Baby Yoda’s Mom

Superman’s best trait is that he loves his wife.

Sorry, I realized that I phrased it wrong: Lois Lane’s husband’s best trait is that he loves his wife.

Honestly sick of people acting like romance is somehow separate from a story and an inherently unnecessary, tacked-on element even when it’s clearly central to the plot of a story which would fall apart without it. Also sick of people acting like shipping is inherently superficial and uninteresting when it’s literally just a mode of engagement with a story and often a lens through which people examine themselves, their ideas about relationships of all kinds, and their identities. I guess it’s hard to explain to people who think that romance itself has no narrative or symbolic value that a large component of shipping for me is that I feel it makes a story more interesting to read it through that shipping lens. To be honest I think people’s issue with romance in and of itself is that it is more challenging than a lot of storytelling elements because it prompts this type of self-reflection on what you like and why, who you are, what you feel is romantic. It’s obviously easier to vibe with a “wholesome sibling relationship” or “just guys being bros” than to root around in your own soul trying to figure out why you like this romance and not that one, in what way you like a particular romance, why you read xyz as poignant or romantic. That’s why deliberate romance is almost entire absent from Marvel movies, which are by and large some of the most superficial dross the human race has ever produced.

I reblogged this already but I’m gonna pile on.

Shipping isn’t just a lens for introspection. It is a lens through which people see the actual story, which I think is where the depth AND the backlash both come from. Some people wind up with incredible tunnel vision, some people wind up writing stucky fics so heartfelt that their lines proliferate across the internet while everyone sours on the source material.

Anyway. Because shipping is a lens for engagement, people talk about it a lot. And then they argue with each other because their lenses for engagement don’t match and they may not really be able or willing to shift their perspectives because they’re really emotionally invested. And then that drowns out all other discussion unless you want to start tiptoeing into the parts of the internet that like to fight over wiki wording. And so people don’t always get practice engaging with other kinds of lenses. And so people who want to talk about literally anything else get irritated.

There’s a bunch of other stuff mixed up in it too about how romance is a more feminine and therefore less intellectual and serious and engaging concern and about how a lot of romance and a lot of shipping is in fact shallow and stupid but. A lot of things are shallow and stupid. Better to complain about the shallowness and stupidity itself than trying to suppress this whole component of storytelling.

Yes, exactly this. No lens for examining a story is inherently shallow or uninteresting nor is it inherently intellectually superior. But the way people act like romance is just this completely separate, bolted-on and clearly inferior aspect or lens gets my hackles up.

So, I was initially on board with this - I agree that romance can often be thematically or structurally significant, and that shipping isn’t necessarily separable from other forms of critical engagement - but there are some troubling assumptions going on in this post. Namely, the idea that romance is somehow deeper or thematically relevant than other fictional relationships or prompts more rigorous introspection. OP, you claim that “no lens… is inherently intellectually superior” in your addition, but that is belied by your earlier claim that romance is “more challenging” or more personally felt. 

This idea here that non-romantic relationships in media or fandom are always superficial or cannot prompt similar introspection is just untrue. The fact that romance is more often “read into” media in a way that other forms of relating aren’t (because they’re often already present) doesn’t mean that the personal engagement or self-reflection prompted by those alternates forms can’t be just as rigorous or challenging. And frankly, trying to pathologize an opposing point of view that is really just about a difference in preferences is pretty insulting, and not likely to either change the minds people who dislike romantic shipping, or get to to the heart of why that preference actually exists. 

Also, this line:

The idea that a lack of romance is the reason for superficiality of media is just a completely wrongheaded conclusion. Especially since many fan complaints about the directionality of the MCU have been about its lack of development of or attentiveness to its friendships. The implication here that romance alone generates, or at least is a marker of, depth or emotional resonance ignores the other circumstances of story craft, and the importance of other forms of relationships. A well-crafted romance in an ensemble cast is not going to do the work of holding up an entire story if the entire network of relationships is weakly developed. And there are many stories that do have emotional resonance and depth that do not feature romance, or do not prominently feature it. I honestly think the assumptions here undermine the overall point of the post - if romance is yet another lens for examining media, and is not always separable from story structure or thematics, then it shouldn’t be treated as an inherently separate element that can make or break a story on its own, or that is unique in prompting personal engagement or introspection. (Nor are personal engagement or introspection necessary elements in approaching a story to begin with). 

