Comic Book Opinion Piece - To sposta The Needle 

1938 - Golden Age Comics 1940 - Superman Radio Program 1941 - Fleischer Superman Cartoons 1948 - Kirk Alyn Superman Serials

1951 - \'The Adventures of Superman\' TV Series 1956 - Silver Age Comics

1966 - Superman Broadway Musical 1966 - \'The New Adventures of Superman\' Cartoons 1973 - \'Super Friends\' Cartoons

1978 - \'Superman: The Movie\' 1980 - \'Superman II\' Movie 1983 - \'Superman III\' Movie 1984 - \'Supergirl\' Movie

1986 - Modern Age Comics 1987 - \'Superman IV: The Quest for Peace\' Movie 1988 - Ruby Spears \'Superman\' Cartoons 1988 - \'Superboy\' TV Series 1993 - \'Lois and Clark\' TV Series 1996 - \'Superman: The Animated Series\' Cartoons

2001 - \'Smallville\' TV Series 2001 - \'Justice League\' Cartoons 2005 - \'Krypto: The Superdog\' Cartoons 2006 - \'Superman: Brainiac Attacks\' Animated Movie 2006 - \'Superman Returns\' Movie 2006 - \'Legion of Super Heroes\' Cartoons 2007 - \'Superman: Doomsday\' Animated Movie 2008 - \'Justice League: New Frontier\' Animated Movie 2009 - \'Superman/Batman: Public Enemies\' Animated Movie

2010 - \'Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths\' Animated Movie 2010 - \'Superman/Batman: Apocalypse\' Animated Movie 2010 - \'Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam\' Animated Short 2010 - \'Young Justice\' Animated Series 2011 - \'All-Star Superman\' Animated Movie 2012 - \'Justice League: Doom\' Animated Movie 2012 - \'Superman vs. The Elite\' Animated Movie 2013 - \'Superman: Unbound\' Animated Movie 2013 - \'Man of Steel\' Movie 2014 - \'Justice League: War\' Animated Movie 2015 - \'Justice League: Throne of Atlantis\' Animated Movie 2015 - \'Supergirl\' TV Series 2016 - \'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice\' Movie

Email Steve Younis Who is Superman Superman FAQ Comics Index Lists Latest Superman Comic Book Reviews Latest Superman Merchandise SuperTrivia Quiz \'Speeding Bulletin\' Video Reports \'Radio KAL\' Podcast \'From Crisis To Crisis\' Podcast

Now you can show the world that you are a fan of the No. 1 Superman site in the world! For only $17.99 you can wear this shirt with pride and help get the word out about our super community here. (More colors and designs available)

Superman: The Movie, born in Sainte-Christine, Quebec, Canada in 1916.

May 3: Jackie Cooper, Perry White in the Superman films, dies in 2011, aged 88.

May 5: Henry Cavill, Superman in the 2013 Man of Steel movie, born in Jersey, Channel Islands in 1983.

May 8: Salome Jens, Martha Kent in the Superboy TV series, born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1935.

May 11: Gerard Christopher, the second actor to play the lead role in the Superboy TV series, born in New York City, New York in 1959.

May 13: Writer Marv Wolfman (The Adventures of Superman) born in 1946.

May 21: Joan Alexander, best known as Lois Lane from the 1940s Superman Radio Series, dies in 2009, aged 94.

May 23: Artist Win Mortimer (Action Comics, Supergirl) born in 1919.

May 27: Richard Schiff, Emil Hamilton in the 2013 Man of Steel movie, born in Bethesda, Maryland in 1955.

Big Blue Report is the Superman Homepage Newsletter sent out twice a month. It contains exclusive content not seen on the website. Subscribe now!

Your Web browser does not have JavaScript enabled or does not support JavaScript. Please enable JavaScript on your Web browser to properly view this Web site,

or upgrade to a Web browser that does support JavaScript; Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome or a version of Internet Explorer newer then version 6.

April 27, 2015: Comic Book Opinion Piece - To Move The Needle

The New 52 was a desperate ploy undertaken by DC Comics to invigorate new interest in the DC Universe. This was a universe predicated on a superlative hero, ahead of his time, who cut a swath that all other heroes follow still to this day. Equally important to the foundation was the intrepid reporter who was ahead of her era, the woman of tomorrow, Lois Lane. Where other love interests fell by the wayside, Lois Lane persevered. She, much like her counterpart, flexed with the flux of time and social thought, but her core was resolute, and through adventures both silly and sublime, she remained a singular character embodying both prescience and present-day populism. She could never be forgotten or ignored, domesticated or dumbed-down, because of what she was and who she was connected to. Few characters can claim the importance of Lois Lane: friend, rival, colleague, compatriot, confidant, companion, lover, wife. Remove Lois, and you not only decimate much of what Superman is about, but you also undermine what the DC Universe is about... or, at least, what it used to be about. It was a universe of grand ideas, and even grander people that implemented them. Recently, with the decision to have Lois Lane out Clark Kent as Superman, one has to wonder what has become of those ideas, why DC has allowed Lois Lane to bear the brunt of what is increasingly becoming a failed gambit on their part.

