How come most relationships in Marvel and DC don't last long?

How come whenever we see a good relationship developing between two characters whether it's Spider-Man and Mary Jane or Superman and Lois Lane, they are always split up whether due to big events or a writer just wanting to split up the couple for no good reason?

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

Couple of reasons. Relationship drama is easy drama. But also, because creative teams move in and out of a series and each one wants the comic to be "as it should be"it means a lot of flip-flopping in relationships.

Yeah, and they kind of make things even more confusing for the fans since if you've read one comic that had one couple together and then you had another comic that put that person with another character, then fans are going to be wondering about whether or not the relationship is even worth rooting for.

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

True Love Is Boring, so Superheroes Stay Single.

No. In Supes' case, it's "Well, he's a superhero, so why would he date Muggles?" Which completely misses the point of Superman being Clark Kent.

There was a film director, I forget who, who said once that characters in love are boring. Characters falling in love, or falling out out of love, are interesting, but characters in love are boring. Personally, I can see his point, but I don't entirely agree. I think it Depends On The Writer, but also it depends on the CHARACTER. For instance, I think one of the orerarching themes of Batman is the surrogate/constructed family as opposed to the biological/traditional one, so I think it would be a mistake to have Batman get married. I think it was a mistake to have Peter Parker in a long-term stable relationship because having that level of support is, I think, not right for the character. Reed and Sue Richards, on the other hand, work great together, as do couples with a Nick and Nora Charles vibe, like Hawkman/Hawkwoman and Elongated Man/ Sue Dibney. Again, though, it's all in how you play it. During Superman's marriage, it was frequently pointed out that Lois was frequently treated as an afterthought, and just as often alternately pointed out that writers made it look like Superman couldn't function without her (when, of course, he had for years). It's all in how you play it.

Afterthought? I seem to recall when Clark had no powers, Lois had to come to his rescue.

And again, there's no Clark anymore. Clark Kent is the afterthought now.

Why not have Superman make a deal with Mephisto, and declare that he had Lois never had a relationship for 80 years. It's more honest.

I dunno. New52 Superman has more in common with the Plutonian than actual Superman.

On that note, does Lana Lang exist anymore?

" I think it was a mistake to have Peter Parker in a long-term stable relationship because having that level of support is, I think, not right for the character. "

I suggest you watch Episode 200 of Atop The Fourth Wall.

edited 5th Jan '15 11:19:58 AM by AnotherGuy

I think I found a reason with only 3 words. One More Day

edited 5th Jan '15 11:22:38 AM by Beaver

Is this a Jo Jo reference?

This guy says it all: New 52 is Image Comics circa the 90's.

On a side note, Lee claims Clark and Lois will never ever hook up again.

edited 5th Jan '15 11:24:32 AM by AnotherGuy

For most of the 80 years of Lois and Clark's relationship, the relationship could hardly, if taken exactly as presented, be called healthy.Lois was originally designed to be the archetypical person who can't see past the tip of her nose, in pretty much every sense. Interestingly, though, Jerry Seigel, in his original attempt to being Kryptonite (then called "element K") into the comics, wrote a story in which Clark revealed to Lois that he was Superman and she became his confidant and helpmate thereafter (this was nixed by his editors, and Kryptonite wouldn't show up 'til it was used on the radio show to give Superman's voice actor a vacation). So it seems even in the early 40's no less than Superman's creator got tired of the traditional Clark/Lois relationship...

Pardon me if I guffaw at the notion of anyone in comics saying anything that definitive.

edited 5th Jan '15 12:03:27 PM by Robbery

All I know is that DC can say whatever it likes. There's a reason I don't read comics anymore, instead going to fare like The Order Of The Stick, and it has nothing to do with Stick being free (because I buy the compilations). It has to do with the fact it's a writer's vision, and I like Rich Burlew's vision. Burlew is Burlew's editor.

Knowing what I know about Maggin, Waid, Morrison, etc, I have to think they despise New 52 and especially its take on Supes and WW. I'd never ask them directly (I have a direct line to some of them) because they won't answer, and it would make ME look bad.

My one advice to DC: Keep your Fan Fic to Elseworlds.

PS. Remember when Zeus tried to sleep with Wonder Woman, and now he's her dad. Ewwwwwwwww....

edited 5th Jan '15 12:21:54 PM by AnotherGuy

Honestly, I don't think your perception of Superman fits the majority of the character's publication. The entire point to Lois Lane, as admitted by Jerry Siegel, was that Superman was supposed to be put in the Friend Zone with her. Their relationship was a metaphor for the humble, unassuming guy who's actually totally fucking amazing in secret. So basically, it revolved around a sexist concept that was doomed to fail.

