-
[QUOTE=Ascended;1441272]It's not that the Kents being alive doesnt offer anything from a narrative point of view, its just that them being dead offers more.
It is true that a hero having parents who are alive, and having a good, active relationship with them, is rare. And being an orphan is pretty much standard. But that's largely besides the point and leads to the trap of comparing Superman to everyone else. That should never be a consideration. If you tell good Superman stories, they will by their very nature be unique to him, regardless of how many details are shared with other comic characters.
[B]Additionally, the loss of one's parents is a classic aspect of the Hero's Journey, going as far back as Greek tragedies, if not further. [/B]
And if we'd only see them once every few years, I'd rather just use flashback sequences and actually flesh out Clark's relationship with them. In that way you can avoid the pitfalls that post-Crisis fell into (where they became just one more system of dependence for Clark), while still maintaining and showing a loving, close relationship between child and parents. The fact that it'd be flashbacks doesnt change what you can accomplish and explore.
Yup. Just as Superman is as "strong as the plot requires" his love interest can be a damsel in distress or a hero in her own right. Lois can save the day (and Superman himself) without powers if the story calls for it, just as Diana can be captured and used as bait if the plot calls for it. What they're actually capable of doing is secondary and a non-issue.[/QUOTE]
Clark was kind of strange when it came to the heroes journey set up. His parents never died and thus he never really moved on from the smallville part of his life thus he got branded as a "farmboy at heart" which stunted his growth as a person at the same time he ended up getting married and settling down in Metrolopolis which usually marks a point where the hero has accomplished whatever it is they set out do even though he didn't accomplish anything of significance. Strange in retrospect, there's no real order or structure to it.
[QUOTE=manofsteel1979;1439949]
4)I go back and forth on it...but I think keeping one of the Kents alive may not have been a terrible idea. Yes, I know and respect the original wishes and origins Siegel and Shuster set forth which established the Kents as having died before Clark became Superman, most mainstream media versions have shown that keeping one or both Kents alive can work if not overdone. I don't think anyone wants to see Superman constantly flying back to the farm for homespun wisdom every other issue,but on the other hand the idea that no matter how crazy life is with his duties as Superman/Clark/Kal, he manages to go see his folks every so often just because he's a good son. Yet, I see the value of the "Final Lesson" the Kent's deaths give the young Superman that even he can't always solve or save everything. So, I say compromise, have one of the Kents survive into Clark's present day. However, as it always seems that Jonathan is destined to die in every version, perhaps let's change it up and have Martha pass on, leaving a widowed Jonathan. [B]That's a dynamic never usually shown, and you could increase complications by having Jonathan remarry, and said new step-mom not knowing her big city reporter step son is also Superman.[/B][/QUOTE]
I could maybe see something like this, it at least offers something of a humor angle to his world,
-
[QUOTE=The World;1442431]Clark was kind of strange when it came to the heroes journey set up. His parents never died and thus he never really moved on from the smallville part of his life thus he got branded as a "farmboy at heart" which stunted his growth as a person at the same time he ended up getting married and settling down in Metrolopolis which usually marks a point where the hero has accomplished whatever it is they set out do even though he didn't accomplish anything of significance. Strange in retrospect, there's no real order or structure to it.[/QUOTE]
You're right. The character's nature of being a serialization made for mass consumption has turned him and his myth into the comic book equivalent of a TV show procedural or even sitcom in some cases. It's how comics were always structured. It's the 'rule' of comics. But Superman in particular took this too a whole new level and he made it super suburbia. The only thing missing was him flying out to grab his morning paper, get coffee, kiss Lois and the kids goodbye, then fly off to meet Lex for their mid-morning go around. This line of thinking is where the inherent stagnation of western Superhero comics comes from, and Superman has a damn near perfected formula on it. It's funny because their stagnation is also their immortality as the two are interchangeable.
His ability to instantly commune with his past in the form of a physical parent is like Ray Romano's mom in the show [I]Everybody Loves Ray[/I] showing up to make sure he's eating properly or comically harass his wife. You half expect a laugh track to play when you sit down and picture Superman's life.
