Say Dan Didio got a lobotomy and decided...

[Ziggy Stardust]

that Superman is just NOT interesting as a married man and that he should be more like he was 20 years ago.

How would this be done?

[The Batman]

A Crisis obviously.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Infinite Divorce Crisis?

Super Mid-Life Crisis?

[The Batman]

The Crisis on Infinite "It's not you, it's me" or Crisis of "We're Just Two Different People Now" would work just as well I think.

[KET]

that Superman is just NOT interesting as a married man and that he should be more like he was 20 years ago.

Are you trying to say that he hasn't already thought about this? The guy's already undone nearly everything else post-Crisis.

Maybe this is the 'Superman event' that's really coming up next year, since New Krypton's proving out to be an overlong snooze.

How would this be done?

Have him make a deal with Blaze. It's about as cheap a story beat as this irresponsibly dumb idea deserves anyway.

[ryerye17]

What about a brand new crisis?
One more crisis?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Would Ma Kent get shot and Nekron be involved?

[DetectiveDupin]

Have Lois Lane sleep with Batman.

[Ray Goldfield]

Clark's identity gets revealed to the world, and Mxyzptlk decides to "fix it" by erasing everyone's memory of his secret ID.

This being Mxy, he goes overboard and EVERYONE forgets, including Lois.

[Mat001]

This was already attempted twice before, once under Didio and once way before he came. Both times, it was nixed by the higher ups at DC.

[Slaughter]

Clark's identity gets revealed to the world, and Mxyzptlk decides to "fix it" by erasing everyone's memory of his secret ID.

This being Mxy, he goes overboard and EVERYONE forgets, including Lois.

Even Clark?

"Whoa, I can fly! How I did that?"

"Man, my eyes feel hot. ARRRRGHHH MY GLASSES ARE MELTING WHY IS MY DESK AFIRE HELP WHY IS EVERYWHERE I LOOK BURNING!!!!!!11!"

[Jake V]

As I recall, the Morrison/Waid/Millar "Superman 2000" proposal involved resetting time so he wasn't married and no one knew who he was.

They could always dig that up and use it.

[Jorriss]

Probably have Clark getting tired of her so he and Bruce talk and Bruce seduces her and they get it on and Clark walks in on them... like that episode of Nip/Tuck >.>

[Mr. Holmes]

Seeing that Lois Lane's daddy is being portrayed as the pinnacle of Superman's villains right now, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this happened.

[show name]

Superman's dark opposite half, the Nothingness, emerges and threatens to destroy the planet. To save everyone Kal-El erases all memory of himself from the minds of everyone on Earth. The only person who remembers him is Solomon Grundy, who fondly calls him "Silver (Age) Man."

He later emerges inexplicably as a mystery prisoner in Arkham Asylum. No one knows anything about him. During a prison breakout instigated by Livewire, Superman is roused to action by the attack of fellow inmate Clayface, whom he promptly flies into space and rips in half.

Later he is recruited to be part of a team of superheroes called the New Justice League of America. They are new because the previous Justice League had been disassembled by a crazed Zatanna, who later utters a spell that remakes the entire planet such that all people in wedlock suddenly become swinging singles:

"On erom segairram."

[Retro315]

Have Lois Lane sleep with Batman.

Wouldn't be the first time ... ba-dum-ching!

Seriously though ... I think a smart move for DC, if they really just "have to" have the iconic "Superman's Girl Friend" role for Lois, would to be to launch an Ultimate line. Only ... and this is the smartest part here ... tie it into the DC movie franchises.

We haven't gotten our Superman reboot movie yet, but presuming we're going to get one (hopefully soon), use that as the basis, and use the 'Comic Adaptation' of the film as the "Pilot Episode" of the new series. (Same story for Batman - a comic series based on Batman Begins/Dark Knight).

Other than that? Superman and Lois being married is AWESOME. It's so kind of classic ... he's off fighting monsters and his wife is getting into trouble back home (because let's face it, he married (and fell in love with) a trouble magnet).

And all that being said ... DC ... don't launch an Ultimate line. You really, really, really don't need one. Your comics are actually good enough that having two versions of them is uneccessary.

[Seven_Ride]

Clark and Lois being married isn't really a positive or a negative. The old triangle thing is played out, and if someone really wants to do a new spin on it, there's always flashbacks. But the marriage has proved to be a real non-factor in Superman stories. As it should be: Superman is about Superman and his fight against injustice. It's not a soap opera or sitcom.

The value associated with the marriage seems to be with longtime fans. It represents THEIR era, and a different setup than the classic one, satisfying their need for something beyond the old status quo. But that's not a good reason to keep something around, by itself anyway.

I could see it going away, maybe next year. I'd like to see something new done with Superman and his various love interests. Something other than a sitcom like trope done for cheap ratings (a divorce, a pregnancy, an engagement, etc.)

[paulski]

If they were to do it - however they might do it - it would still be done better than the disaster over in the Spiderverse. :frown:

[InSovietRussia]

Here's an idea: as it turns out, Superman didn't actually destroy Darkseid's essence at the end of Final Crisis; it was actually hurled back in time. He's been reincarnated as hundreds of men and women throughout history, mostly without his memory intact. The few times he did remember who he was, we got folks like Stalin, Elizabeth Batory, and Jane Austen (don't ask). Well this time, it just so happens that he's been reincarnated as Lois Lane! During next year's Starro crossover event, Darkseid/Lois ends up running into Vril Dox and his merry band of mercs, and a chance accident with a brain scanner restores his/her memory. Let the fireworks begin! :eek:

[Sabrinaset]

Say Dan Didio got a lobotomy ...


How could we tell? :eek: :wink:

Okay, okay ... they'd probably do somthing like what Geoff did with Wally and after a long drawn-out fight like Ending Battle, have the Spectre wipe out ALL knowledge of Supes marriage from everyone ... including Lois and Clark.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Mxy would be the go-to guy for making such a specific change in Superman's life, like in the aborted Superman 2000 relaunch.

I think you could do a story where Superman's marriage to Lois results in something horrible happening to her. You could approach it in a couple different ways.

You could have Superman himself approach Mxy and ask him to erase everybody's memory of the marriage--the catch being that only Mxy & Superman remember, forcing poor old Clark to watch as his wife goes back to regarding him as little more than some country bumpkin from Kansas horning in on her turf as the Daily Planet's numero uno reporter.

Or you could have Mxy do it all on his own without Superman's knowledge in a misguided attempt to "help" the Man of Steel. Again, I think it would be more interesting to have Superman retain his own memories of his time with Lois but be helpless to do anything about it because Mxy placed a mental block with Lois magically preventing her from ever seeing Superman & Clark as the same person, no matter how many different times or ways Clark tries to tell her.