This would not be the first time that Lois has learned that Clark Kent is Superman. No, this would not be the second or third either. It is the first time that she sees fit to expose his secret, and though her justification is still forthcoming, it smacks of another character, a doppelgänger, but not Lois Lane. Lois\' reaction to the discovery has been varied. She\'s been surprised, elated, livid, and saddened, but the mitigating factor in each occurrence was that she genuinely cared for Clark Kent. The argument could and will be made for journalistic integrity, but if Lois Lane, a symbol of the aforesaid principle decides not to run a story, one would think that should be enough. A deeper dive, which most Superman readers know, is that Clark is Superman\'s connection to humanity. It is through Clark that Superman is allowed to normalize himself and interact on a human level; to be one of us as much a Kryptonian can be. When that is stripped from him, Superman loses that human component that is necessary for his character. However, it\'s obvious that DC knows this, and the action is another attempt to move the needle of reader interest, with Lois Lane selected to do the dirty work.

Since the inception of the New 52, we\'ve seen Superman in a new outfit, his parents were murdered, he\'s left the Daily Planet, and been paired with Wonder Woman, all in an attempt to move the needle. Lois has fared just as poorly, if not worse, being switched from reporter to TV producer, infected with Brainiac for over a year, resulting in her being comatose or demonic for most stories, and unceremoniously given Jonathan Carroll as a love interest, who\'s current existence is questionable. All done to shake things up, generate interest, and at inestimable cost to characters who have been inextricably linked from the onset of their creation. The damage done to one is immediately reciprocated to the other, but this is the banality that Superman and Lois Lane have been foisted upon. Superman is a depowered symbol of what he once was, and Lois Lane has been made into a plot device to send him along his merry way.

The idea, at least among comic readers, is that somehow, regardless of the offense, there is some mitigating factor, and with that, a chance at redemption. The aforementioned is a Silver Age notion, a notion that has been repeatedly crushed in the demand for stories of permanence and gravitas. The Silver Age notion was one of hope, and that doesn\'t exist in the New 52, just ask the Blue Lanterns. To think that Lois can redeem herself of such a betrayal both undermines the story idea, for what need is there for redemption, if the act was right, but also displays DC\'s thought process towards readers i.e. we do not need to commit to crafting solid stories, as the readership will forget it when we reboot. Still, it sets a horrible precedent on an otherwise unblemished character in relation to her history and interaction with her counterpart. A precedent that will surely be tapped when a writer wants Lois to act uncharacteristic of her nature, much as it has been done to justify the same with Superman. The worst of it is seeing Lois Lane, the woman of today and tomorrow, used to bring angst to a man\'s story, in the trite manner that Superman and Lois Lane\'s relationship is so very much above.

The need to move the needle is one that I understand. Anyone who\'s done so much as posted a YouTube video comprehends the whys and wherefores in making decisions towards the interest of the audience. The aforesaid doesn\'t excuse a poor decision, and this is a magnificently poor determination. Superman and Lois Lane are the Adam and Eve of the DC Universe. They were the most positive relation in comics between a man and woman, which, unfortunately, is still something ahead of its time. No bickering, bile, or bullying, but a commitment of heart, mutual respect and admiration, reason, and love. There is little of that in the comics world today, and this drags them both into the miasmatic film of what is called development for today. That development will see Superman looking nothing like himself, riding on a motorbike of all things, and about as hopeful as Crom, but Lois? If DC has shown anything with the New 52, it\'s that they have no idea what to do with Superman, and even less with Lois Lane.

I appreciate what you've written here T.A., but for most of Lois' existence, she was sort of an annoying "gold-digging" shrew who despised CK, at worst, or, at best someone who only loved Superman and had no interest in Clark other than to out-scoop him. It was truly only in the modern age, late 80's, that Lois really became the character you're maligning the possible loss of.

I've been collecting Superman comics for about 30 years now, so I been through the mill a few times with Clark! I loved John Byrne's reboot of the Man of Steel, his vision of Krypton, how Superman was the disguise, not Clark, and it just seemed more... grounded.

I've stuck with Clark all this time, but now I've had enough.

