Would clark walking away from lois have been better than action comics #1004?

[QUOTE=Yoda;4922348]He didn’t do anything to harm Jon. It’s obviously not the same set up at Mr. Oz left. We know that, it’s implied. So how did he betray their trust? How did his being Mr. Oz factor into it at all.[/QUOTE]

God I’m concerned if you have kids, you’d trust anyone with them. Hopefully you have different standards in real life. So I’m going to guess this is like a “Robin” thing where we have looser standards for the dc universe. But even then, I still think what Lois and Clark did was stretching it much too far. And framing him eventually breaking out after years of captivity as validating “he can take care of himself” that’s messed up man.

This is one advantage that Manga/Anime´s have is that the og writer is the only writer from the start to the end.From Clark and Lois not caring without any reason or that age thing and at last jon leaving his parents was abysmal writing from Bendis so people should be not suprised when comics have these kinds of facepalm moments because different writers will always have different views how the characters or the story should progress!!

[QUOTE=Yoda;4922651]Completely different issues. My issues with Miller was that YO was sexist and the women in YO weren't characters just props for Clark to use. It's not relevant to this at all. King writes a pretty decent Lois & Clark actually. But my issue with that story is the gratuitous and gross violence shown. I actually have said you can do the same story King did without the shock factor violence and it would actually be pretty good. I've also seen you defend Super Sons and Jon and Damian going off on their own. Should Clark have run off to stop that every single time? Damian's 13. They ended up across the galaxy lost too.

Clark doesn't have blind faith in Lois. He trusts her judgment. Like partners do. I trust my wife's judgment with our kids. I don't run off after them when she lets them play at a friends house I don't know. Because I trust her judgment. Doesn't mean she'd never make a mistake. And if she did let them go with a friend and they got hurt with that friend, I wouldn't leave her.



That didn't happen because of anything Jor El did. It's the equivalent of a car accident. If Clark and Lois were with Jon at that moment, the outcome would have been exactly the same. Nothing Jor El did, other than have Jon on a space ship with him, caused them to go into that wormhole. It was an accident. You can't seem to distinguish between actively harming someone and a random accident. Jor El didn't harm Jon. The wormhole did.

And he got himself free of that. So he kinda can handle himself.



Same as above. Jon didn't run off into a wormhole because he felt unsafe with Jor El. Their ship hit a random rip in space time. It was an accident. If my kid is driving in a car with their grandparent and another driver loses control and hits their car, it's not the grandparents fault. I wouldn't blame them for it. And I wouldn't blame my wife if she let them get in the car.



It wasn't an entire summer, because Jor El tells Jon when he gets him back that Jon had only been gone for three weeks. Jon was exaggerating there. Nothing Jor El did with Jon amounts to abuse.



He's not irrelevant. You're central question is should Clark have left Lois because she left Jon with Jor El. The answer to that is no, because Lois leaving Jon with Jor El isn't something that anyone would react like that too. Should Lois leave Clark because he lets Jon go adventuring with Damian? Or because he brought a 10 year old to see an entire planet commit suicide? Or because they let him play with an inter dimensional portal into the Bizzaro Verse? Or because he allowed Jon to get sucked into a portal to Apocalypse?[/QUOTE]

Well, i can say this is against children and their safety, also supports child abuse just as easily. This doesn't hold back in that regard one bit. I have mate, as long parents have means to keep in touch and only trying get the kid ready for some danger. Furthermore, it was extraordinary situations. If my kid was getting kidnapped on a daily basis or had trouble with any aspect of his physiology. I would put him through the required training.But,under supervision. There is god damn difference. Tomasi almost never broke that. Even with aoss where it was revealed that they had means to get to them. They(superdads and lois) trusted supersons, but only to extend where evidence was in support of their safety and security. Snyder even refuses to write damian. Why? Kids need to be treated properly as characters. He has trouble with writing damian in trouble . I respect snyder for that. And it shows, whenever snyder wrote jon. it was brilliant.