There's a lot of potentially great stories there, ranging from the tragic to the comedic. And, when the story possibilities have all run out, Mxy can always restore the marriage to give Lois & Clark their happy ever after all over again.

Frankly, I think the last 15 years have proven that there are a heckuva lot more interesting stories that can be told with the love triangle than without it. But, opinions may vary on that.

[bongoes]

Thats actually if Quesada became EIC of DC. Frightening.

[CYOTI]

Seeing that Lois Lane's daddy is being portrayed as the pinnacle of Superman's villains right now, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this happened. Well thats no different from most in-law relationships, it's just in that one, Sam Lane is a lot more murderous and genocidal than your average father-in-law.

[Joker2503]

Even Clark?

"Whoa, I can fly! How I did that?"

"Man, my eyes feel hot. ARRRRGHHH MY GLASSES ARE MELTING WHY IS MY DESK AFIRE HELP WHY IS EVERYWHERE I LOOK BURNING!!!!!!11!"

Didn't the Spectre/Hal do the exact same thing to Wally West?

[dodger8804]

He'd make a deal with the devil, obviously.

(Any ASM readers are laughing right now.)

[M. Bushbug]

that Superman is just NOT interesting as a married man and that he should be more like he was 20 years ago.

How would this be done?I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't even need a lobotomy in order to decide that.

[knowwonder]

What? So he wants Superman Byrned again?

I don't get it. They've done just about everything to un-do everything done at the outcome of COIE. Were there reasons given?

[Laminator_X]

Superman's dark opposite half, the Nothingness, emerges and threatens to destroy the planet. To save everyone Kal-El erases all memory of himself from the minds of everyone on Earth. The only person who remembers him is Solomon Grundy, who fondly calls him "Silver (Age) Man."

He later emerges inexplicably as a mystery prisoner in Arkham Asylum. No one knows anything about him. During a prison breakout instigated by Livewire, Superman is roused to action by the attack of fellow inmate Clayface, whom he promptly flies into space and rips in half.

Later he is recruited to be part of a team of superheroes called the New Justice League of America. They are new because the previous Justice League had been disassembled by a crazed Zatanna, who later utters a spell that remakes the entire planet such that all people in wedlock suddenly become swinging singles:

"On erom segairram."

Nice. Of course the ironic thing is that through all the ups, downs, and general craziness the one thing that Bob managed to hold on to was Lindy. Of course she shot him in the face last month, but frankly that's nowhere near as bad as when she was fooling around with her yoga instructor and they got through that allright (if the Void dropping a 747 on the guy's neighborhood counts as "alright.")

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't even need a lobotomy in order to decide that.

Wait.... you think this would be a GOOD idea?

[Ziggy Stardust]

What? So he wants Superman Byrned again?

I don't get it. They've done just about everything to un-do everything done at the outcome of COIE. Were there reasons given?

If Didio really does want this, then I guess he is just a clone of Quesada.

[M. Bushbug]

Wait.... you think this would be a GOOD idea?I think he wouldn't need a lobotomy to decide that. It's not a comment on whether or not it would be a good idea.

[Mat001]

What? So he wants Superman Byrned again?

I don't get it. They've done just about everything to un-do everything done at the outcome of COIE. Were there reasons given?

Nothing was really undone regarding DC in general and Superman in particular. Barry Allen is alive because there were story ideas to tell and even Marv Wolfman said that Barry could always come back. In Superman's case, only the early stories are different. Many other things that Byrne did are still in effect or have been modified.

If Didio really does want this, then I guess he is just a clone of Quesada.

He doesn't. Didio has never once said a negative thing publically to the fans about being against the marriage and wanting to do away with it. Unlike Quesada who made it clear in his first interviews as EIC. Johns, Rucka, Gates and Robinson made it clear that they weren't going to undo the marriage late last year and early this year. In fact Johns or Robinson said that to make the marriage work, there needed to be a good Lois Lane story. To keep her in the spotlight and not off to the side. Hence we have Lois, Lucy and Sam in the books right now.

[dupersuper]

that Superman is just NOT interesting as a married man and that he should be more like he was 20 years ago.

How would this be done?

Lamely and painfully.

[show name]

Nice. Of course the ironic thing is that through all the ups, downs, and general craziness the one thing that Bob managed to hold on to was Lindy. Of course she shot him in the face last month, but frankly that's nowhere near as bad as when she was fooling around with her yoga instructor and they got through that allright (if the Void dropping a 747 on the guy's neighborhood counts as "alright.")

Shot in the face?! Yowch...does nothing go right for this guy?

[jeangreydp]

Super Mid-Life Crisis?


LoL! That is a good one.

Well, I don't really know how they could do this without it being completely awful. That's me looking at this objectively.

Subjectively, I'm a big fan of the marriage and I would be enraged if they did away with it.

[Seven_Ride]

Well, I don't really know how they could do this without it being completely awful. That's me looking at this objectively.
That's kind of like saying they could reboot the DCU and start Superman's entire history over, and it'd HAVE to be awful. And yet here we are 25 years after COIE, and many liked the reboot and new take on his history just fine. Maybe not ALL the longtime fans, but most.

And that same pattern will repeat again. A crisis, a reboot, which results in the marriage being undone, Lois being killed...something.

[Mat001]

LoL! That is a good one.

Well, I don't really know how they could do this without it being completely awful. That's me looking at this objectively.

Subjectively, I'm a big fan of the marriage and I would be enraged if they did away with it.

Co-sign.

There's nothing that can be gained from the old love triangle. We had it for 53 years, roundabout. It's played out. Peter Parker being single hasn't added anything new to the character. In fact, it took away all the development that the character made over the years. Hence the continuing arguments nearly two years later. Clark and Lois have advanced a lot since she found out. There's no need to get rid of the marriage and it's not like no one knows that Lois means something to Superman. Hell, everyone used to joke about it before they got married.

[Herr Mike]

It would make Superman 5000 times more interesting if he inadvertantly killed her.

[Stanlos]

Co-sign.

There's nothing that can be gained from the old love triangle. We had it for 53 years, roundabout. It's played out. Peter Parker being single hasn't added anything new to the character. In fact, it took away all the development that the character made over the years. Hence the continuing arguments nearly two years later. Clark and Lois have advanced a lot since she found out. There's no need to get rid of the marriage and it's not like no one knows that Lois means something to Superman. Hell, everyone used to joke about it before they got married.

The TV show proved that the duo can be fun, exciting and yes sexy as a married couple.

[RyleKayner]

Have Lois Lane sleep with Batman.

Way things are going, Hal's gonna be tapping that soon enough. And it'll probably be a threesome with Wondy or something to really piss off as many people as possible.

[Mat001]

The TV show proved that the duo can be fun, exciting and yes sexy as a married couple.