I'm a big fan of the New 52 reboot (Jim Lee's artwork is amazing); I loved the new costume as, controversially, I've never cared for the 'classic' look (as an aside, I thought most of the New 52 costume redesigns were excellent, especially Batman).

Unfortunately, DC can't seem to stop tinkering. In their ever more desperate attempts to catch up with Marvel, or maybe just to make money, they seem to have forgotten what makes Superman, Superman.

The final straw, for me, was the introduction of the new power "super flare", which screamed of desperation, plus the news of

I'll always love Superman, and I'll keep tabs on what he's up to, but it saddens me to to say, I'm just not prepared anymore to give my hard earned to DC Comics.

As TA said, the idea of journalistic integrity will be bandied about in defense of this move. But it is this so-called

integrity that bothers me about Superman's secret ID being revealed.

Lois' outing of Superman is not journalistic integrity. Rather, it is journalistic sensationalism.

Should the identity of a CIA undercover agent be revealed in the name of journalistic integrity? What about the ID of a wealthy philanthropist who wishes to remain anonymous?

Even if you consider Superman a vigilante, and therefore a criminal, the standard does not change. There is a real life comparison. Banksy. An infamous graffiti artist whose real name is unknown. By defacing public and private property, he is undoubtedly breaking the law. He is a criminal. But his work is appreciated, and has even been featured in art shows. He is a celebrity, though no one knows who he really is.

Would is be a journalist's responsibility to publicize his private information, if they discovered it? If a "reporter" found out who he really is, he or she would most likely publish it. It would sell tons of papers, or generate tons of clicks. But it wouldn't be actual news. It would be gossip. Another beat in the rhythm of the pop culture pulse.

Superman's identity is no different. If the US government felt they needed to know in the interest of national security, they could easily find out. But national security and the media's responsibility are two very separate issues.

Lois Lane, who feels an almost religious-like devotion to the truth, to the first amendment, and to her role in society, would be the first to draw the line at making a person's private life public with no upside besides selling a few papers.

@ScottyV, that is a sexist lie that has been disproven over and over again over the years through detailed research by women much smarter than I. I'm so tired of it bc it is not true.

Lois Lane was developed as a feminist woman in 1938. You can read all about her history in the book detailing the early days of Siegel and Shuster by Brad Ricca. He proves that Superman's creators set out from the start to create a strong woman to stand with Superman. She was a woman ahead of her time from that first day. A working woman in a man's world.

The hijinks of the Silver Age were directly linked to the post World War 2 response to women in the workplace. There was an acute cultural shift that tried to force strong women back into traditional gender roles after the war. Still, despite all these silly comics, Lois was still one of the only women to even have her own book in a time where female driven books were scarce.

From the Bronze Age onward, the sexual revolution of the 1970's allowed Lois to reclaim her rightful place as hard hitting journalist. It was a feminist victory for the character as was her eventual marriage to Clark Kent as we now lived in a culture where we didn't force women to choose between job and marriage/family. We allowed them to have both.

The "gold digger" and " shrew" insults are also sexist, unfair and not true. Lois Lane loves the REAL man. When Superman is the "real" man she loves him. When Clark is the "real" man, she loves him. She loves the real man. And it is and always will be distinctly unfair that she is criticized for loving the best that Clark can be as opposed to a disguise and lie that he puts forth. She will see through to the real man and she has every right to want and love the best that he can be. Shaming her for that is wrong and always will be. Particularly when there are decades of stories and countless media properties that prove, without question, that Lois will always love the real person inside.

If Lois's history shows anything it's a triumph for working women through decades of sexism and she not only survived but thrived. That's actually really amazing. It's amazing to see a female character be created in 1938 as such a distinctly strong figure and make it to where we are. This character is an icon to women because of this journey.

This is a wonderful piece and I'm thankful to T.A. for writing it and to this site for publishing it.

Lois was and is my hero. Just as Superman is my hero. She was the first woman I ever saw on TV who was celebrated for being good at her job and yet allowed to be beloved. It had such a huge impact on me as a kid...I cannot even put it properly into words. I am so saddened by the way she's been treated in the new 52. It breaks my heart.

This was a universe predicated on a superlative hero, ahead of his time, who cut a swath that all other heroes follow still to this day

If DC has shown anything with the New 52, it's that they have no idea what to do with Superman, and even less with Lois Lane.

This line was the most haunting and telling of all!

Women Write About Comics just did an amazing interview with Gwenda Bond (the author of the Lois YA novel ) on the history of Lois and Superman and it's significance to young women. It's really great. Check it out if you have not seen it. http://womenwrite...enda-bond/

I'm pretty excited about the Truth storyline.

