Tom Brevoort on Superman

[Mat001]

Really though? Don't most married couples just sort of fade into the background or become a source of some unknown knowledge about the opposite sex to the new hot couple? I can see why you wouldn't want to look to the entertainment industry but I'm of the opinion they give their audience what they are asking for. After all, they do engage in the journey of a relationship but its the audience that changes the channel once the couple is together. I think its okay to believe marriage is alive with story possibilities but its also a place of routine which have to overshadow the adventure. In films and such, if they get a couple together then either fade into the background or they break them up to put them back together. The actual just being married part just doesn't seem interesting to many. Which this thread is telling us again. Marriage is an ending to the good part seems to be the message and I don't think we can blame the entertainment industry for that since its something all married couples have to work at. That's actually why its work. Not because you're having so much fun.

If a show is built on the premise of "Will They, Won't They?", then it will often fall apart once they do get together. If a show is built on the idea of more than the sexual tension, then it will survive beyond their eventual pairing. An infamous case of this was the 80's comedy-drama "Moonlighting" when Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepard's characters got together at the end of season two. Those types of shows are about the destination. However it was also a bit of a necessity. But other shows such as the sitcom "Friends", managed to survive the relationship between David Scwhimmer and Jennifer Aniston, where they got together in the second season and then split up in the third season. The show managed to run ten seasons and maintained the strong ratings from start to finish.

Likewise the idea of a married couple having adventures was the subject of "Heart To Heart" on television and in film and books with "The Thin Man", both of which featured married couples solving mysteries together. "Lois & Clark" only began to falter not because they got married, but because the show "jumped the shark" with the clone eating frog storyline.

I'm glad you brought that up. This is why I don't mind the marriage being over because it wasn't handled that way to me. Marriage fail for people in those professions especially if the job gets in the way. Like I've said before, Lois was never allowed to be selfish in her own marriage because she had to justify that against Superman saving someone's life. And if you can't feel selfish with the time with your own husband then what kind of marriage was it. Married life with those professions is stressful on the spouse. Certainly it demands constant work on both parts to just have some time together. But back to movies and television as examples, those professions bring drama to the relationship making it more journey to get through together. I don't think that drama was significate in the marriage between Clark and Lois (up till I read). I don't remember the arc but I did read the issues immediantly following Infinite Crisis in which their marriage was almost perfect. Both seemed happy and successful individually but that was seen as not as important as when he got his powers back. Then it was nicely tucked away when I would have been angry to have to give it up. That's why I can agree the marriage was problematic and deserved to be done away with. It wasn't written truthfully to their situation. Its akin to a spouse being happy when their partner is about to be shipped overseas for a couple of years.

Did you, by chance, actually read any of the marriage? There were problems with the relationship throughout, but it always ended in the two reconciling. The very first time a problem came up was shortly after they got engaged and Clark revealed his dual identity to Lois. This was covered in Superman #59, when Clark kept ducking out on Lois and it resulted in Liri Lee of the Linear Men going out of her way to pay back Clark for all that he lost during "Time & Time Again", by slowing time around them while they had a long talk atop of Mt. Fuji. Clark was able to explain why he was Superman and what the importance is of what he does. Lois had long believed in his being a hero and now that they were a couple, he could explain it to her in a way that he couldn't before without revealing too much. The relationship was patched up as a result of this and when Clark found out about what Liri did in Superman #61, he thanked her for it.

The next time it was an issue was in 1996 starting with Action Comics #719 and running through Superman #118. During this period, Lois became concerned with the status of their relationship. Starting with finding out that Clark had been engaged to Lori Lemaris when they were college, continuing with her near death at the Joker's hands and cumulating with his dashing off as Superman a lot while she was trying to talk to him. This story focused on Lois feeling as if she was being forced to be the doting wife back home, while Clark was always going off as Superman and that she was afraid that she'd lose her independence and winding up like her mother. This ran six months and ended with Lois realizing that she was wrong. She hadn't lost her independence and that the lesson of Clark Kent that he imparted to another fifteen years earlier, was still true today. Something that she had forgotten. Hence she returned to Metropolis and they got married.