"Lois & Clark"? They only got one season with them as a married couple. But three years with them as friends and then lovers. "Smallville" has been doing that for the last five seasons and currently this year. The comics had them well written as a couple before getting married since 1990, when their relationship began to grow intense before the proposal.

[jeangreydp]

Co-sign.

There's nothing that can be gained from the old love triangle. We had it for 53 years, roundabout. It's played out. Peter Parker being single hasn't added anything new to the character. In fact, it took away all the development that the character made over the years. Hence the continuing arguments nearly two years later. Clark and Lois have advanced a lot since she found out. There's no need to get rid of the marriage and it's not like no one knows that Lois means something to Superman. Hell, everyone used to joke about it before they got married.

Co-signed back at ya.

I just don't see what there is to be gained by doing something like this. It would only serve to set the character development back and make me feel like I've wasted 18 years worth of my time and money.

Keep the story going forward. Wiping out the story thats been going on for years is just bad form.

That's kind of like saying they could reboot the DCU and start Superman's entire history over, and it'd HAVE to be awful. And yet here we are 25 years after COIE, and many liked the reboot and new take on his history just fine. Maybe not ALL the longtime fans, but most.

And that same pattern will repeat again. A crisis, a reboot, which results in the marriage being undone, Lois being killed...something.

I see what you are saying, but I still hope this doesn't happen again. In my opinion the reboot was necessary in order to bring continuity to the stories. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but before the reboot were there even continuous story lines or just a series of one-shot comics that were vaguely related? I didn't start reading comics until about 1991, but I've always been under the impression that before the re-boot the books had no cohesive story- just a bunch of random stories like Superman getting a haircut and Lois getting in a machine that makes her black.

And if that is the case then that needed to happen in order to cater to a a market of people that were looking for more sophisticated storytelling. In todays scenario I don't see a reason to reboot his history unless they want to slap the readers in the face.

[Mat001]

There were stories that would reoccur in the Pre-Crisis era, but the ongoing plots really started in the 70's and early 80's. But they weren't to the same degree of continuity that it became after "Man Of Steel". Once Byrne and Wolfman began their run as writers, there were ongoing storylines that both writers dealt with individually and collectively. This carried over to when it was Jurgens, Stern and Ordway before 1991. In fact, that's why the triangles were created.

The reboot from "Birthright" and "Infinite Crisis"/"Secret Origin" has only changed minor details, leaving a lot of what came before as the same. Even if it isn't 100% exact. The only reason the marriage would be undone is if someone who had an agenda like Joe Quesada did, took charge and convinced editorial it would be a good idea.

[Seven_Ride]

I just don't see what there is to be gained by doing something like this. It would only serve to set the character development back and make me feel like I've wasted 18 years worth of my time and money.

Keep the story going forward. Wiping out the story thats been going on for years is just bad form.
I totally understand that perspective. In fact you may have just summed up comics fandom in 2 sentences.

But It's not really bad form though. A subset group of longtime fans who appreciate a background story element (Superman being married) isn't a reason to keep something going **forever**. Especially something that is effectively inconsequential to Superman as a concept. Just think of what few great in-continuity Superman stories have been told since they got married: How many of them required a married Superman for the plot to work?

Most writers have done their best to sidestep the marriage. And the reason is clear: It was executed to generate hype and sales, to create a milestone. How it would affect Superman as a concept, or how it would generate BETTER stories, was not, and IS not, clear. If they would have considered that...they might not have married them. Because marrying your two leads, or having them get pregnant, are options 1 and 2 for unintentionally killing a TV show.

Ever since, most writers have acknowledged the impact of the marriage only in passing, keeping it in the background. Because of course it was never an engine for stories. As opposed to say Kurt Busiek's Secret Identity, which tracks the life of a Superman that gets married and does REALLY interesting things with it. But then, that was also a finite story.

At this point, what the marriage represents is a signpost of post-Byrne continuity. Otherwise it's a non-factor. It's certainly not a BAD thing; Lois is a great character. But it's just not an IMPORTANT thing, either. So of course someday it will go away, as old plot points tend to, when they cease being engines for stories.

It probably would have already have happened, if not for Spider-Man.


I see what you are saying, but I still hope this doesn't happen again. In my opinion the reboot was necessary in order to bring continuity to the stories.I don't intend to sound overly contentious, but that's not true. There WAS continuity to Superman's adventures in the 70s and 80s, pre-reboot. They just released an archive of the 70s arc where he lost his vulnerability to Kryptonite. There were all sorts of soap-ish developments in that era, like where he left the Daily Planet to become a TV newscaster for a few years.

But a lot of that material was junky, just like the done-in-one stories were. The problem was that Superman was stale before MOST, not that the concept didn't work. It needed a fresh take.

And of course, what DC REALLY wanted was simply Marvel's biggest artist of the era drawing Superman. And of the two goals, it's easy to see which was more important to DC.

[jeangreydp]

I totally understand that perspective. In fact you may have just summed up comics fandom in 2 sentences.

But It's not really bad form though. A subset group of longtime fans who appreciate a background story element (Superman being married) isn't a reason to keep something going **forever**. Especially something that is effectively inconsequential to Superman as a concept. Just think of what few great in-continuity Superman stories have been told since they got married: How many of them required a married Superman for the plot to work?

Most writers have done their best to sidestep the marriage. And the reason is clear: It was executed to generate hype and sales, to create a milestone. How it would affect Superman as a concept, or how it would generate BETTER stories, was not, and IS not, clear. If they would have considered that...they might not have married them. Because marrying your two leads, or having them get pregnant, are options 1 and 2 for unintentionally killing a TV show.

Ever since, most writers have acknowledged the impact of the marriage only in passing, keeping it in the background. Because of course it was never an engine for stories. As opposed to say Kurt Busiek's Secret Identity, which tracks the life of a Superman that gets married and does REALLY interesting things with it. But then, that was also a finite story.

At this point, what the marriage represents is a signpost of post-Byrne continuity. Otherwise it's a non-factor. It's certainly not a BAD thing; Lois is a great character. But it's just not an IMPORTANT thing, either. So of course someday it will go away, as old plot points tend to, when they cease being engines for stories.

It probably would have already have happened, if not for Spider-Man.


I see what you're saying about the marriage being 'neither here no there' but that same argument could be used in its defense. If its not preventing Superman from having great stories and adventures then why would there ever be a need to throw it out?

I don't know about the writers side-stepping the issue. It seems to me that Rucka uses their marriage quite often to illustrate the the contrast of the Superman/Clark Kent identities, which I love.

While being married to Lois isn't always a plot driver (though that is important to the current storyline...) it is such a great way to give your main character depth. We get to see Superman talking with Lois about all kinds of different issues. Work, Justice League etc. Its a way of getting Superman's opinion out with out having thought bubbles or exposition boxes. I just really like that perspective.

[Mat001]

I totally understand that perspective. In fact you may have just summed up comics fandom in 2 sentences.

