GeekGround SPOILERS -- Lois Lane


5/17/17 4:04 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 44388

This makes no sense to me....none.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPOILERS next post

5/17/17 4:05 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 44389

 

 

And now, in today’s Superman comic, Lois Lane has lost one of her legs, above the knee, with Superman using his heat vision to cauterise the wound. Although in concurrent issues of Action Comics seemingly set after this, she is walking around without issue.

 

From https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/05/17/dc-really-stand-dismemberment-comics-spoilers/

 

5/18/17 2:39 PM
3/7/05
Posts: 28402
Cyborg leg?
5/18/17 2:57 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 44395
BigWilliam - Cyborg leg?

Dunno.  Don't see any reason for doing this and I strongly suspect DC won't take this seriously.

5/19/17 5:37 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 20027
Honest question, are you reading the current Superman books? Or are you basing your opinion on one page from a website article?

If you're following the current storyline, and know who the villain behind everything is, then this can make perfect sense. Jonathan was a captive watching the whole thing play out on a screen, so the whole scene could have been an illusion created by Manchester Black to turn Jonathan against Superman. Black wants Jon to witness his father fail, and a failure that causes that level of injury to Lois would certainly suit his agenda and push Jon to the edge, perhaps enough to turn on his father

Now, note that I said "can" make sense. We'll see how it plays out in the next few issues. Quite often the writers at DC can fall face first into a barrel of tits and come up sucking their thumbs, so there's still plenty of opportunities for them to do that here
5/19/17 6:47 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 44403
grizz632 - Honest question, are you reading the current Superman books? Or are you basing your opinion on one page from a website article?

If you're following the current storyline, and know who the villain behind everything is, then this can make perfect sense. Jonathan was a captive watching the whole thing play out on a screen, so the whole scene could have been an illusion created by Manchester Black to turn Jonathan against Superman. Black wants Jon to witness his father fail, and a failure that causes that level of injury to Lois would certainly suit his agenda and push Jon to the edge, perhaps enough to turn on his father

Now, note that I said "can" make sense. We'll see how it plays out in the next few issues. Quite often the writers at DC can fall face first into a barrel of tits and come up sucking their thumbs, so there's still plenty of opportunities for them to do that here

When the reader has to go outside the story and think of ways that the story "could" make sense, the writer has failed, imo.  More importantly, the changes to Superman's continuity (and by extension the DCU's) is definately something I don't understand.  Not even a little.

 

5/19/17 7:32 PM
1/1/01
Posts: 20028
I'm not going outside the story, I analyzed possibilities based on the information I was presented throughout the story, not just one page of one issue, and came up with a likely direction. A story, by the way, that's only just over halfway done. I'm not going to complain about it not making sense because it's not necessarily meant to yet. If, at the end of the storyline it doesn't work, then I'll bitch about it, but I'm going to give them a chance to tell their story first.

If I'm coming off as a dick, I apologise as that's not my intent. It's just that, with all the stick DC and Rebirth get around here, I'm ?just genuinely curious about how much of the Rebirth stuff people have actually read vs forming their opinions based on articles like this.
5/22/17 10:11 AM
1/1/01
Posts: 44405
grizz632 - I'm not going outside the story, I analyzed possibilities based on the information I was presented throughout the story, not just one page of one issue, and came up with a likely direction. A story, by the way, that's only just over halfway done. I'm not going to complain about it not making sense because it's not necessarily meant to yet. If, at the end of the storyline it doesn't work, then I'll bitch about it, but I'm going to give them a chance to tell their story first.

If I'm coming off as a dick, I apologise as that's not my intent. It's just that, with all the stick DC and Rebirth get around here, I'm ?just genuinely curious about how much of the Rebirth stuff people have actually read vs forming their opinions based on articles like this.

I fundamentally reject that line of thought.  If the objection had been, "well, that panel is out of context because...." then there's an argument that the story isn't done.  Otherwise, my experience has been the plea of "it's not the complete story" is a cop out for piss poor writing.  Would a sane person expect that any objection to Jar Jar Binks is adequately placated by Lucas saying "well, you don't know the full story"?  I don't think so.  For some reason, comic book writers constantly use the "you don't know the full story" excuse.  And for the life of me, I cannot think of a single time a writer in tv, film, or fiction has used the same excuse.

 

My objection to the posted page is several fold:

  • There appears to be a continuity problem if Lois loses her leg in one comic, but is just fine in other comics that take place at the same time
  • Given DC's track record for characters losing limbs, I have no faith whatsoever that this isn't anything but a cheap, sensationalistic shock moment that will not have any lasting effect at all.  FFS, there's entire wiki entries devoted to the dozens of DC characters that have lost limbs
 
I'll happily grant that I have no idea what's going on with Superman - there have been too many retcons in the last few issues for me to understand.  Because I don't understand Superman, I certainly am not going to waste my time reading it.  Wake me up when DC has viable continuity in their Universe..until then, I'll stick with Gotham Academy.
 
All that said, I don't see what any of my objections have to do with not knowing the whole story and to address your comment a few posts back saying it was all an elaborate illusion would definately fit the "cheap, sensationalist stunt" objection.