Then we had the whole ordeal with Lois feeling jealous of Diana, which Clark had to put her mind at ease in Action Comics #761. Then there was "Our Worlds At War", when she thought that her father had been killed and was upset at Clark for going to help the Amazons. The tension between them lasted for a while both during the rest of the war and for a few months afterwards, in 2001 and 2002. Then we had "Up, Up & Away", where a powerless Clark was able to spend a year with Lois. And she even said that she was glad to have had him all to herself during that period. But then she approved of his desire to return when his powers came back and that was that. So Lois was sometimes selfish and often times not.


The only reason a certain fanbase called her a bitch, was because the other writers had portrayed the marriage in a positive light. But when other writers came into the mix, they felt that they were getting her character wrong. This is understandable because of how well written Lois had been both before and after the marriage took place.

[NotSuper]

Anyone else think this thread has gone way off-topic?

What I think is particular interesting (getting back to the topic) is just how exactly what Brevoort suggested happened. Granted, a lot of fans and writers have expressed similar opinions before as well. It is kind of funny to go back and read the old posts and see just how wrong so many people were about the situation actually coming to fruition--then again, hindsight is always 20/20. I certainly wouldn't have expected everything Brevoort suggested would come true (a few elements sure, but not as much as we actually got).

Do Morrison and Brevoort have any kind of connection? It could all be a massive coincidence, or maybe Brevoort actually read the Superman 2000 pitch and that's where a lot of his views came from. Whatever the case, it'd be interesting to get a follow up with Brevoort and see what he thinks about DC basically doing everything he said he wanted in a Superman comic.

[Auguste Dupin]

Anyone else think this thread has gone way off-topic?

What I think is particular interesting (getting back to the topic) is just how exactly what Brevoort suggested happened. Granted, a lot of fans and writers have expressed similar opinions before as well. It is kind of funny to go back and read the old posts and see just how wrong so many people were about the situation actually coming to fruition--then again, hindsight is always 20/20. I certainly wouldn't have expected everything Brevoort suggested would come true (a few elements sure, but not as much as we actually got).

Do Morrison and Brevoort have any kind of connection? It could all be a massive coincidence, or maybe Brevoort actually read the Superman 2000 pitch and that's where a lot of his views came from. Whatever the case, it'd be interesting to get a follow up with Brevoort and see what he thinks about DC basically doing everything he said he wanted in a Superman comic.

Wait, this thread had a subject?
Yeah, it's quite striking to see the similitudes. I guess they're both Maggin's fanboys.

[Fate's Faith]

If a show is built on the premise of "Will They, Won't They?", then it will often fall apart once they do get together.

In a manner of speaking, isn't that what the reboot has given us? There's a portion of the fanbase that thinks Lois must remain his true love. Even I feel that. That he shouldn't 'cheat' on her. That its only a matter of time. I accept that the marriage is no more. But when I read a panel of Superman seeing Metropolis frozen over and he thinks, "Lois!" that maybe we're still at the same place only without the marriage.

Did you, by chance, actually read any of the marriage? There were problems with the relationship throughout, but it always ended in the two reconciling.

A nice portion. I actually liked it myself. But giving me all these examples isn't answering my main issue with how it was handled. You don't have problems in a relationship, reconcil then go about doing the exact same things that caused the problems in the marriage to start with. That's what I call unrealistic. If a woman is married to a doctor and his practice is causing issues in the marriage you don't solve the problem by having a date night. You have to make changes or it just comes up again. Either he's got to set limits on how much his job interfers in their relationship or she's just got to stop wanting things a certain way. Someone has to 'lose'. Or both if you dissolve the marriage. It doesn't just get better because it becomes routine. Now perhaps I'm wrong but I saw Lois always losing. Lois wouldn't take anything from anyone except for the whole world. So to me, I can see why in storytelling reasons why the marriage could be a problem. But it was a character problem for Lois. Her character is forced to change due to the marriage while his isn't. Just look at one of your examples (Action Comics #719 through Superman #118). How was their problems solved? Lois was wrong. Up, Up & Away was the storyline I was referring to earlier. He got his powers back and again Lois loses. And she's happy for him. But wouldn't it be more meaningful to say this marriage was good for both if he gave up something and was happy for her?