But It's not really bad form though. A subset group of longtime fans who appreciate a background story element (Superman being married) isn't a reason to keep something going **forever**. Especially something that is effectively inconsequential to Superman as a concept. Just think of what few great in-continuity Superman stories have been told since they got married: How many of them required a married Superman for the plot to work?

Let me counter with this, what stories can be told with a single Superman? We've seen the same crap day in and day out, before the marriage. Lois pining away and Clark too chicken **** to do the right thing and be with the woman that he loved. Lana and Lori never had a chance. Jerry Siegel even wanted them married long before it happened, back when he was still writing the book. And it's not just a group of fans who think that the marriage is good. It's called evolution. The characters need to grow. Treading the same ground of will they, won't they, got old by 1975.

Also, by that rationale, wouldn't you be one of those who want to see the pre-marriage status quo returned. Wouldn't DC be catering to you? A large number of fans perfer it if the characters grow Look at the Fantastic Four. Reed and Sue were married during the 60's and have remained that way for years. Yet you don't see people wanting to retcon the marriage away, because they perfered the older FF stories.

Besides, marriage is forever when two people are in love and get along. Til death do us part, as the line goes.

Most writers have done their best to sidestep the marriage.


No, they haven't. Jurgens, Ordway, Stern, Simonson, Loeb, Kelly, Kessel, Immonen, Michellene, Johns, Rucka, Schultz, Robinson, Busiek, Morrison, Nicieza, Brubaker and Simone have told good stories with the marriage and never sidestepped it. Loeb used Lois as a narrator during his run. Robinson dedicated his first arc to Lois and Krypto. Rucka spent two years focusing on the marriage. Johns and Buisek showed us the marriage and raising a child. Morrison showed us how much he loved Lois, putting aside being Superman to save her life.

And the reason isclear: It was executed to generate hype and sales, to create a milestone. How it would affect Superman as a concept, or how it would generate BETTER stories, was not, and IS not, clear. If they would have considered that...they might not have married them. Because marrying your two leads, or having them get pregnant, are options 1 and 2 for unintentionally killing a TV show.

You're wrong. The marriage came about because when Jerry Ordway was writing the conclusion to "Krisis Of The Krimson Kryptonite", he saw that Lois should say yes to Clark, not no. This was when the book was selling well and recieved a lot of critical acclaim. Ordway talked to Jurgens, Stern and Carlin and they got permission to do it. Superman's series became even better because they finally did away with a tired trope and took the characters in new directions. A ton of good stories came out of it since then. And Warner Brothers found it to be such a good idea, that they created a show that was inspired by the comics from 86 on and it's whole end goal was to have the wedding take place at the same time as the comics.

Ever since, most writers have acknowledged the impact of the marriage only in passing, keeping it in the background. Because of course it was never an engine for stories. As opposed to say Kurt Busiek's Secret Identity, which tracks the life of a Superman that gets married and does REALLY interesting things with it. But then, that was also a finite story.

Really? You might want to read the first year of the engagement. "The Wedding & Beyond", "Til Death Do Us Part", "Critical Condition", "King Of The World", "Unconventional Warfare", "That Healing Touch", "Ruin Revealed", "The Journey", Action Comics #775, "Return To Krypton", "Last Son", "Up, Up & Away", "Trinity", "Redemption", Action Comics #850, "Superman: Beyond", the concluding chapters of "For Tomorrow", "Shadows Linger", "The Coming Of Atlas", "Brainiac" and Rucka's work on Action Comics.

The marriage has been up front and in your face.

At this point, what the marriage represents is a signpost of post-Byrne continuity. Otherwise it's a non-factor. It's certainly not a BAD thing; Lois is a great character. But it's just not an IMPORTANT thing, either. So of course someday it will go away, as old plot points tend to, when they cease being engines for stories.

It's been a important thing, otherwise it wouldn't have been something that became a defining part of the characters for the duration of their existence. Lois and Clark wanted to get married, but couldn't for one reason or another until they finally grew up and did it.

It probably would have already have happened, if not for Spider-Man.

Spider-Man is the result of a biased editor who thinks that the character is better off for it, when a number of writers and fans would disagree. The stories since then have not been better because of the lack of marriage. But because the writers were making an effort. And even then, there's a contingent of fans who finds that regardless of the marriage, the books aren't nearly as good as they were when written by other writers.

As to the Superman marriage, there were two attempts at undoing the marriage. Once when Morrison, Millar, Peyer and Waid attempted to take over the books in 1999, but were told no by the higher ups at DC. Loeb, Casey, Schultz and Kelly were said to have been planning it around 2002, but were again told no. Casey implies that it's the reason why Loeb left Superman.

So the higher ups at DC favor the marriage and not the chicken **** way out.

[Alan2099]

It's revealed that all this time he was actually posessed by a Yellow Love Demon so the marriage didn't really count.

[Seven_Ride]

Let me counter with this, what stories can be told with a single Superman? We've seen the same crap day in and day out, before the marriage.
Rather than quote and quote, I'll just address your points together:

Per above: Crap? Seriously? 99% of Superman's mythology and legend is comes from the 50 years you just dismissed as the same old, same old. But I understand your boredom. It's what happens when you follow a hobby for THAT long. We want it to grow and evolve with us. We want something different.

But Superman should be accessible to new readers, not just longtimers of a particular era. The marriage is a piece that, because Superman as a concept does not require him to be married, or single. If you think about all the greatest Superman stories, who he's sleeping with is immaterial to them. As it should be. He's a superhero, not one half of a nighttime melodrama.

So locking him into domestic situations or an unusual status quo (like being a newscaster in the 70s), whether in 1996 or 2006 and expecting all future writers to adhere to it is unrealistic. These concepts evolve, and so does their history. Longtime readers either stay on the bus, or get off when the changes reduce their interest. It happens.

So of COURSE Superman won't stay married. Outside comics the general public probably neither knows nor cares whether he's married. Even in comics, I'd bet that most people reading today are fine with what provides good stories. So we're REALLY talking about about a small group of people that were reading comics both 15 years ago when it happened to now, and are vigilant that THEIR preferred status quo MUST be upheld. Why cater to them?

If the marriage can be used to generate good material, keep it. When the stories dry up, get rid of it. If DC wants to create a NEW love interest or situation for Superman, GREAT. If it lasts through perpetuity is another matter. The only aspect of Superman that's truly permanent is the character himself. His backstory, powerset and cast are all up for evolution.

One more point:

And Warner Brothers found it to be such a good idea, that they created a show that was inspired by the comics from 86 on and it's whole end goal was to have the wedding take place at the same time as the comics.
No, in fact on the Superman Doomsday DVD Mike Carlin states that they planned to marry the characters in the comics, but found out the TV show was going to do it first. WB made DC delay the comics marriage until the show did it first. Carlin then had to scramble his creative team to come up with a substitute big story, and Death of Superman was born.