If you look at any recent list of the "Greatest Superman Stories" for modern readers, a few exceptions, you don't see anything from the past decade. Instead, with stunning regularity you see the same handful of titles top the lists:

All of which could said to have a confronting premise or hook that we could claim is antithetical to Superman if we didn't give these stories a chance.

Kingdom Come - What if Superman abandoned the never-ending battle and came out of retirement?

Red Son - What if Superman wasn't raised in the American Way?

Secret Identity - What if Clark grew up annoyed at the idea of Superman?

Imagine if all you knew about All-Star was that the invincible Man of Steel was terminally ill, or of Kingdom Come was Superman telling Diana to go away and not bother him on his simulated farm, if the only panel you saw of Red Son was Superman kowtowing to Stalin, or in Secret Identity Clark opening mocking the Superman mythos, or for For All Seasons the darkest panels of serial killings in The Long Halloween.

The stories were compelling because they weren't bound to

status quo proclamations of who or what Superman is... because we always get back to that in the end anyways. I would have missed out on All-Star if I said Superman could never die, Kingdom Come if I said Superman would never retire, or For All Seasons if I said I'll never read a writer who prefer Batman.

�Not a Dream! Not a Hoax! Not an Imaginary Story!� is a saying because they all are dreams, little tricks of suspended disbelief we play on ourselves, and imaginary stories.

For the first time we'll have a modern story arc really confronting what happens if the secret identity is outed and it isn't just about the protection of his loved ones in jeopardy because of his secret... and there's a lot of storytelling potential there. It doesn't guarantee delivery, but there's promise and possibility not snuffed out by just two panels for me.

DrAwkward, all the stories you mention are elseworlds, so it's not the same thing as doing major changes IN continuity.

But anyway I'm not going to judge this story before its out.

supertorresmo, I would be completely with you a decade ago, but if there's one thing DC has been trying to reinforce the past few years, it's that continuity is really fluid concept... despite its execution, that's part of the spirit of Convergence (better executed in Multiversity but a bit too esoteric as just a story) and probably Divergence and the dropping of the New 52 branding. I think Grant Morrison's been quoted somewhere saying, "It's ALL real." Perhaps a little glibly, but that's what I'm referring to in the sense they're all imaginary stories.

Heck, we know that "normal" Superman is continuing on in other titles like Justice League while this Truth storyline is going on and if continuity is the only thing stopping us from telling stories on the caliber with all those Elseworlds, why not trade some continuity for caliber?

If people dislike the continuity so much and aren't invested in it, why NOT go crazy? Isn't that the best time to do it? Wouldn't this be ten times more upsetting if the

status quo were perfect? This seems like the ideal moment to blow it up and tell an otherwise untellable story like this.

@DrAwkward, I actually agree with you that a story about Superman struggling with both sides of himself with his secret ID outed could have some interesting potential for a temporary period. It's placing Lois in a role totally OOC for her to create that narrative that I take issue with. I don't support sacrificing any character--let alone a woman--on the alter of " what ifs" just for shock value.

I also hate to point this out but several of those stories you point to above have been challenged a great deal over the years for the way they used women as canon fodder. Secret Identity and For All Seasons Are Great. No issue there. Both Kingdom Come and Red Son have come under genunine fire for the treatment of the women in the books. (Waid actually has regrets about KC now.) Even All Star Superman (a book I love) has been criticized for some of Morrison's choices with Lois. (She gets superpowers and he has two men fight over her? Ick.) The critique is out there and very real and valid. :/. Given that we are talking in part about the treatment of a female character, KIngdom Come and Red Son are not good examples of not treating women OOC and disposable. Those stories are clearly popular and have value but they are both prime examples of sacrificing beloved female characters without really thinking about the ramifications of it.

I use those stories as high-water marks for the treatment of Superman where, if panels, excerpts, or premises, were taken out of context might act as "sacrificing characters on the alter of 'what ifs' just for shock value" nonetheless defying those potential prejudgments in their treatment of Superman by general consensus.

They're good examples that we shouldn't leap to conclusions about what will be Lois's legacy after this story arc is completed, anymore than we should say Secret Identity is about Clark laughing at the mythos ("He's mocking life-long fans!" ) or Kingdom Come is about giving up the Never-Ending Battle ("He would never do that!" ). You might say Superman had to act out-of-character to precipitate those stories, but in the great arc of history they're held up as exemplars.

Before I said: "I would have missed out on All-Star if I said Superman could never die, Kingdom Come if I said Superman would never retire, or For All Seasons if I said I'll never read a writer who prefer Batman."

It's too early to make a fair judgment about what those panels mean in the context of the whole story. For all we know, we're missing out on a great Lois Lane story because we say she'd never do that.

