is awesome after all." I think if you mute the colors but not too much, do a modernized "S"-shield, find materials that looked great on film and made Superman look awesome, and do a majestic cape Superman would be true to the iconography and undeniably cool at the same time. I think that's the way to go. And I think it can definitely be done.
BvS did not understand this. "Fuck the world, Lois. You are my world."
What was super man if he wasn't a farm boy?
depends on the elseworld story. He was raised by a samurai family in one, raised by Josef Stalin in another
Whoa there, Bob. Hit the brakes. For someone so progressive this is a surprisingly sexist point of view. Why are you putting all this on Superman? You're acting like Lois is just a bystander in all this. Did she not agree to marry Superman fully aware of his identity? And is it not, at least 50%, up to HER to decide what she's willing to endure for the sake of her marriage? See, what you're saying is "Superman is cruel to put Lois through this much anguish." But wait a minute. She signed up, did she not? Why would she not be perfectly capable of making the decision that, even though the risks are substantial, she wants to pursue the love of her life along with everything that comes with it? Those military spouses made that choice. And I would say you could make the case those women are stronger emotionally than most of us because they're willing to make that commitment. They're willing to put the greater good (as they see it anyway) above their personal concerns. Yes, it's important to live the best life you can and do right not only by other people but yourself as well. But if relationships are fully equal partnerships, and I think they should be, that means both parties know what they're doing, sign up for it, and take the good and the bad and try to make the best of it.
Lois is perfectly cognizant of what she got herself into. She did it anyway. You're treating her like a helpless victim. I'm not buying it. Give the woman some credit. She's an adult. She was not ignorant of the facts. Why is it on the man in the relationship to decide what's best for his, again fully equal, female partner? Honestly this is not Bob's best moment.
+Hezekiah Ramirez The point isn't necessarily that Louis Lane is incapable of withstanding a distant relationship, or that she can't be fully supportive of her husband's heroics; the point is that DC editorial has demonstrated ZERO interest in fleshing out her motivations or character arc, and on that basis MovieBob thinks the concept of marriage conflicts with Superman's character. Given the choice between missing a romantic dinner and smashing a meteor set to annihilate the Earth, Superman MUST always choose the latter. As an ultimately moral being essentially aware of all simultaneous wrongdoing on the planet, every minute Superman wastes on himself is bought with the blood of the innocent. His consequential marital absence would have made a fine source of tension for an arc that further explored the relationship between these characters and profiled Louis Lane as exactly the sort of person you describe (empowered, patient, or fundamentally GOOD enough to accept Superman's vocation, even at the cost of her own happiness), but (to my knowledge) that arc never happened, and probably never would've happened. Ultimately, the Superman story is driven by the morality narrative of its titular character; MovieBob doesn't like the way that narrative unfolded in pre-52 continuity, at least in regards to Louis Lane.
It's an opinion, to be sure. You COULD use the same logic to say that Superman shouldn't walk around as Clark Kent; Bob's choice is arbitrary to some extent. But I don't think it's necessarily misogynist.
Yet in Rebirth DC returned the New Earth Lois and Clark Kent to existence and eventually merged their history into Prime Earth continuity.
On a side note _Louis_ Lane is is the cousin of Daily Planet reporter Earth-One's Lois Lane as well a construct made by Mxyzptlk ( dc.wikia.com/wiki/Louis_Lane_(Earth-One) )
If he had used them to demonstrate their capability it would have been great but most of the time WW kept asking everyone if they were ok. HG got in the way until a magic enemy and her mace was suddenly useful for a penultimate strike (couldn't anyone use it). and then in JLU we got SG as a perm-char so she could wine like a spoiled teen. It felt like the writers had no respect for the female characters, I'm a guy, I get them being attractive but why make them seem shallow and high maintenance.
There is one simple reason Superman tends to get paired off with Wonder Woman: She is one of the very very few characters in the DCU that he could have sex with without killing her.
also one of the few female characters he can safely sleep with... that's not a blood relative
You have never read Larry Niven's "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" (1969) ( www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html ) have you?
Some of the more fun things in that piece:
"Electroencephalograms taken of men and women during sexual intercourse show that orgasm resembles "a kind of pleasurable epileptic attack." One loses control over one's muscles."
"All known forms of kryptonian life have superpowers." Yes that goes exactly where you think it is going.
"Can the infant use his X-ray vision before birth? After all, with such a power he can probably see through his own closed eyelids. That would leave LL sterile. If the kid starts using heat vision, things get even worse.
But when he starts to kick, it's all over. He will kick his way out into open air, killing himself and his mother."
In fact, Superman Annual Vol 1 #3 (1993) hinted this last part may have been the reason Lois died in the possible future Waverider saw during the whole Armageddon 2001 story line. And that involved a Superman far weaker then then Earth-One Superman.
While I am on your side in this debate, I will have to note that on the one hand emphasizing Superman's nonhumanity but then basing arguments such as the incontrollable orgasmic spasms specifically on human biology is somewhat inconsistent.