[Mat001]

Rather than quote and quote, I'll just address your points together:

Per above: Crap? Seriously? 99% of Superman's mythology and legend is comes from the 50 years you just dismissed as the same old, same old. But I understand your boredom. It's what happens when you follow a hobby for THAT long. We want it to grow and evolve with us. We want something different.

I've only read the comics since 1991, on a regular basis. I've followed the character since 1982 through the films and television shows. And even after seeing the second film for the first time, I didn't think it was a good idea that he couldn't be with Lois. It just didn't make sense that they couldn't be together regardless of what Jor-El and Lara wanted or what the Phantom Zoners did.

But Superman should be accessible to new readers, not just longtimers of a particular era. The marriage is a piece that, because Superman as a concept does not require him to be married, or single. If you think about all the greatest Superman stories, who he's sleeping with is immaterial to them. As it should be. He's a superhero, not one half of a nighttime melodrama.

Superman is accesseible regardless of being married or not. That's just BS that he isn't because he's married. That's the poorest excuse I've read. I mean, really, that's the best arguement someone comes up with for getting rid of it? The marriage is commonly known thanks to DVD's and the internet with interviews and commentary. "Lois & Clark" has the marriage. "Smallville" talks about the fact that they're destined to be together and are married in the comics. Hell, it was even in "Public Enemies".

And the relationship between Lois and Clark has been part and parcel of the character for 71 years. Comics, novels, movies, television shows, cartoons, "Wednesday Comics" and so on focused on their relationship.

So locking him into domestic situations or an unusual status quo (like being a newscaster in the 70s), whether in 1996 or 2006 and expecting all future writers to adhere to it is unrealistic. These concepts evolve, and so does their history. Longtime readers either stay on the bus, or get off when the changes reduce their interest. It happens.

Please. That's like saying Batman should've never had a partner or Peter Parker should've never graduated high school. Characters evolve, yes. But then there are things that remain eternal. The destruction of Krypton, the death of the Waynes, the yellow impurity and so on. Married Lois and Clark is one of those things and not unusual like working at WGBS.

So of COURSE Superman won't stay married. Outside comics the general public probably neither knows nor cares whether he's married.

You'd be surprised what the general public knows. Considering every time Superman winds up becoming a topic, the marriage is brought up.

Even in comics, I'd bet that most people reading today are fine with what provides good stories. So we're REALLY talking about about a small group of people that were reading comics both 15 years ago when it happened to now, and are vigilant that THEIR preferred status quo MUST be upheld. Why cater to them?

Because we're the only thing keeping the comic industry afloat. People stopped reading comics in large droves due to the end of the newstand market and higher prices. As well as video games, the internet, IPods and other things that occupy's their attention.

If the marriage can be used to generate good material, keep it. When the stories dry up, get rid of it. If DC wants to create a NEW love interest or situation for Superman, GREAT. If it lasts through perpetuity is another matter. The only aspect of Superman that's truly permanent is the character himself. His backstory, powerset and cast are all up for evolution.

The marriage has generated good stories. See the ones I listed. And there will always be stories about the marriage, just as there are always stories about Superman in general. DC created new interests in Lana, Lori, Leyrol (sp) and it didn't stop them from going back to Lois.

One more point:


No, in fact on the Superman Doomsday DVD Mike Carlin states that they planned to marry the characters in the comics, but found out the TV show was going to do it first. WB made DC delay the comics marriage until the show did it first. Carlin then had to scramble his creative team to come up with a substitute big story, and Death of Superman was born.

That story is partially accurate. The interview I read stated that they didn't know about the show until after they had planned on November of 1992 for being the wedding date. They came up with the wedding plans in 1990, but hadn't set a date yet. WB took back the film and television rights to Superman from the Salkinds, in April of 1991, which is why Superboy ended as it did. The show did not go into development until 1992. DC were told that they could get them married at the same time as on the show, which occured in October 1996. That's why DC had to scramble to get them back together after "The Final Night", because the show hadn't announced the actual wedding until August of 96. This is why Lois isn't in "Power Struggle" in the comics, since it was set to come right after "The Final Night". But due to the announcement of the wedding as being episode four, they had to shuffle things around and quickly produce a storyline for the wedding and honeymoon.

The show itself was loosely based on the comics from 86 on, which is accurate. This was talked about in Comics Scene Magazine in 1993.

So DC had the plans for the wedding for a while, before WB opted to make the show and have a wedding on there.

[meathead320]

With how messy things have gotten as of late, why not just make a "new universe" within the multiverse?

Then we say that the stories in DC continuity are actually different snapshots taken from a 10 year rolling time period of different ones, after so long, its onto viewing the next.

No magic, no crisis, no divorce, just another parallel universe, 10 years further into the rolling time, where Clark and Lois have yet to get hitched.

They can fix a lot of stuff easily enough in the "new universe scenario". There is so much to be cleaned up, having a fresh slate without having to make a universe altering and crisis tale may be the way to go.

There is also no reason to alter the older one. It still exists, its stories are just not being told, unless a writer proposes a good idea that could exist in the old one for a 12 issue mini series.

[Pól Rua]

that Superman is just NOT interesting as a married man and that he should be more like he was 20 years ago.

How would this be done?

Ma Kent's iminent demise and Lord Satanus.

[Pól Rua]

It's revealed that all this time he was actually posessed by a Yellow Love Demon so the marriage didn't really count.

HAW! Nicely played that man.

[jeangreydp]

With how messy things have gotten as of late, why not just make a "new universe" within the multiverse?

Then we say that the stories in DC continuity are actually different snapshots taken from a 10 year rolling time period of different ones, after so long, its onto viewing the next.

No magic, no crisis, no divorce, just another parallel universe, 10 years further into the rolling time, where Clark and Lois have yet to get hitched.

They can fix a lot of stuff easily enough in the "new universe scenario". There is so much to be cleaned up, having a fresh slate without having to make a universe altering and crisis tale may be the way to go.

There is also no reason to alter the older one. It still exists, its stories are just not being told, unless a writer proposes a good idea that could exist in the old one for a 12 issue mini series.

Yeah I agree if there is really a need for these stories to be told why not just create an "Ultimate" universe a la Marvel.

[meathead320]

Yeah I agree if there is really a need for these stories to be told why not just create an "Ultimate" universe a la Marvel.

Exactly.

They already have a Multiverse, there could be countless versions of the DCU.

For the most part, I prefer that most of the stories for a 10 year time span occur in just one universe (so its not too all over the place), but say every 10 years when things get messy, or they want to make major changed to the universe, instead of the crisis scenario, just make a new one.

Over time fans will want things to come back in, or be left out, and then after about 10 years, DC makes a new one.