I for one find some great merit in a take like this to be honest. I have yet to see a self aware super suburbia take on the Superman character. Most writers allude to it or joke about it, but no one has actually bitten the bullet and done "The Supermans". I think it's an interesting concept that you can take a lot of unexpected twist and turns (with is a nice contrast to it's format). Maybe even a [I]Truman Show[/I] (movie) like quality to it.
But with all of that said I'd vote for the idea cutting his support system and building on the idea that he's a self made man. It's almost the idea of him building a family (as we all have done and will have to do) with all of these experiences he goes through. It's him picking himself off his butt and fighting that creeping loneliness that comes packaged and hidden within the concept of this character. I never thought the way to go about the character was by simply taking it away. Instead I thought it'd be more inserting if he was the guy that fought back. The very human idea of finding a work around and making the best of a situation.
-
[QUOTE=Tayswift;1442247]wonder woman is much more help than lois, because she is superpowered. there is a big advantage on it. I really don't get this line of thought[/QUOTE]
The line of thought is we're not talking about superpowered feats. We're talking about emotional crutches. The Kents, in their senior and more wise POV, offer something to Clark that none of his peers do, be it friends or lovers, humans or metas or aliens. And when they were around in the here and now, that was often overused to the point of making Superman look mentally weak. With them no longer around, its the memory of their wisdom and love that drives Superman, which imo is just as good, and avoids the pitfalls of overdoing it and keeping him from solving problems on his own because they're not physically present for him to turn to. Its more an inner, spiritual thing.
-
I agree that the large supporting cast of characters from Metropolis is something that is definitely missing and should be brought back. I'm glad that its canon that Superman was a member of the Legion of Superheroes in his youth and that he started his superhero career as a youth (even though he wasn't called superboy).
I like that the Kents are dead. Having the Kents around for so long was one of the worst things about the Post Crisis era.
And this may seem like a very trivial matter, but I miss the yellow symbol on the back of the cape. I hope that when Superman gets his cape back and fully repaired the yellow symbol comes back.
-
I am enjoying that there is nothing from pre-flashpoint because it gives the story a clean slate and a chance to write new stories I.e. the Superman Wonder woman romance, Clark leaving the daily planet, introduction of new villains etc.
If they would have been kept in something from the post crisis universe it would just remind people of that era and maybe turn away new customers, also it would have been a nightmare for establishing continuity as blackest night seems to prove or the whole Robin situation.
-
[QUOTE=Tayswift;1442247]wonder woman is much more help than lois, because she is superpowered. there is a big advantage on it. I really don't get this line of thought[/QUOTE]
No, these characters are as useful as the writer writes them as being. Just to use the same sort of logic here; Batman *should* be useless to the Justice League. Most battles are so intense a regular human just would not survive. The energy and radiation, debris, shockwaves, tremors, and more exotic effects that sometimes get thrown around, all at insane speeds, would just shred a normal, unprotected human body. But Batman is written as being in the thick of it nonetheless, and we're told that he manages it just because he's "The Goddamn Batman". In regards to Lois and Diana, we've seen stories where Lois saves Clark's life. Whatever she requires is written into the plot, and everyone is written into a place where Lois can, believably, save the day. At the same time, Diana can (and has) been the damsel in distress; defeated or outmaneuvered by the villain, through whatever means the plot required, and put in a position where Clark has to save her. What the character is *actually* capable of, from a narrative point of view, is pointless because you can put the story together however you like.
[QUOTE=Sacred Knight;1443122]The line of thought is we're not talking about superpowered feats. We're talking about emotional crutches. The Kents, in their senior and more wise POV, offer something to Clark that none of his peers do, be it friends or lovers, humans or metas or aliens. And when they were around in the here and now, that was often overused to the point of making Superman look mentally weak. With them no longer around, its the memory of their wisdom and love that drives Superman, which imo is just as good, and avoids the pitfalls of overdoing it and keeping him from solving problems on his own because they're not physically present for him to turn to. Its more an inner, spiritual thing.[/QUOTE]
This. The emotional beats of the story will be almost the same whether its Clark talking to his father in the present, or remembering a previous conversation that parallels the current situation. The Kents being dead adds a layer of bittersweet to the moment, which always enriches a story in my opinion, but also highlights how Clark has grown into the man the Kents hoped he'd become, and shows that he learns from his experiences. When the Kents are alive and Clark is going to them for advice, he hasn't become that man because, outside of the rare instance once in a very great while, that man has enough of a grasp on life he doesn't need those answers given to him anymore.
