DC Comics Ongoing Discussion

[kirk55555]

You say you don't dislike Lois, but you couldn't prove it by much of that post. At best, it sounds like you maybe find her tolerable as long as she minds (what you perceive as) her narrative place. Fortunately, many modern adaptations are not quite so regressive in their approach to one of pop culture's most enduring and dynamic female characters -- to your chagrin, and my delight.

If you think Gunn is going to sideline her in Superman '25, however, I think you may be disappointed. I expect she will have at least as prominent a role as Amy Adams did in Man of Steel -- probably more so. Gunn's too smart to try to put Lois Lane in a corner, or an actress of Rachel Brosnahan's talent and appeal. Why would he bench his best players?

I don't think he's going to let a side character overwhelm a movie filled with much more interesting actual heroes already. I'm not saying she won't be there, but she won't be a focus of the movie. She might be more important then just being around to explain that Clark's mother's name is Martha though, easily making her more important than Amy Adams' Lois was

Also, its not "regressive" to want a Superman story to be about Superman and not his non-powered news reporter love interest. Comics like For the Man Who has Everything, All Star Superman. or Whatever Happened to Truth, Justice and the American way, are stone cold classics with limited to no Lois appearances. Then there are all the books where Superman is in as a big character but not the "main" character that rarely even mention Lois.

Really, in comics its harder to find a popular/famous Superman story where Lois plays a big role, much less is particularly important. This is because people buy the comics for Superman, not Lois, and he should get the same priority in adaptations instead of the boring news reporter who steals the spotlight because its easy for lazy/bad writers to write a story about a news reporter with no powers then it is for them to write a good/cheap to make Superman story. If they could do a show with Superman were it didn't cost them a bunch to show him using his powers I bet Lois wouldn't be hogging the spotlight so much of the time.

Yeah, I can't imagine Gunn would have cast someone like Rachel Brosnahan, if he wasn't going to be giving her a big role in his DCU.

You say that like Rachel Brosnahan is some A-lister that everyone knows and wouldn't just be playing a side role. I'm sure she's a fine actress, Gunn always casts well, but her biggest role is in an Amazon Prime Video show and her biggest mainstream movie roles are a small supporting role in a mediocre Disney made Coast Guard historical movie and a voice role in a bad Blue Sky animated movie. She's firmly below the "celebrity level" of, say, any of the main GotG cast (including Batista), she 100% would make sense as a side character with limited screen time.

 

[Santa Kang]

Someday there will be a good adaptation of Crisis, but not with out 40 years of continuity building towards it

 

[The Realist]

I don't think he's going to let a side character overwhelm a movie filled with much more interesting actual heroes already. I'm not saying she won't be there, but she won't be a focus of the movie. She might be more important then just being around to explain that Clark's mother's name is Martha though, easily making her more important than Amy Adams' Lois was

Also, its not "regressive" to want a Superman story to be about Superman and not his non-powered news reporter love interest. Comics like For the Man Who has Everything, All Star Superman. or Whatever Happened to Truth, Justice and the American way, are stone cold classics with limited to no Lois appearances. Then there are all the books where Superman is in as a big character but not the "main" character that rarely even mention Lois.

Really, in comics its harder to find a popular/famous Superman story where Lois plays a big role, much less is particularly important. This is because people buy the comics for Superman, not Lois, and he should get the same priority in adaptations instead of the boring news reporter who steals the spotlight because its easy for lazy/bad writers to write a story about a news reporter with no powers then it is for them to write a good/cheap to make Superman story. If they could do a show with Superman were it didn't cost them a bunch to show him using his powers I bet Lois wouldn't be hogging the spotlight so much of the time.



You say that like Rachel Brosnahan is some A-lister that everyone knows and wouldn't just be playing a side role. I'm sure she's a fine actress, Gunn always casts well, but her biggest role is in an Amazon Prime Video show and her biggest mainstream movie roles are a small supporting role in a mediocre Disney made Coast Guard historical movie and a voice role in a bad Blue Sky animated movie. She's firmly below the "celebrity level" of, say, any of the main GotG cast (including Batista), she 100% would make sense as a side character with limited screen time.

All this scorn and denigration of one of comics' -- and pop culture's -- iconic female characters is not particularly becoming, but hey, keep doing you.

 

[theenglish]

I expect she will have at least as prominent a role as Amy Adams did in Man of Steel -- probably more so. Gunn's too smart to try to put Lois Lane in a corner, or an actress of Rachel Brosnahan's talent and appeal. Why would he bench his best players?

She's a powerful actress, capable of both comedic and dramatic roles and I believe both will be on display in this movie. I am going to bet that not only will we see the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, but also the daughter of a military general. And I wouldn't be surprised if she verbally kicks Clark's ass at a key moment when he really needs it. Wouldn't a scene like that throw the incels into tantrums?

 

[The Realist]

Wouldn't a scene like that throw the incels into tantrums?

A delightful bonus indeed.

 

[kirk55555]

All this scorn and denigration of one of comics' -- and pop culture's -- iconic female characters is not particularly becoming, but hey, keep doing you.