I mean comic book history tends to be messy, and its far easier to just have a blank slate and build a new universe from the ground up than to perform writer surgery on the older universe.

There is no reason to really have to put a fancy name like "ultimate" on it or anything either, it could be a a number to its particular place in the DCU. I suppose they could call it something else, “spectacle, or neo et….”.

I kind of like the idea of it being a regular universe, just a new one based on the changes they wanted to make to the old one.

Since there are (or were, did some of them get destroyed?) many universes in the DC multiverse, just make another one for the purposes of continued story telling, after the old one gets off course from where they want it to the point of having to do ridiculous things like erasing the last 10 years of a persons memory, and divorcing Lois and Clark.

This may mean reducing the multiple titles as well, or having each title be a different universe version of the character.

If the fans prefer the married man Superman, they say they buy Action Comics, and if they like the new updated re-telling of Superman stories, and Clark and Lois are not hitched yet, they could get Superman. Or it could all just be taking place in the new one. I’m just tossing an idea around. Nothing concrete.

It just a rough idea that could be added to, but my point is that since we already have a mutliverse, no other explanation really needs to be given. They can just make a fresher updated DC universe they way they want it, tag a Universe # onto it, and start telling stories from it.

[NYGiants167]

Well Dan DIdio has seen all the controversy and outrage with ending the Spider-Man marriage with MJ he might not want the headache. However if Didio and DC editorial did decide to separate Lois and Clark, there would of course be a backlash. The deciding factor that would determine how big the backlash would be would be the process of the retcon. Would it be similar to BND,OMD? Would it require wiping over 10 years of continuity and resurrecting dead characters? And all the other negative aspects of OMD that have been criticized to death on this board and numerous other comic book boards. Hopefully if they did separate Lois and Clark it would be an organic process that had been developing. There is one possibility in the upcoming rumored New Krypton-Earth war where the war becomes so intense that there is a break and Clark swears off Earth for what the humans have done to his people. That is one remote and very unlikely and probably won't happen. It was just a thought if they really wanted to shake up the Superman books.

[Slaughter]

Ma Kent's iminent demise and Lord Satanus.

The scariest thing about this is that Satanus and Blaze are the current rulers of hell. Wish someone took that and made something with both in the Superman titles after New Krypton.

[Mat001]

Well Dan DIdio has seen all the controversy and outrage with ending the Spider-Man marriage with MJ he might not want the headache. However if Didio and DC editorial did decide to separate Lois and Clark, there would of course be a backlash. The deciding factor that would determine how big the backlash would be would be the process of the retcon. Would it be similar to BND,OMD? Would it require wiping over 10 years of continuity and resurrecting dead characters? And all the other negative aspects of OMD that have been criticized to death on this board and numerous other comic book boards. Hopefully if they did separate Lois and Clark it would be an organic process that had been developing. There is one possibility in the upcoming rumored New Krypton-Earth war where the war becomes so intense that there is a break and Clark swears off Earth for what the humans have done to his people. That is one remote and very unlikely and probably won't happen. It was just a thought if they really wanted to shake up the Superman books.


Both OMD and the two failed attempts at ending the super marriage suffer from the same problem, bias on the part of the creators who wanted to try and force an ending that goes against the history of the characters. That it isn't organic. You're right that it needs to be organic if it were to happen. Divorce is the most organic method. But as I said earlier, with Superman and Lois, it can't be to just protect her. She's too well associated with Superman, if it's a case of protecting her from his life. Hell, look at how people disliked what Clark did on "Smallville" last season with Chloe by wiping her memory of the secret to protect her from harm. Or the reaction with Peter remasking over in the Spider books.

[dupersuper]

The scariest thing about this is that Satanus and Blaze are the current rulers of hell. Wish someone took that and made something with both in the Superman titles after New Krypton.

That'd be very cool.

Both OMD and the two failed attempts at ending the super marriage suffer from the same problem, bias on the part of the creators who wanted to try and force an ending that goes against the history of the characters. That it isn't organic. You're right that it needs to be organic if it were to happen. Divorce is the most organic method. But as I said earlier, with Superman and Lois, it can't be to just protect her. She's too well associated with Superman, if it's a case of protecting her from his life. Hell, look at how people disliked what Clark did on "Smallville" last season with Chloe by wiping her memory of the secret to protect her from harm. Or the reaction with Peter remasking over in the Spider books.

All the more reason NOT to try this horrible idea.

[Seven_Ride]

Superman is accesseible regardless of being married or not. That's just BS that he isn't because he's married. That's the poorest excuse I've read.
You're misreading my point: The marriage isn't good or bad. It's just unimportant to Superman as a concept.

So it can stay or go, and Superman works about the same. In comics, "unimportant" means it can go away at pretty much any time, since continuity gets reset every so many years. Which was my earlier point: Everything from prior continuity gets redressed or washed away at some point, so this will too.

It's inevitable.

Please. That's like saying Batman should've never had a partner or Peter Parker should've never graduated high school. Characters evolve, yes. But then there are things that remain eternal. The destruction of Krypton, the death of the Waynes, the yellow impurity and so on. Married Lois and Clark is one of those things and not unusual like working at WGBS.
Married Lois and Clark is one of those things to you, perhaps. But I doubt even most comic fans care THAT much. Just look at OMD: Sales now are about what they were before, because most fans just want to read Spider-Man, married or not. Same here.

And the world beyond comics? Unaware, uninterested. And why would they be, since they're not reading comics....

I understand you got into Superman in the last 20 years, and those books and stories are IT for you. But just think to yourself all the developments from the 40s, 50s, 60s and onward that either got washed away or you never even heard about because it was erased.

It's already happening to the 80s and 90s stuff. It will someday happen to the 00s books too. And Superman will carry on just fine, even so.

That story is partially accurate.Considering the source was the Superman editor of the time, I'd assume it to be fully accurate. And it's a refution of your implication that the TV people got the marriage idea from the comics and planned their story to coincide with it. They came up with their marriage plot independently. And when they found out DC planned to marry them, they put the brakes on DC so they could do it first.

Your point that the show was in general influenced by the comics makes sense, though. But that's also true of just about EVERY Superman show. The Reeves show was inspired by the 40s comics. Lois & Clark was inspired by the late 80s comics. Smallville was inspired by Superman For All Seasons, etc.

[Seven_Ride]

Well Dan DIdio has seen all the controversy and outrage with ending the Spider-Man marriage with MJ he might not want the headache.But what headache is it, really?

Isn't it just a few hundred people complaining on message boards? Didio probably knows that many people are going to complain no matter WHAT they do. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Quesada went into OMD looking for PR more than anything. Shake up the faithful, knowing full well that if they put Steve McNiven no Spider-Man, sales will be good either way. Create a controversy that drives interest and keeps people talking about Spider-Man, and for a while bump up your sales. Win win.