Oh! Please, i trust my partner. As long as i have evidence of our childs safety. I wouldn't let my ten year old kid go off with strangers with no means of knowing they are safe. If my wife did that and fails to provide evidence of our kids safety then, it's over. We will be done. Point blank.

Dude! Haven't you been listening?jor el was cold and had left the kid alone for an entire summer. That's neglect. He was making kid feel unsafe with his nihilistic talks, unintentional or otherwise. Worse, he is unable to placate the child after doing so. There is nothing to suggest that jon was exaggerating considering time is relative and furthermore, jon returned years older. You asked, where is lois wrong regarding jon? That doesn't look like an adult taking care of himself in volcano . That looks like a kid surviving abuse, finally getting the courage to get away after growing up. As a guy who used to get his piss beaten out by his father as a 6 year old, that imagery is plenty evocative . Yeah! He got himself free, after god knows how many time. The only difference between me and jon is that, i got saved. While the kid didn't. He just endured the bullshit for years. Enduring abuse isn't a sign of handling himself or maturity .

No my question is, [B]whether clark leaving lois have been better?because she left the child, without providing any evidence of childs safety, other than testimonial.especially when, he specifically gave the responsibility to her.[/B]what are you on about? You would leave your preteen kid with an unstable old person without supervision? Well, i would say you are irresponsible. In my world that isn't normal. Yeah! Lois should leave clark in regards to damian as well. Provided, if there wasn't a need for jon to train or get competent in that regard, if clark doesn't take precautions and surveillance measures.

As for suicide planet or bizzaroverse or apocalypse , you yourself said accidents happen. I have never blamed jor el for the accident. Have i? Jor el is blamed for neglect, leaving the child alone for extended periods and not being able to placate the child. Unlike jor el, clark didn't make jon feel like he was alone. So, much so even when they get split up jon feels confident enough like in apocalypse. Same with bizarro situation.

See, there is a clark who builds a fort in his building that cannot be broken by even him. so that, his son can even be safe from him if it ever came to that. There is a clark who basically chides damian for supersons of tomorrow and threatens to split them, if damian proves bad for the kid. Then there is this appalling nonsense. You basically, see flaws not the redemption as parents in rebirth era. So, you equate bendis era and rebirth era. Bendis era there is no redemption. They aren't even treated like they did anything wrong to redeem themselves. Too bad many readers disagree.

Anyways, we have danced this dance before. No matter what anyone says these issues are offensively bad for me.so, let's agree to disagree . I also seriously doubt that you would be this defensive if this wasn't clark and lois.This is deeply offensive for me because these two jackassess are left scott free. Goku had to give up his life as redemption.

I'm still over here waiting for some solid evidence of what Jor El could or did provide for Jon and his growth that Clark was unable to provide, himself.

And even if all the Mr. Oz stuff was retconned away (which, again, would cause some issues since he affected more than just Superman) Jor El is still someone that the Kents didn't know and had no reason to trust with their 11 year old child. He created Clark but he is not family. He is not Clark's father. Jonathan Kent is Clark's father. Jor-El is an emotionally unhinged stranger who just happens to share some DNA with Clark and Jon.

As was said a million times, the problem isn't necessarily what Jor El did wrong. The problem is how quick Jon's parents were to take this man at his word that their son would be safe with him in OUTER SPACE and treating the fact that they had no idea where he was like it wasnt a big deal. As much as I LOVE Clois, and even though Clark gets a lot of the blame too, if I was in his shoes it would have either been over between me and Lois or we'd need some serious time apart. Nothing either of them did suggested they were loving parents with their child's best interest at heart. But what she did was downright wicked.

[QUOTE=Blue22;4922781]I'm still over here waiting for some solid evidence of what Jor El could or did provide for Jon and his growth that Clark was unable to provide, himself.[/QUOTE]

The ability to travel the galaxy for an extended period of time without "work" calling them back to Earth, right? Not really something Clark can do without calling in some serious "vacation time" on all of his jobs. The intent was to give Jon perspective beyond just the confines of Earth. And incidentally it's that time out in space that allows Jon to come up with the United Planets and save the galaxy.