The whole "Lois Lane is his anchor to reality" thing came later. And that, in my opinion, was just as sexist and doomed to fail, because it was basically the Wet Blanket Wife trope. Originally, Lois Lane had nothing to do with "grounding" Superman. He was supposed to be as awesome as possible. The "grounding" was later done by lazy writers trying to figure out why a Physical God would "need" a normal woman.

---

Also, tropes about marriage in this day and age seem to essentially be a Feedback Loop where one thing creates and enforces the other. Society treats marriage as something boring, grounding, castrating, and secondary to your "real" life (work, heroism, power, etc.) so we get tropes like True Love Is Boring, Awful Wedded Life, and Wet Blanket Wife which pretty much affirm that view and fuel it.

edited 5th Jan '15 1:25:05 PM by KingZeal

She's not an anchor, but let me know why Superman dating Wonder Woman is more interesting than Clark dating Lois.

Battle Couple for one. God Couple for two.

"Interesting" is subjective. Honestly, I've read more interesting stories surrounding Supes/Wondy than Supes/Lois. In fact, I personally can only think of a single story where I felt that Lois added anything that another random love interest could not. All-Star Superman.

To be clear, though, I don't care either way.

That doesn't make them interesting. Just the opposite. That's hella boring.

And I can point out dozens of instances with Lois being more interesting. Start with workplace rivalry and move on from there.

edited 5th Jan '15 2:15:29 PM by AnotherGuy

I'm with King Zeal on this.

It's been difficult for modern writers, I think, to find a role for Lois given that the roles for which she was conceived are pretty much sexist and outdated. My favorite Superman stories (outside of All Star Superman) haven't really involved her much at all.

Yeah, see, that's what I mean by subjective. I've never cared about the workplace rivalry thing. I don't care who gets the scoop, and it's not really a big deal in the long term. Clark is never shown up enough times to look incompetent or succeeds enough to shine, and whether Lois succeeds or fails is never relevant.

The workplace rivalry thing just ends up making Clark look like a jerk.

Why is everything about Clark scooping Lois?

And you know why those writers couldn't?

They suck.

Funny how Elliot S. Maggin, Grant Morrison, etc have no problems writing the two of them.

most things don't last as far as marvel and dc are concerned.

Agree, especially whenever an event happens and the changes that happen in the stories don't really last that long.

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

A problem with a lot of superhero/muggle relationships is that it's difficult to find things for the muggle love interest to do. If they don't have superpowers or a secret identity, then constantly getting involved in their paramour's superheroic exploits is dangerous, both to themselves and to their loved one's secret identity. However, the main reason people buy superhero comics is to read about the superheroic exploits; if the love interest isn't involved in that part of the hero's life, they start to seem superfluous.

edited 6th Jan '15 11:16:14 AM by RavenWilder

I can't remember who that was, either. However, I'd counter that characters in love are actually more interesting—FAR more interesting. On the other hand, they're also rather more adult and complicated, and they're far more difficult for hacks and for the emotionally stunted to get their heads around. It takes something to portray a stable relationship or marriage dramatically and truthfully—something that today's comics publishers either lack themselves ('sup, Joe Q.!), or have decided they can't count on getting from the average jobbing writer.

Or make Lois Lane a combo of Nancy Drew and Batgirl! Why not? Does she ever get to help save the world with the other characters with no superpowers?

That's actually one of my peeves about superhero stories. The basic premise of a superhero is "an exceptional person who is the only means of solving a dilemma". The primary draw of the superhero (that they are either The Only One or one of The Chosen Many) is also its main disconnect from the real world. The universe it inhabits must bend over backwards to explain why this exceptional person must remain "exceptional" and why the Muggles must remain Muggles. That status quo must be preserved, logic be damned.

Superhero stories can never make up their mind if powers can just be given to people without incident, if only CERTAIN people can have certain powers, or if it's a mix between the two. There's a billion stories where Lois Lane gets superpowers and either loses them or gives them up or where someone invents Cape Buster gear capable of fighting on par with superheroes. But, anyone whom editorial has decided "should absolutely not" get powers will stay a Muggle, regardless the danger to the person or the fact that powers would make them much better at their profession (or even create more interesting ones).

edited 6th Jan '15 8:27:41 AM by KingZeal