"Denigration", for fucks sake. Now you're just seeing what you want to see. God forbid someone prefer Superman to be the star of a Superman story. You never did address all the famous Superman stories having little to zero Lois, but I guess that would break your weird stance of Lois Lane being "one of pop culture's iconic female characters". The good versions of Lois aren't even familiar to the general public, if I asked my non-comics reading Dad about Lois Lane he'd just identify her as Superman's regular damsel in distress, which is all she is in the "pop culture" sense.

In the basic "pop culture" sense Superman is a guy who changes clothes in phone booths, beats up a bald guy and rescues Lois Lane, non-nerds don't care about the DCEU or CW shows or the bad 90s sitcom. Maybe some millennials who aren't super into comics watched Smallville for the teen drama, which is probably the only good live action Lois in recent times but its still not the majority of people.

Still, there is no use trying to talk to a wall.

Keep thinking that the vast majority of people give more than the slightest thought toward Lois Lane when thinking about Superman, you have an obvious obsession that logic won't break through and you're starting to get verbally nasty (not wanting Lois Lane to take over a Superman story doesn't make you a bad person, just FYI) so I'm done with this conversation now.

 

[Sketcher]

Who even thinks Lois is a side character at this point??

There have literally been two Superman shows with her name in the title...

 

[The Realist]

Telling Lois Lane to mind her place is never gonna end well.

 

[Mike Farley]

Well, who knows. Having previously written Supergirl, currently writing Wonder Woman and Jenny Sparks, and writing an upcoming Black Cannary mini series, King appears to be making his way through DC's female heavy hitters.

I read it, but I fear I found it a disappointment. It started off well, but Rucka later seemed inexplicably determined to make Lois a supporting character in her own maxiseries.

I was also underwhelmed by Mindy Newell's 1986 miniseries. IMO, Lois has never had a solo comics series that was worthy of her.

(My dream is for my favorite comics writer, Tom King, to do a Lois maxiseries. I think he could do wonders with the character.)

Get bent, Homer.

King wrote a great Lois in a couple issues of Batman a few years back.

 

[The Realist]

King wrote a great Lois in a couple issues of Batman a few years back.

Oh, absolutely. Classic stuff.

 

[TheSeeker]

The double date one? That was fun.

 

[Mike Farley]

It contains one of my favorite one-liners from Batman in response to Clark's "The S stands for hope."

"The bat stands for a bat."

 

[The Realist]

Yep. That was awesome.

King rules, and for all his reputation as Mr. Misery, he can be very funny.

 

[TheSeeker]

I just read Absolute Wonder Woman and it was fantastic.

 

[tenmei]

I just read Absolute Wonder Woman and it was fantastic.

Out of Batman and Wonderwoman, I'd rank Batman above Wonderwoman purely because of the art. But I'm curious to see where both go and how the expansion of the Absolute-verse works.

 

[TheSeeker]

I really liked the art in both,

Spoiler

but I thought the sequence of repeating panels showing Diana growing up and the way their cave changed over time was amazing and put it above Batman for me.

 

[rocketscientist]

Speaking of Tom King, and I apologize if this has been discussed already, but am I the only one that is kind of bummed that King's working with James Gunn on the DC movies and not Geoff Johns?

I'm a big Johns fan. I've enjoyed his work since JSA and followed him to his Superman, Green Lantern, New 52 JLA, and Batman Earth 1 runs. I think he has such a great ability to reassert and rehabilitate characters (I mean, pulling Hal Jordan out of what DC did to him was pretty amazing and I think he is also so good at using and respecting a character's history and also being able to plot and hit great story beats.

So we have a new Lanterns TV show coming up and these other DC projects and Geoff Johns is nowhere to be seen. He was involved in the original DCU films of course, so why isn't he involved here? Did that JLA business with Joss Whedon stick to him and/or the failure of the prior DC films regime? If so, I kind of think that's unfair. He was never ever truly in charge of the DC films universe and the execs above him were the ones who handed the keys to Zach Snyder, who was never ever interested in the traditional and optimistic depictions of DC's characters. Snyder was a fan of edgy comics like The Dark Knight Strikes Again and Watchmen

 

[The Realist]

Not me. I think King's the hands-down finest writer ever to work in mainstream American comics.

(Not that I dislike Johns's work, mind you. In fact, I like some of it very much. But between him and King, Gunn's definitely working with the superior writer IMO.)

 

[theenglish]

Speaking of Tom King, and I apologize if this has been discussed already, but am I the only one that is kind of bummed that King's working with James Gunn on the DC movies and not Geoff Johns?
...
Did that JLA business with Joss Whedon stick to him and/or the failure of the prior DC films regime?

King's in because Gunn wants each episode of the series to have at least one scene of quickly cut shots of talking heads finishing each others sentences. As for Johns, he's been working on programs for quite a while now and I imagine Gunn wants someone new.

 

[The Realist]

King's in because Gunn wants each episode of the series to have at least one scene of quickly cut shots of talking heads finishing each others sentences.