In short, no, further breaking up and destroying the family wouldn't make anything better, just make more people unhappy and angry.

I made my displeasure about this situation very clear when this was first happening, and I still will stick by my statements I made then. The only way things can be fix is for somehow Jon to be retroactively rescued at a much earlier point in time or better yet be prevented from going to Earth 3 at all(I stopped following the books right after how we found out about him having those years of his life stolen from him and haven't looked back, but I remember at the the time the timeline was wonky enough it could be done without time travel. I don't know if it still, and frankly I don't care. Jon just needs to be saved from being tortured for seven years in my book). Unlike some people I'm willing to forgive DC for making this mistake with the character if they fix it. I can also forgive Lois and Clark in universe as well. But publication wise it would need to be fixed. No the fact Jon is not showing signs of mental trauma does not make it better or more acceptable. If anything it only makes it insulting. Basically I find him spending the seven years of his life between 10 and 17 being tortured lock up in a volcano unacceptable. I can't really understand why some people are alright with it. Nothing is going to convince me otherwise.

[QUOTE=Superlad93;4922799]The ability to travel the galaxy for an extended period of time without "work" calling them back to Earth, right? Not really something Clark can do without calling in some serious "vacation time" on all of his jobs. The intent was to give Jon perspective beyond just the confines of Earth. And incidentally it's that time out in space that allows Jon to come up with the United Planets and save the galaxy.[/QUOTE]

Perspective that Clark is capable of giving to Jon and was starting to in Tomasi's run when he started taking him on missions in space. It may not have happened as often as he'd want it to and they'd have to work around Clark's schedule but it sure as hell would have beat the alternative of Clark and Lois looking like uncaring parents by letting Jon go out to parts unknown with a madman they barely knew, only for him to come back after years of torture in a volcano. From a reader's perspective, yes. Jon going into space did lead to something good happening, I'll admit that. But in universe, where they wouldn't have known that outcome, it made zero sense and boiled down to Jon being impatient and his parents just deciding to stop giving a ****.

[QUOTE=Blue22;4922823]Perspective that Clark is capable of giving to Jon and was starting to in Tomasi's run when he started taking him on missions in space. It may not have happened as often as he'd want it to and they'd have to work around Clark's schedule but it sure as hell would have beat the alternative of Clark and Lois looking like uncaring parents by letting Jon go out to parts unknown with a madman they barely knew, only for him to come back after years of torture in a volcano. From a reader's perspective, yes. Jon going into space did lead to something good happening, I'll admit that. But in universe, where they wouldn't have known that outcome, it made zero sense and boiled down to Jon being impatient and his parents just deciding to stop giving a ****.[/QUOTE]

I agree that it made them look terrible. I really don't mind them letting him go into to space in general - if it had been with someone they'd known a long time and had a strong reason to trust and had only been planned for a short trip. Not Jor-El. Especially not this Jor-El. But Lois leaving him, and leaving him when she had bad things to say and thought things were getting weird - completely unacceptable. And then Clark just doesn't even care when she comes back without him (and that's even before the part about her not telling him she's back, but obviously not keeping it a secret since the Cat knows). Terrible characterization of both Lois and Clark, but it especially craps on Lois.

[quote=blue22;4922310]clark would be a huge hyprocrite for it since what happened to jon was just as much his fault as it was lois'. But i'd have still had some modicum of respect for him if he had been angry with her. The only (terrible) reason he agreed to let him go in the first place was on the condition that lois went with him. And then suddenly lois is okay with leaving jon with the homocidal maniac and clark was supposed to just be okay with it because jon "doesn't need us"? Yes the **** he does! There is no hidden context or depth or whatever. It is what it is. Jor el was untrustworthy from the start and [b]lois abandoned her child with him[/b]. There's no other way to spin what that was. It was abandonment.[/quote] your right!!!