Its this simple. Most of the time, when I have a problem, I dont ask my mother or father for advice. Because Im an adult, I listened to them when I was younger, and I can typically handle my life. It does happen, but it's pretty rare. When Clark goes to his parents all the time, he's not acting like an experienced adult. And the Kents, from a story-telling perspective, are the advice-givers. That's their natural position in the narrative, so writing them outside of it is difficult and just doesnt have the same kind of risk/effort/reward matrix that them being dead offers.
-
[QUOTE=Ascended;1443750]No, these characters are as useful as the writer writes them as being. Just to use the same sort of logic here; Batman *should* be useless to the Justice League. Most battles are so intense a regular human just would not survive. The energy and radiation, debris, shockwaves, tremors, and more exotic effects that sometimes get thrown around, all at insane speeds, would just shred a normal, unprotected human body. But Batman is written as being in the thick of it nonetheless, and we're told that he manages it just because he's "The Goddamn Batman". In regards to Lois and Diana, we've seen stories where Lois saves Clark's life. Whatever she requires is written into the plot, and everyone is written into a place where Lois can, believably, save the day. At the same time, Diana can (and has) been the damsel in distress; defeated or outmaneuvered by the villain, through whatever means the plot required, and put in a position where Clark has to save her. What the character is *actually* capable of, from a narrative point of view, is pointless because you can put the story together however you like.[/quote]
lois can't go into battle and doesn't has power. much less a commoditty than s uperpowered girlfriend that can defend herself against big villains. very hard to lois assist on a fight with zod , on MOS she helped in the plan but not on the fight. so yes, a less safety net than wonder owman.
a writer can do WW as a damsel on distress, but the backlash will pretty big and it doesn't happen often.
so if a writer can write whatever he wants to make, the same thing apply to parents
[quote]This. The emotional beats of the story will be almost the same whether its Clark talking to his father in the present, or remembering a previous conversation that parallels the current situation. The Kents being dead adds a layer of bittersweet to the moment, which always enriches a story in my opinion, but also highlights how Clark has grown into the man the Kents hoped he'd become, and shows that he learns from his experiences. When the Kents are alive and Clark is going to them for advice, he hasn't become that man because, outside of the rare instance once in a very great while, that man has enough of a grasp on life he doesn't need those answers given to him anymore.
Its this simple. Most of the time, when I have a problem, I dont ask my mother or father for advice. Because Im an adult, I listened to them when I was younger, and I can typically handle my life. It does happen, but it's pretty rare. When Clark goes to his parents all the time, he's not acting like an experienced adult. And the Kents, from a story-telling perspective, are the advice-givers. That's their natural position in the narrative, so writing them outside of it is difficult and just doesnt have the same kind of risk/effort/reward matrix that them being dead offers.[/QUOTE]
well I'm adult and I take people advices inclluding mom, i not really ask for advice but people can't shut up anyway.
he can still have parents, and don't ask advice all the time to them, it's up to writer. they won't even live on the same city and clark may not be confortable to talk with them often because of their security and he doesn't want to worry them.
this is all up for the writer, but wihtout doubt wnder woman is much more a safety net than parents
-
[QUOTE=Tayswift;1445290]well I'm adult and I take people advices inclluding mom, i not really ask for advice but people can't shut up anyway.
he can still have parents, and don't ask advice all the time to them, it's up to writer. they won't even live on the same city and clark may not be confortable to talk with them often because of their security and he doesn't want to worry them.
this is all up for the writer, but wihtout doubt wnder woman is much more a safety net than parents[/QUOTE]
It's a catch-22. If you have the Kents around but rarely use them, then for all intents and purposes they could be dead as far as the majority of your stories. If you make regular use of the Kents then you justify their being alive but run the risk of them being seen as too involved in their adult son's life.