First step to having a great story? Being in it! At least we know she is!

I understand. But what you describe as "high water marks" for Superman were, in several cases there, low, low moments of violence, OOC stuff for Lois. She was sacrificed in a few of those stories to get there and there was a long term impact that affected her for years. And that's not a good thing no matter how much some of us may like some of those stories.

You're right that we don't know the whole story yet and I'm sure a reason will be concocted to try and explain it. I also imagine that at some point Lois will fight on Clark 's side sbd they will reconcile. The problem is...if still sets Lois up to learn a lesson that she already knew and didn't need to learn. It still takes the female hero of this story and puts her in a role that's in contrast to her history for shock value in an era of comics where she already has been pretty marginalized and mistreated. No matter the context...that makes me super uncomfortable. I totally respect where you are coming from but that's not a feeling I can shake. :/.

Morrison's been quoted somewhere saying, "It's ALL real." Perhaps a little glibly, but that's what I'm referring to in the sense they're all imaginary stories.

Morrison is quoted saying "It's all continuity" which for him is child's play, for readers like myself, a delight, and the average writer, frightening enough for them to wet their trousers . . .or use the super-flare.

Also, the past decade produced All Star Superman, or you could say that Superman averages one pivotal work per decade, and this might be it. Doesn't feel like it. Doesn't seem like it. The works you listed were from writers of a pedigree that Gene Luen Yang hasn't shown with superhero comics. I was interested on his run based on the write-ups stating he would be dealing with Superman and the immigrant experience. It's been done to death with Superman, but his work on "American Born Chinese" was showed some promise with the theme. The reveal just renders it inert.

There are plenty of stories that refute what you write here. The fact that she married Clark in the comic strip and never knew he was Superman is one of the earliest. However, I'm flabbergasted that you could have such a take on Lois Lane at all. Clark for many years was acting like a mild-mannered lad. That wasn't his true self. Should anyone be taken with an act? When they married in the 40th anniversary special of Action a Comics, Lois still doesn't know Clark is Superman, but Clark isn't acting other than himself. A spell makes him forget he's Superman and so he acts normally . . .like a Superman. Lois notices the change, and Clark pursues her honestly. She responds the honesty. What's more, when she discovers that he is Superman, she doesn't out him like a "gold-digger" would for a headline. No, she's ready to dissolve the marriage because Clark wasn't himself and she believes it wasn't fair to him that he committed himself in such a state. Hardly the shrew. It's at best a short-sighted comment on your part, but no less a surprising one.

T.A. that was well put. I couldn't agree more. I too have said before that DC doesn't know what to do with Superman anymore or doesn't care. I personally think it's just to make money, so to them I say, if its just money you want them why not sell the rights to Marvel. I'm certain they can do a better job then you.

This is just my take, but these in depth analyses would probably be better released after we got to examine "Truth" in more detail than a few solicit blurbs (which are unreliable), and Bleeding Cool's intentional tumult-inducing selective posting of spoiler panels.

I mean, I personally think this story is kind of a silly idea that all relevant parties will end up regretting, but it's not like any of us

know it will be. It just seems like people are just fanning the flames of hysteria, and somewhere Rich Johnston chortles. There will be plenty of time to pan the story once we get more details.

"It's been done to death with Superman" ... "but do it only the way it's been done before."

That kinda puts them in a no-win situation if frustrated with repetition but unwilling to accept [temporary, it's always temporary] change.

I agree wholeheartedly, T.A! These kinds of changes are exactly why I stopped reading comics and do not plan on seeing the new Batman V Superman movie. This kind of thing convinces me that I need to keep to my old collection. Like Nolan's Batman, this is not my Superman or Lois.

No one here has said the latter. I'm not sure why you're introducing it.

DC's repetition is of their own making. It's not one that fans are clamouring for. There was never a group of fans who lobbied for COIE, or any of the repetitive events that followed. Neither are fans asking for fundamental changes, only for things to return to what they were. Those are conventions instituted and continued by DC, as they are telling stories for characters in a serial format. The corner they've backed themselves into is relying on stunts and not storytelling and this latest one is a perfect example.

I was interested in "Truth" based on the proposed storyline. However, throw in the secret being exposed, more distance from Lois Lane, another new look, and Superman on a motorbike, and I can see what DC is telegraphing: "We're shaking things up, and don't worry if you don't like it, it won't last."

DC has fogotten how to tell new and invigorating stories, while having the iconic, mythological character they present remain familiar and recognizable. Not static, but familiar. Not re-imagined, but recognizable. DC's route just breeds distrust and they've been generating more than their fair share for too long now.