[QUOTE=Blue22;4922823]It may not have happened as often as he'd want it to and they'd have to work around Clark's schedule.[/QUOTE]

Or it might never have happened given the fact that Jon had to beg to go on the first one? There's no indication that Clark planned on more trips like that. Or Clark may have taken him but avoided the spots that were too dangerous or too real out of his need to shield Jon as a child? And we know that part of what lead Jon to his epiphany was seeing the galaxy unfiltered and as flawed as it can be.

And who can say if Jon would've been able to come at the galaxy's issues with as open and childlike a mind putting everything into perspective had he gotten that experience later and at a slower pace? Something made clear in the text (both Superman and Legion) is that Jon's young age was a factor, and that perspective-- free of the baggage and politics that come with age (that even Clark 1000% has)-- is what lead to the United Planets, and it's why the Legion is made up of young people. If Clark drags his feet and babys and shields Jon when getting this information, then who is to say the greatest moment of the Heroic Age may not have happened, ya know?

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;4922493]
Ok. Then, what would you suggest to make this story and scene bearable atleast?[/QUOTE]

This particular story? Jor-El and Jon in space? I'd give it the time it needed to breathe and establish everyone's motivations better. That's it.

I'm a pre-Crisis guy (even though I started reading in the triangle era). I don't get down with "Super regular dude" and I didn't think Clark would be a good father in the first place. The only thing that doesn't work about Clark and Lois letting Jon go with Jor-El is that the story was too rushed (ironic for Bendis). All the motivations make sense, but everything happens too quickly for the emotional beats, so it comes off weird.

Then Bendis gets rid of Jor-El, yet another bad idea that Johns saddled the franchise with before bailing. I thank Bendis for fixing that, Jor shouldn't have been around in the first place.

Past Jon in space, I don't want or need a typical family dynamic from the Kents. That is not true to who they are, from my perspective. What we have now feels far more right for the Kents. Tomasi was fun for a bit, and I actually liked the farm and wouldn't argue with that returning. But Lois cooking dinner every night and serving the men folk? Hated that.

Aging up Jon seems unnecessary. I probably wouldn't have done that. But then, I think Jon is unproven and unnecessary. He's cute and fun, and I'm quite acclimated to his existence and have become a fan, but he is far and away from being anything close to a central aspect of the mythos. He's just a supporting character. I like Bendis' "Space Prince" vibe; very Silver Age. Not sure we needed the age up for that or his joining the Legion. I wouldn't have left Jon on earth-3 for so long; space was better. But Jon's a minor consideration for me. I'm reading "Superman" not "Superboy."

Bottom line, I think Bendis has a far better grasp on these characters, their history (not just recent, but entire), and what makes them tick than most DC writers. I think a lot of people write the "image" of Superman, basing his character on what he represents, but don't actually write his "character" and who he has been shown to be on the page over eighty years.

Generally speaking, all I'd change about Bendis' run is stretching some parts out to let them develop more smoothly and maybe rush that dragging bit in "Superman" before the UP got started. I probably wouldn't have aged up Jon. I'd have included Clark's history with the Legion, and I'd ensure the Kents stayed dead (another "gift" from Johns).

But what I want out of Superman is a different thing from what you want out of Superman.

I'm voting it would have been better, but on the basis that the situation Bendis wrote was bad enough that getting Lois and/or Clark away from his control would have to be better. The whole "married but living separate lives" stuff was really bad.

No. The best thing to do(other than not doing it in the first place), would be to say Jor used a device to brainwash the Super Family into agreeing to that madness.

[QUOTE=Ascended;4923001]This particular story? Jor-El and Jon in space? I'd give it the time it needed to breathe and establish everyone's motivations better. That's it.