Also, while romance isn’t inherently shallow or tacked on, the reason why many people get frustrated with its prevalence is because in practice, in many cases, it is. I think this conversation is a bit muddled because comparing media in which romance is the primary purpose of the story, and in which romance is secondary to the main plot or premise, is going to lead to different conclusions about its role or its effect on audience engagement. However, there are many forms of media - many blockbuster films, many Young Adult novels, etc. - in which romances are literally tacked on because they’re seen as a prerequisite, regardless of how relevant to the story they are or how invested the creators actually are in them. (I’ve read that many Young Adult publishers aren’t willing to publish novels without romances in them, so it’s reasonable to assume that many people are writing them because of outside forces deeming them necessary, rather than because they’re indispensable to the story.) You brought up Marvel as not having “deliberate romance”, but their films do in fact have plenty of romantic subplots - and you will find many people who will agree that the Bruce/Natasha relationship added pretty much nothing to Avengers: Age of Ultron. 

I think perhaps the idea here is that a lack of well-developed romance will prompt fans to read that kind of romance into the text in the form of shipping, and that this is a valid exercise. Which is certainly true! But fans are doing that because they simply enjoy those kinds of relationships - it doesn’t follow that adding in that kind of detailed romance necessarily improves upon the story, or that shipping is only defendable because it performs some kind of necessary supplementation. There’s lots of well-written and emotionally deep media that doesn’t prominently feature romance that still has fandoms that do shipping, because they prefer that kind of engagement. And there are many ways poorly conceived stories could be improved on that doesn’t involve adding or fleshing out romantic plots. 

Like, this isn’t just about the fact that media is sometimes poorly conceived or constructed, and that intention is not always sacrosanct in evaluating whether something is executed well (although I think fandom at the moment is not very good at acknowledging that). It’s about that fact that romance is one particular story element that is very frequently done badly, because it’s seen as a default element that stories need to have, even in cases in which it’s not necessary. And the reason for that is the general societal pedestalization of romance, something this post very much plays into. I think acknowledging that that elevation of romance exists can very much go side-by-side with acknowledging the concurrent idea that romance is unnecessary, shallow, or frivolous. 

I did not say that platonic relationships can never be deep or prompt introspection and I’m kind of insulted you projected that onto my post. I get that my “just guys being bros” phrasing was flippant but it feels fairly clear from the post as a whole that I’m specifically talking about the phenomenon of people looking at romance that is relevant to a plot or at people choosing to interpret an intimate relationship as romantic and, because they find it challenging, saying it should be stripped of that dimension. A “just guys being bros” relationship isn’t a deep or complex platonic relationship, it’s a spectre fandom conjures of something it would be more comfortable with than any kind of deep, intimate relationship usually because it’s not actually interested in the relationship in question at all. People say it about ships they don’t like but usually they’re not actually producing or interested in fan works that explore the depth of a potential platonic bond between those relationships — they just want to neutralise the relationship altogether so they reach for the “should have been platonic” framing (which is what actually positions platonic love as inferior or less complex than romantic love). That’s what I was talking about so there’s a reason I didn’t say, e.g., “obviously it’s easier to vibe with a fraught but ultimately deep sibling bond”.

I’m going to give an example.

Lois Lane debuted in 1938 with Superman and was specifically designed by Siegel and Shuster as a fundamental and core part of the narrative. In fact, she is the ONLY other person who has existed as long as Clark Kent himself. Clark Kent was romantically interested in Lois Lane (and ONLY Lois Lane) before the Kents had names, before Lex Luthor, before Krypton was specifically named, before The Daily Planet —before the literal power of FLIGHT. That’s how fundamental, formative and important the relationship specifically between Lois Lane and Superman is to the entire Superman mythos. It is the beating heart. It’s part of the WHY. Siegel and Shuster were literal kids trying to impress a girl they liked and the woman they did it through was Lois Lane.

But isn’t Superman about truth and justice and fighting oppression and saving the world and immigration/assimilation? Of course it is! But it is also, fundamentally, at its core from the very start, a LOVE story. It’s a romance. Clark Kent was literally named after Clark Gable —he was designed as a romantic lead.

But, to this day, in 2021, it is still common to see men in particular (but frankly plenty of women too) insist with their entire chests that “Romance” is just a superficial side plot in the Superman story. That it should always take a back seat. That they should “just be co workers and not lovers.” That it’s “less important” than whatever villain Superman fights that week. It is COMMON for media properties that emphasize the romance like “Lois and Clark” and Smallville to be talked down to or spoken of as if they aren’t “real” Superman. It’s common for people to imply that the love story that uphold Superman: The Movie in 1978 was “frivolous.” It’s common for a show literally called “Superman and Lois” (like that’s the literal damn title) to underplay the romance between the two MARRIED leads at certain times especially in promotion of the show for fear of it coming off like a show for girls. Just as it’s common for people within the fandom to assert that a show literally called SUPERMAN and LOIS shouldn’t be about their marriage because that’s not as important as “other stuff.”