I appreciate this is Superman's story but if he's married its really not any longer. I think a great marriage in current DC is Aquaman. And why I think this is because this is a marriage of equals. She's just as capable of standing toe to toe with him. She's been left behind like Lois has but she's allowed to get right into her own mix without him. And can make just as big an impact on the lives around them. Superman could go fight Darkseid and Lois has to stay behind to hear news if he lives or not. Mera can be right there and see for herself. So its not I don't think marriage can work but you have to have both on equal footing in the relationship. Its a marriage of love and compromise. And compromise isn't just one giving in all the time.

[Fate's Faith]

Anyone else think this thread has gone way off-topic?

I think its sort of on topic. Brevoort said some things that did come to pass leading to the merits of marriage with super-heroes. But some parts are yet addressed. Action doesn't actually come right out and say as much but it deals with his alien origins and the affect it has on him. Much more than Superman title has so far. So since the marriage is done, are writers still writing to it or taking the freedom its absense has given? I feel that the first Superman arc was still writing to it.

[Mat001]

Do Morrison and Brevoort have any kind of connection? It could all be a massive coincidence, or maybe Brevoort actually read the Superman 2000 pitch and that's where a lot of his views came from. Whatever the case, it'd be interesting to get a follow up with Brevoort and see what he thinks about DC basically doing everything he said he wanted in a Superman comic.

More like a coincidence since no one outside of DC knew what was going on with "Flashpoint". Nor the extent of it. As Morrison, I don't think it was all his idea. Rather that DC editorial came to Morrison and they all hatched it out. Same with Perez.

In a manner of speaking, isn't that what the reboot has given us? There's a portion of the fanbase that thinks Lois must remain his true love. Even I feel that. That he shouldn't 'cheat' on her. That its only a matter of time. I accept that the marriage is no more. But when I read a panel of Superman seeing Metropolis frozen over and he thinks, "Lois!" that maybe we're still at the same place only without the marriage.

The books didn't fall apart when they got married. Poor creative decisions lead to the reboot, like not doing anything with Lex as President and taking him out of his monthly series did that. The only thing the reboot has done retread similar ground. Not the same ground, because there are differences, but at the same time, it's nothing like we haven't seen before.

A nice portion. I actually liked it myself. But giving me all these examples isn't answering my main issue with how it was handled. You don't have problems in a relationship, reconcil then go about doing the exact same things that caused the problems in the marriage to start with. That's what I call unrealistic. If a woman is married to a doctor and his practice is causing issues in the marriage you don't solve the problem by having a date night. You have to make changes or it just comes up again. Either he's got to set limits on how much his job interfers in their relationship or she's just got to stop wanting things a certain way. Someone has to 'lose'. Or both if you dissolve the marriage. It doesn't just get better because it becomes routine. Now perhaps I'm wrong but I saw Lois always losing. Lois wouldn't take anything from anyone except for the whole world. So to me, I can see why in storytelling reasons why the marriage could be a problem. But it was a character problem for Lois. Her character is forced to change due to the marriage while his isn't.

What changed? What was different between 1990 when they were just starting to date again to 2000, right before Brainiac 13 showed up?

Just look at one of your examples (Action Comics #719 through Superman #118). How was their problems solved? Lois was wrong.

The problem though was that Lois felt that she was going to lose her independence. That she was just going to be Mrs. Superman. It was why it was important for Lois to climb that mountain, to show that she could still do things on her own. That she could be more than Mrs. Superman. And in "The Wedding Album", she resented some of the comments during her bridal shower that painted that picture. This had less to do with Superman and more to do with how she became who she was, starting with her father and ending with all the relationships that had fizzled out over the years, because she withdrew from the men.