I'm a pre-Crisis guy (even though I started reading in the triangle era). I don't get down with "Super regular dude" and I didn't think Clark would be a good father in the first place. The only thing that doesn't work about Clark and Lois letting Jon go with Jor-El is that the story was too rushed (ironic for Bendis). All the motivations make sense, but everything happens too quickly for the emotional beats, so it comes off weird.

Then Bendis gets rid of Jor-El, yet another bad idea that Johns saddled the franchise with before bailing. I thank Bendis for fixing that, Jor shouldn't have been around in the first place.

Past Jon in space, I don't want or need a typical family dynamic from the Kents. That is not true to who they are, from my perspective. What we have now feels far more right for the Kents. Tomasi was fun for a bit, and I actually liked the farm and wouldn't argue with that returning. But Lois cooking dinner every night and serving the men folk? Hated that.

Aging up Jon seems unnecessary. I probably wouldn't have done that. But then, I think Jon is unproven and unnecessary. He's cute and fun, and I'm quite acclimated to his existence and have become a fan, but he is far and away from being anything close to a central aspect of the mythos. He's just a supporting character. I like Bendis' "Space Prince" vibe; very Silver Age. Not sure we needed the age up for that or his joining the Legion. I wouldn't have left Jon on earth-3 for so long; space was better. But Jon's a minor consideration for me. I'm reading "Superman" not "Superboy."

Bottom line, I think Bendis has a far better grasp on these characters, their history (not just recent, but entire), and what makes them tick than most DC writers. I think a lot of people write the "image" of Superman, basing his character on what he represents, but don't actually write his "character" and who he has been shown to be on the page over eighty years.

Generally speaking, all I'd change about Bendis' run is stretching some parts out to let them develop more smoothly and maybe rush that dragging bit in "Superman" before the UP got started. I probably wouldn't have aged up Jon. I'd have included Clark's history with the Legion, and I'd ensure the Kents stayed dead (another "gift" from Johns).

But what I want out of Superman is a different thing from what you want out of Superman.[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how this is going to get better after giving it time to breathe.The neglectful and maybe abusive parents get scottfree while the kid gets to suffer and lose his childhood. How is that good look?what did clark or lois lose? Nothing(i don't care about losing chance to raise the kid. That isn't much of a tragedy considering clark and lois look like they don't love kid and would rather bang) . Was there a redemption arc? No. There is a difference between a flawed redeemable father and an outright neglectful irredeemable one,for me clark is of the later kind ij bendis era. I don't think bendis has grasp over every character. He gets superman's voice right. But is that enough? His characterisation is same old shtick and th book is nothing but drama. Forced one at that. The only thing good about bendis is world building in my opinion.But,aside from that this bogus writing for me.

Pre crisis superman was flawed, yet redeemable. He wasn't basically a villain. Every mishap with the likes of even mon el happened due to accidents. That's understable. But, this is'nt an accident. This is intentional. You are telling superman would rather bang his wife than going out to save a child, let alone his own son. Nope! Not good enough. This guy isn't fit enough to be called superman. He is a disgrace.The comparison with precrisis superman is disgraceful for him as well.Then again, superman being exempt of consequences is a thing. There wasn't much consequences for his actions with kara and mon el, either. That's why many consider him boring.. He can't even die. But, this is different time. you can't use a child preteen character like this. If you are going to show neglectful father or at worst abusive one, there better well be consequences. Clark kent can't walk scottfree. He shouldn't be treated as some hero or the child's father with a behaviour like this.

Jor el is mass murderer. But, he had no hand in krypton. Bendis made jor el key conspirator in the destruction of Krypton and creator of a creature that was an assassin made to kill. Bendis just doubled down on johns's take. He didn't diverge.