Very nice article reflecting my feelings exactly

It's a little early to form judgments about a story line that isn't released yet. I'll form my opinion after I have read it.

Good article. My main problem with the New 52 and DC in general is that ever since 2006 or so, their continuity concerning Superman and the universe as a whole has really been confusing to me. Even the New 52 has continuity issues. At first I was really excited about the New 52 in that I thought that with a reboot all the continuity problems would be over and they could just start from scratch, but not so. The New 52 Superman had been killed by Doomsday at some point in the past, we're told, but we never see that. We're told that it's different in some way, but how? Lois is not his girlfriend, fine; I get that. But they write the two of them as if they have some sort of platonic past in that they're supposed to be good friends...but we never see that, especially now with her doing this. And now we're in for yet another reboot. It's too hard to figure out.

What DC needs to do is have a Byrnes-like reboot of the entire universe. Start from scratch, start with the origin stories all over again. From there make up new stories with different takes on the characters instead of going half-in-half and continuing to muddle the continuity waters.

If they did a complete reboot, I could see a story like this one with Lois revealing him working a lot better.

DC's repetition is of their own making. It's not one that fans are clamouring for. There was never a group of fans who lobbied for COIE, or any of the repetitive events that followed. Neither are fans asking for fundamental changes, only for things to return to what they were.

So the never-ending battle between Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis fans, both of who I'm sure loathe the New 52 for the most part, never happened?

Seriously, what's your problem with motorbikes?

See, I don't even disagree with your main argument. Of course it's all for shock and show, but the sweeping generalization that DC has somehow forgot what makes a good Superman story is perplexing. Pak's run was good. Johns' recent run was alright too. As was Morrison's early run.

I'm in this odd place where I feel like I have to defend DC when even I'm not happy with them. Maintaining some perspective wouldn't be a terrible thing though, would it?

I've long since abandoned Superman (and DC) since the New 52 started. After about 6 issues, I decided it just wasn't worth it anymore. I've recently gone back and read some of Grant Morrison's Action Comics run and checked out some of Geoff Johns' stuff, but that's about it.

I wasn't even aware this had happened. So I can't offer too much insight into it specifically.

I'll say this, though. Even without knowing about Lois' latest actions, this article pretty well sums up my thoughts on the current status quo of Superman and his supporting cast. Everything that was once bright and optimistic about the series has been done away with in favor of a dark and brooding atmosphere. The characters, once ambitious and hopeful, are now grim-faced pessimists.

I recall an issue of either Action Comics or Superman from 7 or 8 years ago when Superman protected people from an exploding train. The caption read, "He is here, and the hurt will stop."

I can't see that caption ever appearing anywhere in relation to New 52 Superman.

Superman has become a blow-stuff-up-first/ask-questions-never sort of antihero. In Morrison's run, which were about a young Superman learning the ropes, this could be somewhat justified. But other issues printed at the same time depicting the "current" Superman showed no difference. He was every bit as reckless. The only difference was, he even was less engaged with humanity. The first picture of Superman in New 52's Superman #1 showed him hovering silently over Metropolis, practically glaring down at the citizens below.

He's basically Mr. Majestic, with even less sense of humor.

Kudos to Certainshades for bringing up the fact that Lois Lane was hardly ever a gold digging, petty, damsel-in-distress shrew. That's not to say that in over 75 years' worth of stories, she wasn't written badly now and then. However, she was, overall, a very positive character that young women could look up to. (Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, several female journalists were inspired by Lois Lane?)

So often, we look back at her through modern eyes without realizing what a trailblazer she was in her time.

Was she often in need of rescue? Sure. But consider how most women were portrayed in the early days of Superman. In comic books, radio serials, and a TV show, a single woman was portrayed as a successful journalist. Maybe she did need Superman to rescue her from criminals, but she never needed him to help her succeed at her job. She was the most respected reporter in Metropolis.

And this was in the era when most women were stay-at-home moms or a genie with an exposed midriff calling the central male character "Master."

Sure, she swooned over Superman and dismissed Clark. But that was the point. Everyone dismissed Clark Kent and cheered Superman. Lois was hardly the only character doing this. It was the whole point of the CK disguise. He was a mild-mannered, unassuming quiet guy that no one ever expected to make an impact.

Whenever Metropolis was under siege -- by Lex Luthor, space aliens, or reanimated dinosaurs -- Lois was always the first reporter on the scene. Did this land her in trouble? Sure. Did she often need Superman to save her life? Yes. But at a time when most stories would've showed women running for cover, covering their eyes and screaming or just fainting helplessly, Lois was running headlong into the fray. She was fearless. She was ambitious.