Up, Up & Away was the storyline I was referring to earlier. He got his powers back and again Lois loses. And she's happy for him. But wouldn't it be more meaningful to say this marriage was good for both if he gave up something and was happy for her?

How does Lois lose? She still has Clark. She still loved him and he still loved her. But she understood that she had to make a sacrifice by sharing the world with him, just as he's had to accept that he can never be normal. That was the other central issue going into and coming out of "Infinite Crisis" and "Up, Up And Away". Remember that right before his fight with Lex, Clark thought back to the fact that he was Superman again. That once again, he was no longer normal which was something that in Post "Infinite Crisis" continuity that yearned for, for years and years. He had to accept that he had to go back to playing the act once again. That once again he would have to divide his time up accordingly.

appreciate this is Superman's story but if he's married its really not any longer. I think a great marriage in current DC is Aquaman. And why I think this is because this is a marriage of equals. She's just as capable of standing toe to toe with him. She's been left behind like Lois has but she's allowed to get right into her own mix without him. And can make just as big an impact on the lives around them. Superman could go fight Darkseid and Lois has to stay behind to hear news if he lives or not. Mera can be right there and see for herself. So its not I don't think marriage can work but you have to have both on equal footing in the relationship. Its a marriage of love and compromise. And compromise isn't just one giving in all the time.

Except Lois has done her share over the years. She went with him to that Krypton that Brainiac 13 created. She helped Clark out in her own way by helping Chris and Thara, before discovering the truth of her father's return. She took on Lex twice, while Clark was off doing his own thing. She helped Clark and Bruce switch out the Kryptonite ring for the fake one. And she was the one who helped him to break free of Dominous.

Having an equal footing in their marriage doesn't mean that it has to be like Arthur and Mera, Ralph and Sue, Hank and Janet or Reed and Sue. It means that she doesn't sit at home like Mary Jane Watson often did, worrying about whether or not Peter would come home alive or even with his sanity intact. It means that Lois could still be the reporter that she was and could contribute to the never ending battle, in her own way.

[NotSuper]

Wait, this thread had a subject?
Yeah, it's quite striking to see the similitudes. I guess they're both Maggin's fanboys.

I know I am. Bronze Age Superman FTW! ;)

But yeah, I think it's probably just a case of both having really good ideas about Superman and how he should be presented.

[Fate's Faith]

How does Lois lose? She still has Clark. She still loved him and he still loved her. But she understood that she had to make a sacrifice by sharing the world with him, just as he's had to accept that he can never be normal.

At times I think you really don't get what I'm saying but then you make a statement that shows you do. Lois loses because she has to give up this perfect marriage she finally has to the job of Superman. Like I said, she has to sacrifice. Sure, Clark will never be like normal people but given the fact he has all the things in his life a normal person might only dream of makes it hard to see he's making a sacrifice at all. He wasn't normal without his powers either. And I would guess many people don't feel normal in some way. But not all of us agree with the idea that our spouse should sacrifice her happiness so her mate can find his place in the world. She's living in his dream but when he's truly himself, he doesn't live in hers.

[misslane38]

At times I think you really don't get what I'm saying but then you make a statement that shows you do. Lois loses because she has to give up this perfect marriage she finally has to the job of Superman. Like I said, she has to sacrifice. Sure, Clark will never be like normal people but given the fact he has all the things in his life a normal person might only dream of makes it hard to see he's making a sacrifice at all. He wasn't normal without his powers either. And I would guess many people don't feel normal in some way. But not all of us agree with the idea that our spouse should sacrifice her happiness so her mate can find his place in the world.

The most common and revered definitions of true and authentic love includes accepting imperfection and accepting sacrifices. Lois doesn't sacrifice her happiness by willingly choosing to marry Superman. Lois realizes that no other man could make her happier than Clark/Superman and as such she is content to make sacrifices. Lois is a busy, powerful, crusader as well so she has a life outside of her husband and a life that brings her a sense of accomplishment and joy. All marriages involve making sacrifices from time to time. Superman has to sacrifice his happiness every time he has to leave his wife for another mission and he makes a sacrifice every time he has to step back and Lois her do her often dangerous job without becoming overprotective. Lois and Superman both make sacrifices for each other because that's true love and part of what they love so much about each other is their shared commitment to truth and justice. To them, the sacrifices are worth it and they derive happiness from knowing they're partners in making the world a better place.

