Will Lois Lane Be An Unwed Mother In New Superman Film?
Tue, 08/30/2005 - 2:24pm
In DVD's I have of the classic Max Fleischer Superman cartoon's, Lois Lane is depicted as the embodiment of American femininity as she carries herself simultaneously with spunk and lady-like decorum.
As the foremost expression of American popular culture, the changes in Superman over the years can be used to map the extent of the nation's moral decline.
For example, in the current Smallville series, the females of this subset of the DC comics universe no longer adorn themselves like the classy dames of the 1940's or even with the elegant look of Margot Kidder or Annette O'Toole in the movies of the 1980's but rather drink and whore around with the best of them all the while leaving little to the imagination as to the appearance of their bellies and lower backs.
Now it seems the saga of this hero flying high for truth, justice, and the American way might be crash landing into perdition as a Scifi.com scifiwire story seems to indicate that Lois Lane might have an out of wedlock child in the upcoming film.
If this is what now passes as upright American womanhood nowadays, we might be so bad off that even Superman is unable to save us. Frankly, not even Superman should be expected to take responsibility for another man's indiscretions. Having been unable to exercise restraint in these matters, the best Ms. Lane should be able to hope for is a second-tier costumed adventurer such as Reed Richards, whose already had a child himself, or his brother-in-law the Human Torch, whose already been divorced.
Superman is superman, after all. He can have any woman he wants. Why should he settle for one that's already been marked as someone else's property and on top of that one that treats him like bilge when he's disguised as Clark Kent?
If it was the other way around and someone ignored Wonder Woman when she had a little librarian outfit on but threw themselves at her drooling all over her when she stripped down to that bosomy patriotic number she pours herself into, fans would insist she move on to someone that cared more for her as person with mind and feelings and all that other sensitivity blather. Why doesn't Superman deserve the same? Don't tell me broads aren't into looks as much a dudes.
If filmmakers are going to keep insisting that Superman must continue to change in order to reflect the times in which we live, one wonders how many more decades will pass until a version is released where Luthor is the hero and Superman the villain if the Man of Tomorrow continues to insist upon imposing his standards upon common criminals and would be galactic conquerors.
As in regards to my columns daring to question Harry Potter and certain ethical undertones of the Star Wars universe, some (even many so-called "Conservatives") will dismiss me as a lunatic and a greater danger to the world than the most wicked of supervillians. Those that do should not go crying when their children come home practicing witchcraft or as teenage parents if we are to now smile upon these practices as wholesome in what should be the innocent realms of the imagination.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
As the foremost expression of American popular culture, the changes in Superman over the years can be used to map the extent of the nation's moral decline.
For example, in the current Smallville series, the females of this subset of the DC comics universe no longer adorn themselves like the classy dames of the 1940's or even with the elegant look of Margot Kidder or Annette O'Toole in the movies of the 1980's but rather drink and whore around with the best of them all the while leaving little to the imagination as to the appearance of their bellies and lower backs.
Now it seems the saga of this hero flying high for truth, justice, and the American way might be crash landing into perdition as a Scifi.com scifiwire story seems to indicate that Lois Lane might have an out of wedlock child in the upcoming film.
If this is what now passes as upright American womanhood nowadays, we might be so bad off that even Superman is unable to save us. Frankly, not even Superman should be expected to take responsibility for another man's indiscretions. Having been unable to exercise restraint in these matters, the best Ms. Lane should be able to hope for is a second-tier costumed adventurer such as Reed Richards, whose already had a child himself, or his brother-in-law the Human Torch, whose already been divorced.
Superman is superman, after all. He can have any woman he wants. Why should he settle for one that's already been marked as someone else's property and on top of that one that treats him like bilge when he's disguised as Clark Kent?
If it was the other way around and someone ignored Wonder Woman when she had a little librarian outfit on but threw themselves at her drooling all over her when she stripped down to that bosomy patriotic number she pours herself into, fans would insist she move on to someone that cared more for her as person with mind and feelings and all that other sensitivity blather. Why doesn't Superman deserve the same? Don't tell me broads aren't into looks as much a dudes.
If filmmakers are going to keep insisting that Superman must continue to change in order to reflect the times in which we live, one wonders how many more decades will pass until a version is released where Luthor is the hero and Superman the villain if the Man of Tomorrow continues to insist upon imposing his standards upon common criminals and would be galactic conquerors.
As in regards to my columns daring to question Harry Potter and certain ethical undertones of the Star Wars universe, some (even many so-called "Conservatives") will dismiss me as a lunatic and a greater danger to the world than the most wicked of supervillians. Those that do should not go crying when their children come home practicing witchcraft or as teenage parents if we are to now smile upon these practices as wholesome in what should be the innocent realms of the imagination.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