I have to agree with Dr Akward. I think many are having a knee Jerk reaction to something they know nothing of. I doubt Lois Lane outed Superman for glory and fame. If she does, Ill be the first one to admit I was wrong. there had to be a reason. And Lois Lane, in the small preview we recieved, seemed genuinly wrought with guilt and continues to ask if another way was possible. Superman is also not mad. more...sad at the circumstance.

or, you know, we can continue to judge before release. Whatever.

But I also won't read this story, because I haven't enjoyed anything I've read prior.

Did it? That's what I was writing about. Again, readers did not ask for COIE or fundamental changes to the characters they were reading. DC was never lobbied to depower Superman or reboot him; those decisions were exclusive to what readers were asking for at the time.

Motorbikes? Not a thing. Superman on a motorbike is what I took issue with. And mind you, there are instances of doing such a thing that I have no problem with. The Justice League animated series showcased Superman in the episode, "Hereafter", where he was driving a drop-top cross country. Great story and great episode. He had a beard, he had a sword, he fought wolves, and it all worked because of the story's quality. "Truth" is a stunt.

I can understand if you're defensing them from what seems to be a pile-on attack, but DC is not doing a good job with Superman. They just aren't.

I have to agree with Dr Akward. I think many are having a knee Jerk reaction to something they no nothing of.

NO, that would be madness. You can react to a preview, which is what is being done and why DC does this. They want a reaction. They hope that a visceral reaction means interest in the book. They could care less how "knee-jerk" it may be. Just react. . .and buy.

I doubt Lois Lane outed Superman for glory and fame. If she does, Ill be the first one to admit I was wrong. there had to be a reason.

What good reason could Lois have for outing Clark? I know, pay 5 quid and find out!

And Lois Lane, in the small preview we recieved, seemed genuinly wrought with guilt and continues to ask if another way was possible. Superman is also not mad. more...sad at the circumstance.

Which is enough for me to not give them one red cent. That scene shows that she regrets her decision, and Clark is smashed by it. Not sad, but defeated. It's not why I read Superman.

Its ONE panel in whats to be along arc. But, you know, do what you will.

Yes, but the point is, these things did bring in not just a new audience, but what is now effectively a loyal fanbase. I'm not arguing that what they've been doing with the New 52, let alone "Truth", has/will generate the same, but 'returning things to what they were' is a fairly subjective thing. It's good for them to try new directions, though I will definitely agree that it should be done from a place of creative curiosity rather than marketing stunts.

It absolutely is. The motorbike too. I'm just not sure this won't cross the line between 'building expectations' and 'judging a book by its cover'.

I enjoyed and agree with almost all of the article. I also enjoyed the forum of opinions expressed in the comments section. It is a breath of fresh air to read so many without a single personal attack. Even the "shrew" comment elicited no more than "I disagree". Congrats to you all for a great forum of thought.

which is what is being done and why DC does this. They want a reaction. They hope that a visceral reaction means interest in the book. They could care less how "knee-jerk" it may be. Just react. . .and buy.

Yes, and no. It's DC's preview, yes. However, it was Bleeding Cool who got their hands on the book early, and then snipped out panels and posted it on their site, and then followed up that story with a story about the outrage on Twitter. God bless Rich Johnston, BTW. So essentially, this is all commentary on a preview of a preview, with even further-manipulated context than what a preview normally provides.

Everything you say may very well end up being spot on, but we're still deep in the speculation stage.

I just don't understand why DC can't tell Superman stories about Superman... just being Superman.

Why does every Superman story lately have to upset the apple cart and change the status quo so completely?

First they undo/redo his whole history, complete with a new suit. Then when the "thrill" of that wears off, they hook him up with Wonder Woman. Then when that wears off, they turn him into the Hulk - I mean, Superdoom. Then they give him a new power, now they are outing him as Clark Kent.

You know, as much as I love DEATH AND RETURNS from the 90's I think that's were the problem lies. Every time DC asks themselves "When was the last time Superman was a Mega Hit?" the answer is always "Back in the 90's when we killed him off." But it's like Christmas. If you do it everyday, it stops being special.

Maybe just chill for a while, DC, and actually focus on telling enjoyable stories about Superman getting to be Superman. These never-ending shifts scream out your belief that the character is broken, and in need of constant rejiggering to make him cool. And then when that doesn't work, you blame the fans, or society moving past the character, or whatever.

Sigh, rant over, sorry. Just... sigh.

I had already made up my mind that I wasn't going to buy 'Truth" I can't tell you the last New 52 book I've purchased outside of this Convergence storyline that' s turning into a huge disappointment, and before 2006, I was literally a Superman comics junkie. Junkie might actually be too weak a word.