Martha outlived Jonathan in the 1950's TV series and the Chris Reeve films but was never seen. Might as well have been dead based on what her survival contributed.
On the other hand, Clark's parents on [I]Lois & Clark[/I] were actually permanent cast members and the only non-Planet staff Clark talked to on a regular basis.
Lois dated. Jimmy dated. Cat [B][I]dated[/I][/B]. Lex had his associates. Clark called Mom and Dad whenever he felt lonely ... unless he was in the mnood to just fly out to Smallville for the face-to-face pep talk.
Lois took crazy risks for her stories. Clark called Mom and Dad to discuss every event in his life.
-
The Kents alive. LnC. Metropolis having their character set including Maggie, Bibbo, Turpin, the lot of them. The Daily Planet scene with Perry, Jimmy, Cat, and the rest. Clark being in his early 30s.... Clark being Clark Kent first and foremost. The LexCorp tower dominating the skyline of Metropolis and Lex being seen as a good man, and great industrialist to most people. Suicide Slums. The Guardian. Iron Munro.
Kal-L not being murdered by Superboy Prime. As an added bonus would be nice if we are talking about things I wish had never happened/changed.
Pretty much everything.
-
The Kents, and I don't care about the whole hero's journey or narrative hubabalu. Batman has his adopted daddy (Alfred might as well be a parent) Spider-Man has Aunt May (mother figure), there's nothing inherently better or worse with them alive or dead depending on the writer, but it's sweeter (life is bittersweet enough, comics could stand with more just sweet) if he's got at least one loving parent still alive.
-
[QUOTE=Slaughter;1437613]Truth would have bigger stakes if the Kents were alive.[/QUOTE]
It sure would!!! As much as I am enjoying the whole Truth arc, it would have been 100x better with the Kents still alive.
-
[QUOTE=Uncanny Mutie;1447341]It sure would!!! As much as I am enjoying the whole Truth arc, it would have been 100x better with the Kents still alive.[/QUOTE]Superman would have to spend his every waking moment preventing someone from skinning them both alive. That said, I'd like them back too. There's a perspective on Superman that just isn't as easy to achieve without at least one of them.
-
Its not like it hasn't been done before. Look for The Death of Clark Kent for somewhat similar ideas with the Kents involved. It wasn't a "the whole world knows" like Truth, rather just one motivated villain and organization, but it tackled similar story beats.
-
[QUOTE=Tayswift;1445290]lois can't go into battle and doesn't has power. much less a commoditty than s uperpowered girlfriend that can defend herself against big villains. very hard to lois assist on a fight with zod , on MOS she helped in the plan but not on the fight. so yes, a less safety net than wonder owman.
a writer can do WW as a damsel on distress, but the backlash will pretty big and it doesn't happen often.
so if a writer can write whatever he wants to make, the same thing apply to parents[/QUOTE]
This isn't Dungeons and Dragons, these characters do not have set-in-stone abilities that define what they're capable of. There's a difference between narrative tool, and a character's fictional skills.
-
[QUOTE=Jon Clark;1446608]
Lois took crazy risks for her stories. Clark called Mom and Dad to discuss every event in his life.[/QUOTE]
This is what really made me sad about that dynamic. The idea of the hero's parents being alive is so rare it's almost a novel concept, and post-Crisis, I think, started out dealing with that fairly well. It was fun to read and offered a peek at a different side of Clark we didnt get to see otherwise (although flashback scenes would have accomplished the same thing) But after just a few years it began to devolve and Clark began turning to them for more and more mundane, pointless things. It took all the agency and authority-making ability out of Clark. It made him less a fully-formed adult, and less of a Superman. That's not to say that Clark should never ask for advice, because that's not what Im saying. But when you need some good old fashioned, farm-raised common sense advice about [I]everything[/I], all the time? That's actually damaging to your main character.