It is MISOGYNIST. Period. It is misogynist to believe that romance is somehow less important a story up tell but, also, that romance can’t be wrapped up in and promote the themes of the narrative clearly. The Superman/Lois romance ::enhances:: the themes of truth, justice, fighting for what’s right and immigration/assimilation. It isn’t some separate topic off to the sidelines . And this is what the OP is talking about. She is clearly not defending or advocating for random forced romances that have no real meaning to be shoved into random movies or superhero shows. She’s pointing out, correctly, that even franchises were there is a romance literally built into the core of the story are constantly told that the love story specifically is “not as important” as whatever person is being punched that week. She is specifically calling out the misogyny present when we act like romantic relationships make a franchise “girly” and she’s specifically calling out how rare it is for these kinds of franchises to even be willing to engage on this kind of level with a real romantic connection. The fact that the Superman franchise has done it consistently for 83 years is NOT common and is an absolute revelation because it’s that uncommon. And even THERE, literally every day, there is some asshole trying to “explain” why “actually Lois is just a side character and that’s it” or, worse yet, advocating for her death. Which is obviously misogynist horseshit. But that’s the bias we are dealing with here.

That’s the point I think the OP is making about romance. And I don’t want to jump all over her post but I think she’s completely correct. My example is specific but the concept is general. The audience is primed to be misogynist about it and, often, the narrative enforces that misogyny by just not engaging at all in any real way.

one of us! one of us! one of us!

SUPERMAN (1978) dir. Richard Donner

I’d love more flashbacks of Clark’s parents, his childhood and the ideals they taught him that made him who he is today.

There was one episode that did that with Martha, but otherwise Clark’s past is often just told (when he’s speaking to his kids about his childhood), rather than shown.

The only thing that makes me feel like we have some Clark centric things happening, apart from his family, is The Stranger (who is still linked to Lois in the long run).

I don’t feel like Lois is short of screentime or a story arc. Often she’s the handy parent that even gives Clark tips on how to parent! She also has her career booming and a work partner for the town paper. Then we have The Stranger who is romantically linked to her in a another world, her childhood problems and beef with her army dad, as well as her taking on Morgan Edge.

If you look keenly, Lois is carrying the show. I’m not against that.

The problem is that the show feels not as focused on Clark as an individual. Sometimes the family thing really swallows up his individual shine.

I’ve basically stopped posting on tumblr completely so I’m breaking my no post rule here by responding to this but that’s how much I disagree with this read on what is happening on this show. I do not think this is correct at all.

First off, let me say that I signed up for a show about Clark and Lois first and foremost so it’s been an adjustment for me to accept that the focus of the show is given in so many instances to the kids. I like Jonathan and Jordan way more than I thought I would so, most of the time, I’ve accepted that now and I understand that my personal preferences don’t mean the focus on the family unit or kids is wrong. But, generally speaking, I would prefer less emphasis on the kids on more on Clark and Lois as a couple. But let’s put that aside for a second bc I want to address the show as it is and not what I wish it was.

Clark Kent and, by proxy, Tyler Hoechlin is NOT the undeserved party on this show. He’s not. He emotionally drives every single big moment. He makes every grand speech. He is the parent who’s feelings and POV are given the most weight. His relationships with both of the boys are given the most attention. His insecurities as a father are prevalent and often drive the emotional conflict of the episodes. He even drives the conflict with Lois’s own father! The cringey focus on Lana as his “first love”—-on a show where he’s 40 years old and has been MARRIED to Lois for 15 years by this point —-is extremely Clark focused in a way that’s not at all balanced. And, as Superman, he has received at least one huge save an episode (the nuclear facility ,busting through the wall to save Lois, fighting Derek, saving the train etc) where we see him scene steal in his capacity as Superman.

We know ::personal:: details about Clark Kent. We know the kind of music he used to like, we know he wanted to play baseball, we know about his high school relationships, we know who he dated as a teen, we know he loved growing up in the town, we know the kind of food he likes, we know a LOT about him as a PERSON. We’ve also SEEN flashbacks of his relationship with his mother. You say a lot of this stuff is TOLD to the audience and it’s true but that’s not a bad thing as it’s still painting a picture of who Clark was and who he is outside of his family. Those little details thrown in are character. There is a reason Tyler Hoechlin wound up on EW’s “performances worthy of an Emmy award” list yesterday and it’s not because he’s inherently more talented than Elizabeth Tulloch—it’s because he’s constantly been given the big emotional blows on the show. He’s the one who gets to have those emotional beats with the boys that gut you in your soul. His performance is reflecting the material he’s been given and the material has weight. I love him and I love knowing these things about him but I do wish Lois was sharing in this and she’s not right now.