The panels I read with your article were a great disappointment, but not entirely unexpected. DC's writing for Superman, at least from the reviews I read here, have been absolutely LAZY! and haphazard. Why can't an artist/writer/editor/inker stay with Superman for more than a 6 to 9 issue run?

IMHO, the stories and storylines leading up to Superman's death and return in the 90's was a team cohesion where everyone involved sat down and hashed out what made sense for the characters as well as the company.

There's a reason Smallville read so well. Continuity. Cohesion. Flow. Decent story telling. Long term goals. Substance before gimmicks.

Rhetorically, why can't the writing for Superman and related comics be more like the writing for Amazing Spider-man, Ultimate Spider-man and Miles Morales: Ultimate Spider-man? Writers on the job for years with ideas and storylines spanning hundreds of issues. Why is that so hard a task for the oldest and best of DC?

I don't know: I've long given up on the New 52. But I can't bring myself to give up on Superman. Sometimes I wish I was a comic book writer. I'd want to write stories so compelling that anytime the brass mentioned gimmick, they'd immediately follow it with, "but don't mess with what's going on over in Superman."

Uhhh . . . really? How did you get any of that out of Smallville? I mean, I know I don't comment hardly at all anymore, and I certainly don't labour under the delusion that more people agreed with my (and other people's) Smallville reviews than disagreed, but "cohesion"? "Flow?" "Substance over gimmicks"? If ever there was a case of two people reading the same thing and getting something completely different out of the experience, this is it.

..and that's the real Truth. Good piece TA!

God that would be so refreshing! No monkeying with his costume, no gimmicks, no convoluted clusterf**k events intruding in, just telling awesome Superman stories with good art! I'd have reason to go in transaction distance of an LCS again!

I'm inclined to say it's because it's easier to destroy than to create. Or maybe easier to bring a baseball bat to a basketball court and claim you're changing the paradigm of sports rather than actually play the game well.

There also an under-current of embarrassment that seems to run through everything DC does with Superman now. Like a constant over-compensation for his perceived lameness. I think Lois gets sucked into that to. They view her as part of his lameness.

Some defend this or at least have it as a reason for holding out the idea that it is only temporary. Well, for me I can't help but think about what "temporary" means in modern comics speak which under the de-compressed approach to writing can be anywhere from several months to 2-5 YEARS leaving anyone not invested in the whole big event or gimmick or shake-up having to wait it out or slog through to its merciful end to finally get back to reading about the hero they showed up to read about in the first place. ...but only as filler before the next event or gimmick or shake-up.

Here's a thing I've noticed that Marvel does differently than DC. At Marvel, it's generally one writer per character. Like the books you mentioned, it's just Dan Slott writing all of Peter Parker's adventures, and Bendis writing all Miles Morales. Remender on Captain America, Mark Waid on Hulk, etc.

Maybe part of the reason we can't get a cohesive Superman continuity going is because we've got half a dozen writers all going their own way, and even when they team up on something like SUPERDOOM, it only accentuates the disjointed nature of that kind of storytelling. Maybe DC should just hire ONE writer, with a clear take on the character, and go down to ONE book. Let that writer build up something; a take, a view, a continuity, a freaking story.

This is what I miss about the Silver age / Pre crisis era along with the wearing the "Proper iconic costume"! Superman being Superman - this simple concept is why I bought Superman in the first place!

Maybe DC should just hire ONE writer, with a clear take on the character, and go down to ONE book. Let that writer build up something; a take, a view, a continuity, a freaking story.

Agree to infinity - Books should be "work(s) of art" with crisp writing - I'll take ONE well written book a month rather than to have all these inconsistent "other titles" that contradict each other at times

Here's a thought - keep all the Superman books, but have each one be a different era/timeline. Every now and again, do crossovers (ala Earth-1 & Earth-2).

A Superman for all Season(s), Age(s) and Era(s) - Just pick and choose your favorite - Yes!

@ Kal-Elvis - Now, I could very easily get behind that

Now having multiple titles a month would really be beneficial and have greater meaning.

Given that there are so many good era's, I'd do this:

1: Trade-off between Golden and Silver Ages (6 issues per age)

2: Trade-off between Bronze and Post-Crisis (6 issues per age)

That way each team only needs to do 6 comics a year (of the 4 "classic" teams). Also, since Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Post-Crisis all have very different feels and very ardent fans, that'd be great for everybody.

Home/News | Comics | Movies | Television | Radio & Music

Images | Shop | Inter-Action | Multimedia | Other | Links | Email

DISCLAIMER: SUPERMAN and all related elements are the property of DC Comics. TM & � 2015

Released as free software without warranties under GNU Affero GPL v3.