As for Clark and Lois? Whenever it does happen, it'll be a Crisis or reset. They can't have Superman get divorced, and killing Lois off makes Supes a widower and robs him of an important cast member. It'll be a reboot of some kind.

[dupersuper]

But what headache is it, really?

Isn't it just a few hundred people complaining on message boards? Didio probably knows that many people are going to complain no matter WHAT they do. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Quesada went into OMD looking for PR more than anything. Shake up the faithful, knowing full well that if they put Steve McNiven no Spider-Man, sales will be good either way. Create a controversy that drives interest and keeps people talking about Spider-Man, and for a while bump up your sales. Win win.

As for Clark and Lois? Whenever it does happen, it'll be a Crisis or reset. They can't have Superman get divorced, and killing Lois off makes Supes a widower and robs him of an important cast member. It'll be a reboot of some kind.

If it's that unimportant, will you be upset if it DOESN'T get retconned away anytime in the next 10-20 years?

[Seven_Ride]

If it's that unimportant, will you be upset if it DOESN'T get retconned away anytime in the next 10-20 years?I think I've already made that clear. The Super books have been FANTASTIC ever since Johns & Busiek took over. If the next 20 years are anything like the last 3, we should ALL be happy Superfans. Marriage, retcons or whatever.

Now It's iffy if the direct market will last another 10 years, especially with the recent re-orgs by DC and Marvel. Will shared shared continuity (and recent Superman continuity) even exist in 10-20 years? Maybe not. BUT:

Assuming it does and we're all here 10 years from now and Supes and Lois are still married, the first TWO rounds are on me.

[Mat001]

You're misreading my point: The marriage isn't good or bad. It's just unimportant to Superman as a concept.

If it were unimportant, it wouldn't have been part of the characters long before they did get married. There wouldn't have been so many imaginary stories where they got married. Nor would there have been a celebration when Kal-L and Lois Lane of Earth-2 did it, much less with the Earth-0 versions did. "Lois & Clark" wouldn't have been the way it was. The relationship, including the marriage, is important to the characters.

So it can stay or go, and Superman works about the same. In comics, "unimportant" means it can go away at pretty much any time, since continuity gets reset every so many years. Which was my earlier point: Everything from prior continuity gets redressed or washed away at some point, so this will too.

It's inevitable.

Except it hasn't and that's because DC has chosen to make this stick. Just as the Dibnys were married for the duration of their existence. Just as Wally and Linda have been married for over ten years and now have two children. Reed and Sue Richards have been married since what, 1965 or 66. Marvel hasn't divorced them.

Married Lois and Clark is one of those things to you, perhaps. But I doubt even most comic fans care THAT much. Just look at OMD: Sales now are about what they were before, because most fans just want to read Spider-Man, married or not. Same here.

A lot of comics fans complain. Hence they do it with Spider-Man and they've done it when the topic of the Super Marriage has come up. Sales aren't always indictive. We know what the comic stores buy. We don't know what people buy when it hits stands.

And the world beyond comics? Unaware, uninterested. And why would they be, since they're not reading comics....

Do you have proof that they are unaware and uninterested? TPB sales are also a factor as are illegel torrent downloads.

I understand you got into Superman in the last 20 years, and those books and stories are IT for you. But just think to yourself all the developments from the 40s, 50s, 60s and onward that either got washed away or you never even heard about because it was erased.

It's already happening to the 80s and 90s stuff. It will someday happen to the 00s books too. And Superman will carry on just fine, even so.

I didn't say he would carry on or not. I said that it isn't happening because the folks at DC have chosen to make it last just as they have other characters.

Considering the source was the Superman editor of the time, I'd assume it to be fully accurate.

What I wrote was also from Carlin in 1993, right when "Regin Of The Supermen" was starting and four months before the show debuted on television.



My point was from a specific period of the comics, not just in general. "Smallville" was inspired by FAS, but it's based on every aspect of the character's history.

[quote]But what headache is it, really?

Isn't it just a few hundred people complaining on message boards? Didio probably knows that many people are going to complain no matter WHAT they do. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Quesada went into OMD looking for PR more than anything. Shake up the faithful, knowing full well that if they put Steve McNiven no Spider-Man, sales will be good either way. Create a controversy that drives interest and keeps people talking about Spider-Man, and for a while bump up your sales. Win win.

The headache with Spider-Man was in the details. They chose to use it to bring back Harry Osborn, remask Peter and determine who knew he was unmasked or even if he unmasked. Marvel didn't make anything clear and thus people quit because they didn't like what was being done. JMS and Quesada even argued over how things were going to be done. Sure, Quesada enjoyed the PR, but he wasn't doing it for that. He was doing it for what he considered a personal bias and even had an arguement with his wife over it, who thought that his reasoning was rather silly.

As for Clark and Lois? Whenever it does happen, it'll be a Crisis or reset. They can't have Superman get divorced, and killing Lois off makes Supes a widower and robs him of an important cast member. It'll be a reboot of some kind.

Doubtful. We just had one three years ago, but it didn't happen. In 1999 and 2002, the writers were going to do what Quesada tried. The first team saw it as too convoluted and opted to drop it. The second time was told no before they could come to that decision.

[Seven_Ride]

If it were unimportant, it wouldn't have been part of the characters long before they did get married.Look, Lois is THE Superman love interest, and that may never change. It might be interesting to see them try, but it's a huge longshot. And there are similar stories of Batman marrying Catwoman, such as the E-2 stories. That doesn't cement that it will someday happen in the main continuity. Those 70s stories were a sort of "what if?", not a longterm gameplan being laid down.

Except it hasn't and that's because DC has chosen to make this stick.Will a new EIC or publisher feel that way? Because Quesada's predecessors would NEVER have done OMD.

Just as the Dibnys were married for the duration of their existence. Just as Wally and Linda have been married for over ten years and now have two children. Reed and Sue Richards have been married since what, 1965 or 66. Marvel hasn't divorced them.The Richards were conceived as a married couple, and the Dibny's (like the Allens) were married soon very soon after their debut. We can't help but collectively think of them as married people. Wally is an interesting example, because his life really evolved over years to the family man stage.

But oh yeah, he's also not the lead Flash anymore. That MIGHT be a coincidence, might not.

A lot of comics fans complain. Hence they do it with Spider-Man and they've done it when the topic of the Super Marriage has come up. Sales aren't always indictive.That's silly. Sales are 99% of the ballgame for a publisher, since they're after profit, not message board popularity. It does it really matter if people complain on a message board, when sales are still good.

Do you have proof that they are unaware and uninterested?Yes - they're not buying comics! Superman is read by about 40,000 people each month, and it's been that way for the 15 years he's been married. That's about the pool of people that know. The pool of people that care would be a lot smaller, going by BND.