Actually that is one of the first things kind of addressed in Larry Niven's "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" (1969):
"Superman is an alien, an extraterrestrial. His humanoid frame is doubtless the result of parallel evolution, as the marsupials of Australia resemble their mammalian counterparts. A specific niche in the ecology calls for a certain shape, a certain size, certain capabilities, certain eating habits.
Be not deceived by appearances. Superman is no relative to homo sapiens."
Of course Niven avoids the obvious ramifications of that because he is writing the whole thing tongue in cheek: odds are even if Kryptonians and Tarrens could have children (questionable at best) they would sterile hybrids.
Even in 1969 when Niven wrote this where were solutions to the problems presented.
A red sun generator for one would solve a lot of the problems Niven presents.
A weak form of X-Kryptonite would give LL superpowers preventing the death related in Superman Annual Vol 1 #3 (1993)
If we use some of the imaginary tales (retconned into being alternate realities with 2005's Crisis on Infinite Earths: Absolute Edition) then Kandorians can exist at full size for years outside their bottle. Of course those have several stories where Superman and his wife had a children with no problems so yeh...
On a side note Nightwing in his 'Confessions of a Superman' fan page states this:
"Have you ever wished you could see a grieving Man of Steel pushed to the limits of his sanity, having a make-out session with a robot, trolling beauty contests for Lois lookalikes and tricking a woman into marrying him under the pretense of being someone else? If so, then Superman #215 (Apr 1969) has the story you've been looking for."
Let's not forget he "watches Brainiac and Luthor kill two people and because he really, really doesn't like the victims, turns a blind eye while they haul off the bodies (and even says, "Thanks")"
Niven''s work is nothing compared to some of the off the wall stuff DC itself put out.
Well seems like his view on red undies changed (at least for movies).
Wait wait I thought batman and wonder women had a thang
did kind of a heel turn on the red undies in the past couple years it seems.
Huh. I don't think I've watched one of these where I disagreed more with Bob, than with this video.
Flash forward & Superman & Wonder Woman are a couple....& I think it's a great thing. It makes far more sense than Lois & Clark.
P.S. I've always viewed WW as being bisexual as oppose to homosexual....because she came from an island exclusively of warrior women & it's easy to imagine that her & some of her fellow Amazons fooled around w/ each other during their functionally eternal life on an island that's full of beautiful women who are logical & not homophobic.
Outside of work what does snarky, borderline bitchy, self-serving, city slicker, military brat Lois Lane & meek, reversed, polite farmboy Clark Kent have in common?
If anything, Supes & WW have far more in common. They are both "aliens" who had to adjust to living in "America", they both are descended from a warrior race, & they both had to learn to use their similar super powers (strength, speed, flight, etc). Not to mention WW's island is about as low tech as living on a far. WW & Supes both are good with their hands, Lois is too "citified" to do farm work, fish, or even survive w/o tech (her cell phone, a camera, makeup, or computer ). Essentially they have the whole "god-like" thing in common & have to hide if from the world. Plus they are both among the most powerful people on the planet, they also have that in common. Lois is a mere mortal, who is only used as a damsel in distress. And Supes would have to take care not to "break" her, WW is far more durable. Aging also is a factor, since Supes' alien DNA slows his to a crawl, while WW is functionally immortal.
The reason that Superman & Spidey's relationships really didn't work was because they were married to normal women. If Supes married WW, then they'd be together fighting evil & saving the world. Then they'd be able to spend their downtime together. And they'd both have an understanding of the responsibility of saving the world....something Lois would have no experience at doing or idea of.
Mr. Fantastic & Invisible Woman's relationship seems to be so long lasting is because they are both superheroes & understand the duties it entails.
Bruce started pairing everyone up it was annoying. bats and wonder woman, GL and Hawk. Half the time it felt like the only reason Hawk was in it was to even out the numbers of male to female so they could all date.
I not sure what moviebob means by "modernizing" wonder woman by making her gay. But it sounds like fan fiction. Making the first female character that DC cared to even think about feminism a lesbian is extremely tone deaf. The modernizing of wonder woman would be best used in her origins of growing up on a island only populated with women.
12 comments WTF!!!
THIS JOKE
IS
OLD
(at least in 2015)
And I totally disagree with you.
Reboot after Reboot.
Recton after Recton.
Contradiction after Contradiction
Plot Hole after Plot hole
New different universe after new different universe
All we have now is just a Gianormus Jumbled cluttered convoluted mishmash hoarding of characters plot holes, contradictions, spin offs plot twists and endless nonsense. Anything could happen.
I think Superman should be asexual
Wearing no under over his suit - good idea.
Having a girlfriend he will not kill by making a wrong move in bed - great idea.
But being a big DCAU fan I kinda feel Wonder Woman and Batman were meant to be.
I'm a big DCAU fan myself & I always thought WW & Supes should be together. I though the whole flirting w/ WW & Bats was cute, but odd. Bats comes off as A-sexual & like he's not really interested in any physical human contact.
WW was patterned after Supes & therefore they were actually kind of made for each other, in a sense (like Eve was made from a rib from Adam).
BvS did not understand this. "Fuck the world, Lois. You are my world."