The show has been SNEAKY with their misogyny towards the way Lois is marginalized as the co-lead of the show. It’s sneaky because, on paper, I can see why you might look at this show and not see any problem with how Lois is being used. The problem is though Lois has been given virtually zero development outside of her job as a journalist. We know she’s a badass and we know she’s going after Morgan Edge. We know she’s the best of the best and we know, from that ::one:: episode that seemed to give a shit about her POV (Haywire) that her relationship with Sam was filled with neglect but she doesn’t interact with her own father nearly as much as Clark does which is an extremely big letdown for me as a long time fan of Lois Lane and as someone who is interested in her backstory and history. Did she always want to be a reporter? What happened to her mother? Does she have a sister? How does she really feel about moving to this small town? Does she feel helpless as the mother to two boys who have this experience with their father that she can’t relate to? Does she feel scared? Is she actually comfortable with living in Smallville? What kind of food does she like? Was she a rebellious teen? What was it like being what was basically a single parent all those years? We don’t know because the show doesn’t care to flesh her out. Even the scenes with Marcus aren’t about HER—they are about him and casting her as the love interest for captain Luthor in the AU doesn’t give her any real development per se. It makes her an object for two men to war over.

Lois drives plot but we don’t ever know how she FEELS. Even in the big scenes with the boys she’s a cheerleader for Clark off to the side while he takes the heavy lifting as a parent. She doesn’t get the same POV or depth even with her own children. She is underwritten on the show. And, keep in mind....This isn’t an opinion. Nadria Tucker openly disclosed that arguments over the perceived misogyny from the showrunner were a problem in this writers room. Nadria openly shared that Todd had to be reminded all the time that a woman’s name was in the title of the show. And it does worry me that more of the fandom doesn’t seem to realize what’s happening here because back in the Smallville days.....the female fans would have been all over this BS.

Look, maybe all my complaints will be addressed in the coming episodes. I sure as hell hope they are. I like the show in many respects—I want it to succeed. I think the cast is killing it and, as I said, I love the kids more than I thought I would. I accept that my ideal for the show is not what it is and I want to judge it fairly from that POV. But I just can’t get on board with the idea that Clark is the underserved person on this show. Not when his POV and feelings and emotions and struggle dominate literally every interaction with the kids and when Lois’s FEELINGS are so rarely given the same POV. The Morgan Edge plot is just that -plot —it’s not CHARACTER and it’s fooling people Into thinking Lois is being treated much better than she actually is but it’s not fooling me. I have been around the block more than once with this stuff. They are very focused on making Lois “strong” and badass but they aren’t as interested in her interior life. Except interior life is what makes someone a ::character:: in full. Until Lois gets the same ::personal:: detail and POV that Clark has, she won’t be a true equal as a co-lead. It’s not about screen-time it’s about HOW that screentime is used.

Just my opinion. And I came out of tumblr retirement to make it. LOL (I’m glad to find someone else enjoying the show overall even we don’t see eye to eye!)

Don't piss off Batman 🤣

ZACK SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE

Why is this the best scene in the history of cinema?

Superman & Superboy by Inhyuk Lee.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

happy new year!

For reasons that don’t need exploring at this juncture, I’ve actually tapped out of the Arrowverse’s take on Crisis on Infinite Earths (and probably won’t tap back in until it’s completed and maybe not even then) BUT thanks to fannish osmosis I know everything that happened in The Flash’s episode of the annual crossover event. So when this .gif set and others like it came across my dash, it - specifically, Superman’s nod to Iris - stopped me in my tracks and kind of knocked the wind out of me a little bit.  It’s a small moment, but it’s incredibly affecting and a conversation with a friend helped me figure out why I had such a potent reaction to it.

Spoilers after the “read more” cut.

Keep reading

This makes me cry. 😥😭

                 Earth-38 Lois Lane seeing Clark Kent from Earth-96 & Earth-167 for the first time.

LOIS HAS A TYPE

Dumb Kansas Spaceman

The only acceptable ending now is a threesome with the Routh Superman.

My aesthetic is Clark Kent teaching his son at a young age to love and respect women, and to value their needs just as much as your own

Reblogged again for tagging. This is important.

Reblogging this again for reasons.

I’m HOLLERING, CLARK!

“If you would be so kind as to h*cking Perish”

That’s the face of a man that could turn his opponents hand into strawberry jam, but he’s not listening to that part even though it’s really convincing

That face says “Is that all you have, my good bitch?”

The face that says “mess with my woman & I’ll fuck you up bitch!”

They are intimate. They are honest. They annoy each other. They tick each other off. They make up. They make it work. — GREG RUCKA on Lois and Clark