She's living in his dream but when he's truly himself, he doesn't live in hers.

I don't even know what this means. Could you elaborate?

[Mat001]

At times I think you really don't get what I'm saying but then you make a statement that shows you do. Lois loses because she has to give up this perfect marriage she finally has to the job of Superman. Like I said, she has to sacrifice.

So does Clark. He has to sacrifice his normal life in pursuit of using his powers in the service of humanity. He has to give up that free time with Lois and anyone else, to do what he does.

Sure, Clark will never be like normal people but given the fact he has all the things in his life a normal person might only dream of makes it hard to see he's making a sacrifice at all.

Except he is. He cannot sit down to enjoy dinner, a good book, a television program, conversation with friends without his hearing the cries for help at every turn. His hearing is routinely tuned into the emergency services frequencies, in order to be on the look out for something that requires his touch. His JLA beeper will go off from time to time. Clark lives two lives, both of which are busy and both of which require some form of sacrifice.

He wasn't normal without his powers either.

He was pretty normal for the year without them during "52". He was able to concentrate on his work and regain his reputation, which had lead to his demotion in the first place. He had time for Lois every night. He was able to hang out with Jimmy. That was as normal as one gets.

And I would guess many people don't feel normal in some way. But not all of us agree with the idea that our spouse should sacrifice her happiness so her mate can find his place in the world. She's living in his dream but when he's truly himself, he doesn't live in hers.

Except even he has sacrifices while married. So that argument really doesn't hold up.

[NotSuper]

Ultimately, I think the Lois marriage and other elements introduced in the nineties will be seen more as footnotes to the character, rather than new aspects of the mythos. Curiosities (like Super-Yuppie and Energy Superman), but not things that stuck with the character. I think we're already starting to view them this way, in fact, it'll just be more clear how transitory they were in the coming years.

[misslane38]

Ultimately, I think the Lois marriage and other elements introduced in the nineties will be seen more as footnotes to the character, rather than new aspects of the mythos. Curiosities (like Super-Yuppie and Energy Superman), but not things that stuck with the character. I think we're already starting to view them this way, in fact, it'll just be more clear how transitory they were in the coming years.

The idea of a married Superman didn't just begin in the Post-Crisis era, though. The Superman Family title featured "Mr. and Mrs. Superman" stories for about three years as well. Plus, I hardly believe there's enough evidence yet to make any sort of predictions about the future. At this point, what you're saying sounds more like a personal opinion akin to wishful thinking. I, on the other hand, don't profess to have any idea where the mythology is headed or how history will look back on the idea of a married Superman.

[Mat001]

It will only be looked at as a footnote because of the reboot. Without it, it would be viewed as a turning point that went on for the entire publication history of the character.

[NotSuper]

Ultimately, I think the Lois marriage and other elements introduced in the nineties will be seen more as footnotes to the character, rather than new aspects of the mythos. Curiosities (like Super-Yuppie and Energy Superman), but not things that stuck with the character. I think we're already starting to view them this way, in fact, it'll just be more clear how transitory they were in the coming years.

But, then again, there will probably be married Supermen in the multiverse (and not just Lois and Kal pairings), so shippers can certainly still have stories where characters they like are together--just not with Prime Superman.

[Sacred Knight]

While I am in favor of Superman being single again, at the same time I don't think his time married to Lois prior to the reboot will nor should be seen as just a footnote. That makes it sound gimmicky, and it wasn't. The idea may have started that way, but it ended up being a natural and lasting progression of the Lois and Clark love story. The reboot shouldn't have any negative affects on its legacy, at least in my mind. To me the marriage will be more comparable to the MOS origin in terms of legacy, as opposed to Electric Superman or whatnot. Significant, lasting aspects to the mythos, that after a substantial amount of publication time, ended in favor of different directions.