Then again, they've done everything possible to completely destroy the character's concept. So what the hell, eh?

That's why he said she would consider being raped.

Keith Giffen is always right. (This could be a Delcarative Rabbit thing!)

Please do indulge us.

SPOILERS for Superman Returns!

Okay, so in Superman II, after he loses his powers so he can be with Lois, they have sex. But later in the movie, he is forced to go back to being Superman, and realizes he can't just be with Lois, so he gives her a memory-erasing kiss.

In Superman Returns, we learn the result of that night of sex - Lois became pregnant.

The thing is, since Superman erased her memory, when she realizes that her child is most likely Superman's kid, this, according to Smith, should likely dramatically freak her out. "Did I have sex with Superman? When did I have sex with Superman? Wouldn't I remember having sex with Superman?"

It's fairly creepy when you think about it (Smith goes even further and says that Lois should rightfully consider whether she'd been raped).

Please do indulge us.

I think the only major reboot idea left is the notion that Clark Kent isn't a loser, which is harder to undo because the guy's married to Lois now. None of the post-Crisis ideas seem any worse to me than the pre-Crisis and Silver Age ideas that keep coming back from the dead to replace them, and a few of them definitely struck me as improvements. All of this seems more a function of nostalgia than a function of good storytelling per se. I suppose I don't mind losing the Byrne stuff so much, since they got a few good years out of that setup, but I am pretty irritated at the thought of constantly recycling the past just to make aging fanboys feel nostalgic. For god's sake, I'd like to see someone try something NEW here.

I think she's a great character.

Then again, so was Sue Dibny.