There needs to be a dynamic for things to work. A child character should be treated with dignity. If this kinda nonsense is what being served. Then it's better to kill the character off.Furthermore after the tortore, jon being hunky dory with clark and lois is sickening. There is no anger in jon. No frustration. No ptsd.That isn't human. That's not even saintlike. It's nonsensical. Jon should have no dynamic with kents at all. He should have plain no contact with them. There is a difference between forced by situation and not giving a damn.One is redeemable, the other is'nt. This writing is no good for jon and the dynamic isn't worth it. Jon is basically harley quinn. He gets abused and tortured, still comes back to the source. The kid had suffered from multiple kidnapping, being treated like a weapon, was almost assasinated by his own peers, tortured multiple times.. Etc. This time the difference is clark and lois aren't much of father or mother. Heck! Damian has shown more concern for the kid. That means there should be consequences for that.

Regardless, of your tastes or preferences. [B]There is difference between badly written shlock where protagonists are jerks, suffer nothing for being that and flawed character making mistakes, complicating things and redeeming themselves. [/B]I watched mandalorian yesterday, that whole story made me realise how bad clark is written as a character now. I wasn't even star wars fan. There is no ounce of redeemable factor for the character. Bendis's superman is basically what you accuse of batman being,[B]Irredeemable[/B]. And contrary to what people think zi am a superman fan. which makes me critical of how the character is written. Furthermore, this is entirely about clark kent.The superman. Not about jon's age up. Age up may suck for me, but i am superman fan first and foremost. This is just bad for superman.

This is offensively bad for me, Regardless of ageup happening or not. I would have not made lois leave the kid no matter what. [B]Even by some luck lois does end up leaving. Then Clark's reaction wouldn't be "ok. Let's bang". He would be scouring the universe for his son, seeing lois has no evidence of kids well-being . He would leave lois, point blank. Priority will be the kid. He would ask someone to take over for earth as he goes, maybe supergirl. He would go to the ends of the universe and beyond for the kid, even jimmy and krypto will sneak aboard the ship clark builds. Jimmy would learn clark and superman are the same. Clark would Form the united planets on his journey which would be far extended, it would be an odessey or finding nemo[/B]. It would be jon's dream, Clark's ideal and love that makes it happen . He would bring him, back. Aged up or otherwise. Jon would suffer from ptsd and trauma. He would distance himself from his father because of the face. He loves his father but, he needs to get away. He would find damian, they would just go on their way. Two brothers against the world. I would have dick be their nanny, since alfred is dead. maybe get picked up by a legacy legion. [B]Jon would later, come back with the superman sword[/B]. He would form a team with damian,wally's twin's,crush... Etc. Supersons but with everyone. [B]An all star supersons.[/B]meanwhile, clark would decide to give up lieing because of jor el. Everything else will be as, it was told. Lois would try to redeem herself by protecting clark from leavthian and the negative spins on the identity reveal. Dailystar would be back. Clark would be hunted by people because of the president of earth bit like its happening now. Daily planet would be questioned as well.jon would decide to take his belongings to kents and smallville where the alien refugees from Hamilton have also moved to. Which, would be another blow for clark.but,he will realise the kid is not well. Ma and pa had started taking in metakids and aliens.Conner would comeback to his farm and meet his nephew . Conner would have been a single father himself. Jon would learn to cope with his ptsd of Clark's face with conner. And conner will be coping with how to handle a half martian, half kryptonIan baby with his playboy city guy life style. Finally, jon would reconcile with Clark,not with lois. Clark and lois would be working on their marriage. Lois would write a story about being the wife of superman and it would have chapters dedicated to jon. Which would make jon and lois's relationship cordial, yet jon would still have trust issues and would largely like to be independent from her. He would never be lois's son like he used to. Which would be something lois has to live with. [B]Forgive me, i seem to have gone of with my head canon.lol![/B]If drama was being done. This will be how i go about things.

What i want is the end of insufferable, illogical drama. That's it.At the very least make it logical.the above hits the beats of Bendis's run. It would atleast have clark as a flawed, yet redeemable father. And basically doesn't demolish much except for lois which i can't do much about. How can i justify lois?

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;4923206]I fail to see how this is going to get better after giving it time to breathe.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we're all aware of that. The people who are not enjoying this run have been exceeding vocal about it. As we often all are when a run doesn't appeal to us.