Doubtful. We just had one three years ago, but it didn't happen. In 1999 and 2002, the writers were going to do what Quesada tried. The first team saw it as too convoluted and opted to drop it. The second time was told no before they could come to that decision.10-15 years ago they said Barry Allen would never return. Pre-Brubaker nobody wanted to bring back Bucky. There are lots of "Stories We Can Never Undo". Most of them have already been undone, as you note sometimes just based on the personal preference of somebody important.

The ability to do it just goes to show that continuity is whatever they say it is. And it's ALWAYS been that way. Give this time.

[Mat001]

Look, Lois is THE Superman love interest, and that may never change. It might be interesting to see them try, but it's a huge longshot.

They did try it and it didn't work.

And there are similar stories of Batman marrying Catwoman, such as the E-2 stories. That doesn't cement that it will someday happen in the main continuity. Those 70s stories were a sort of "what if?", not a longterm gameplan being laid down.

No, but they were all strong indica that one day, Superman and Lois would get married. It then became a long term plan because one writer had the courage to try it and get it approved.

Will a new EIC or publisher feel that way? Because Quesada's predecessors would NEVER have done OMD.

Uh, they did. That's what the Clone Saga was about in the 90's. Along with the Byrne/Mackie "New Chapter" era. The only difference was that they were afraid to pull the trigger. DC wasn't afraid when they said no. They chose to say no because they made a big deal about saying it was going to be the real deal and not a short term one. Besides, according to your logic, why hasn't Marvel pulled the plug on the Richards clan?

The Richards were conceived as a married couple, and the Dibny's (like the Allens) were married soon very soon after their debut. We can't help but collectively think of them as married people. Wally is an interesting example, because his life really evolved over years to the family man stage.

Reed and Sue weren't married when they were introduced. They were concieved as being a couple, but not married. So Marvel has never split them up. Nor were the Dibnys and the Allens and Wests clans.

But oh yeah, he's also not the lead Flash anymore. That MIGHT be a coincidence, might not.

No, that's not why he's the lead. Because Barry is married to Iris and he has children and grandchildren. So that excuse doesn't float.

That's silly. Sales are 99% of the ballgame for a publisher, since they're after profit, not message board popularity. It does it really matter if people complain on a message board, when sales are still good.

No, that's not silly. There are pre-order lists made by the stores. Those are the charts that are generally looked at. A store can have enough stock, but if only five people buy it, it's not a real seller. Diamond's charts based on pre-orders from the store more than final tally sales per store.

Yes - they're not buying comics! Superman is read by about 40,000 people each month, and it's been that way for the 15 years he's been married. That's about the pool of people that know. The pool of people that care would be a lot smaller, going by BND.

It's only 40 thousand because there is direct market sale only. All comics sales are down since the end of the newstand market. Comics aren't as available in as many places as they used to be. Prices have gone up. Once upon a time, a comic could fetch up to half a million dollars. Now they struggle to get a hundred thousand. The marriage isn't the reason.

10-15 years ago they said Barry Allen would never return. Pre-Brubaker nobody wanted to bring back Bucky. There are lots of "Stories We Can Never Undo". Most of them have already been undone, as you note sometimes just based on the personal preference of somebody important.

The ability to do it just goes to show that continuity is whatever they say it is. And it's ALWAYS been that way. Give this time.

We had Bucky, not just Bucky Barnes. Barry Allen continued to appear despite being dead. Dick Grayson will never become a teenager again. Much less Robin. There are things that will never be undone.

[Seven_Ride]

No, that's not why he's the lead. Because Barry is married to Iris and he has children and grandchildren. So that excuse doesn't float.Sort of. Do you think Barry's status as a father is going to get more than a handwave? Aside from Bart, who is obviously a popular character in his own right?

No, that's not silly. There are pre-order lists made by the stores. Those are the charts that are generally looked at. A store can have enough stock, but if only five people buy it, it's not a real seller.They switched from pre-orders to final orders sometimes in the early 2000s, I think.

But that doesn't really matter: Short term, yes they can stock issues on faith. But long term nobody is ordering books they don't believe they can turn into a cash sale. The stores are in business too.

It's only 40 thousand because there is direct market sale only. All comics sales are down since the end of the newstand market. Comics aren't as available in as many places as they used to be. Prices have gone up. Once upon a time, a comic could fetch up to half a million dollars. Now they struggle to get a hundred thousand. The marriage isn't the reason.Of course it's not the reason. That wasn't my point: The audience size is why the comics of the past 20 years are so transient. The audience for them is small, and rather sheeplike. They can reboot, undo and re-reboot and the die-hards keep coming back for more.

They could kill off Lois, and people will buy it. 5-6 years later, they could resurrect her, and the same people will buy it. Maybe even more.

We had Bucky, not just Bucky Barnes. Barry Allen continued to appear despite being dead. Dick Grayson will never become a teenager again. Much less Robin. There are things that will never be undone.I respect your trust in that, but I just don't share it. I used to believe it too, but have simply learned that doing the undoable is often what intrigues creative types.

The reason these things haven't already happened is they have to pay lip service to longstanding continuity for the monthly crowd. But once the industry moves away from comic shops and the die-hards, the past decades of shared history will be even easier to rewrite and ignore than it is now.

[Mat001]

Sort of. Do you think Barry's status as a father is going to get more than a handwave? Aside from Bart, who is obviously a popular character in his own right?

I don't see why not. Johns and Gates have a lot to draw from.

They switched from pre-orders to final orders sometimes in the early 2000s, I think.

But it's still not the same was what goes out the doors of your local store. For every store that sold out of "Brand New Day", there were a few that didn't.

But that doesn't really matter: Short term, yes they can stock issues on faith. But long term nobody is ordering books they don't believe they can turn into a cash sale. The stores are in business too.

Only if the sales drop off to an extreme degree. Action Comics and Amazing Spider-Man will never be cancelled. But their sales are nowhere near what they used to be, regardless of marital status quo.

Of course it's not the reason. That wasn't my point: The audience size is why the comics of the past 20 years are so transient. The audience for them is small, and rather sheeplike. They can reboot, undo and re-reboot and the die-hards keep coming back for more.

They could kill off Lois, and people will buy it. 5-6 years later, they could resurrect her, and the same people will buy it. Maybe even more.

But my point is that the marriage is the reason the Superman books don't make the high ammount that they used to. It's a lot of other factors.

I respect your trust in that, but I just don't share it. I used to believe it too, but have simply learned that doing the undoable is often what intrigues creative types.

The reason these things haven't already happened is they have to pay lip service to longstanding continuity for the monthly crowd. But once the industry moves away from comic shops and the die-hards, the past decades of shared history will be even easier to rewrite and ignore than it is now.

It won't move from comic shops and back to the main stream newstand like before. It'll either be trades in book stores, online comics or dead in the water. Comics are a dying fad.