Official : Bendis gets both books

[Sacred Knight]

Typical DC. Get something right about Superman after decades of having it wrong, and they still screw it up by reverting it back. And the only parent figure that should be alive is dead, lol.

[Ascended]

Typical DC. Get something right about Superman after decades of having it wrong, and they still screw it up by reverting it back. And the only parent figure that should be alive is dead, lol.

I know, right?

They don't want us to have nice things, Sacred. They really don't.

[Sacred Knight]

I'm just resigned that when DC thinks of Superman, for the most part they just think post-Crisis. Its maddening that they compartmentalize him in such a small window which doesn't even include his best years comparatively, but its what they default to even when they briefly try doing something different (not necessarily new, in fact older, but still superior).

BTW, when I said the parent who should be alive I'm not talking about Jor-El, I'm talking about Sam. That might have been confusing the way I worded it. But Lois's dad is the only parent that would have brought something interesting and actually new to the total dynamic of characters that hasn't really been explored much in this type of status quo.

[manwhohaseverything]

I get that. Everyone wants their favorite hero to have their own agency. And hey, I'm a huge Nightwing fan. His own solo book gets derailed for Bats constantly. So I get it. But this isn't Jon's book. It isn't Jon's story. It's Clark's book, and Clark's story. Jon *is* nothing more than a piece to move around.

What you seem to want is for Jon to have his own solo (or a return of Super Sons at least, and who doesn't want that?). And I'd check that out too. But for everyone complaining about how Jon hasn't driven his own narrative as much under Bendis, just as many of us complained when Tomasi made most of the book revolve around him. Which hey, at the time it was kinda understandable; new major supporting character, you gotta establish them and their role. But many people hated Tomasi giving a supporting cast member so much panel time and focus and narrative drive. Now the book is about Clark again. As it should be. This isn't a team up book, it's not "The Kents." (which I'd read) It's Superman.

The book nor the panel time has nothing to do with what i am talking about. Even then if they can waste issues on leviathan nonsense with little to no superman . A couple of panel where jon thinking of his guitar or mangas or how he picked up saying "poozer" from kilowog in space or how he learned to use spacebike from lobo or how he learned to use a sword himself in earth-bad since damian didn't or something like that can be shown .But,bendis doesn't do that. He has turned jon into just the archetype he is based on which is superboy(clark kent) . Conner in the young justice. Same fate. Conner's world is literally empty same as jon.where is his cast?Atleast with conner, he isn't written to be clark kent 2.0(this time with stupid poop jokes) .His personality is different from clark and it stayed that way. With jon he doesn't have anything. They could literally pull clark from the past. It wouldn't matter. Cause jon kent is just a hollow shell. He has no past, no present. Everybook he has been there was nothing being done to the character.he remains the shell of archetypical superboy with no added layers or differential layers. So it doesn't matter if he is in superbook or legion. Ok, jon is in legion book. Now what? He does the same shtick his dad did, conner did or kara did and that too with the same characters. Really? how does that make jon the character anymore than the his archetype, which is easily replaceable ? He would be just another supercharacter. Expendable.It doesn't even look like it putting in seeds for jon to atleast look like a person with relationships and had a history.

All the things jon has is his fear of closed spaces because of kandor? When was that established? How did it happen? Nothing. That could literally be clark kent instead of jon and it wouldn't matter. Treat the son of superman, As the son of superman.Not cheap substitute for a superboy or a superman . Snyder does way more jon with his panels and cameos in jl, metal.. Etc than Bendis did with all the issues. That's just bad. Snyder actually treats jon as character that requires development , not an archetype. He had jon play catch with clark in sky, built family tradition with the lanterns, had jon be in a metal band... Etc.
Basically, Bendis's jon is this.

This video had bizzaro being just the notion of general perception of superman archetype instead of a real character. Here, it's actually clever cause bizzaro is the one doing it. If the actual superman was written like this or that awful justice league movie or meant to be like that. The character wouldn't have lasted 80 years.

[objectivewatcher2013]

Very pleased to see the Kents back. Good job Geoff Johns.

[Vordan]

Typical DC. Get something right about Superman after decades of having it wrong, and they still screw it up by reverting it back. And the only parent figure that should be alive is dead, lol.

And Johns once again does a big change to Superman and doesn’t even bother writing the follow up to it (New Krypton). Whatever I guess I’ll just have to cope, expecting it to be the same awful cliches so that maybe Bendis/Fraction will pleasantly surprise me. Least the Kents will be dead again by the time 5G hits hopefully.

[Lvenger]

Very pleased to see the Kents back. Good job Geoff Johns.

I second this opinion. The Kents deserve more love on this forum. I'd go so far as to say they're in my top 10 favourite DC characters list. A lot of folks like to complain that they somehow take away Clark's agency and independence when in reality, their presence offers more character introspection and personal relationships in the Superman comics. Keeping the Kents alive in Post Crisis DC was one of the best things John Byrne did in his reinvention of Superman.

[Sacred Knight]

Oh I love the hell out of them. Just because I prefer them dead in the present doesn't mean I don't love them. They just serve no purpose in Superman's present. At least not anymore. It was a new idea in '86, I give it that much. It just wore thin really fast and the negatives outweighed the positives. They're designed to serve their purpose in his past and in his development, and nothing I've ever read has ever convinced me that any other role for them works better.

[manwhohaseverything]

I second this opinion. The Kents deserve more love on this forum. I'd go so far as to say they're in my top 10 favourite DC characters list. A lot of folks like to complain that they somehow take away Clark's agency and independence when in reality, their presence offers more character introspection and personal relationships in the Superman comics. Keeping the Kents alive in Post Crisis DC was one of the best things John Byrne did in his reinvention of Superman.

The superman's choices and instincts being the result of his upbringing, rather than the epitome of altruism isn't great.He isn't supposed to be a trained dog or a robot. Have them actually do something other than preaching. I can't handle Clark's nonsense without essence , now i have two more of the same. Great. Just great.maybe they should write a book called "whatever happened to the man of action".Furthermore, the kents were only great in the last two decades in the nail series.Bring in something like the sanctuary have the characters do something and develop them instead being this one dimensional perfect beings. Ben parker being dead does the same job the kents does. Sheesh!

You know what they should do. Get Genndy Tartakovsky to do something with superman. That would be awesome. Clark being silent and speaking with his actions. He could provide style and substance. For a character inspired by harold lloyd. Superman doesn't value silence. It can speak louder.

[Vordan]

I second this opinion. The Kents deserve more love on this forum. I'd go so far as to say they're in my top 10 favourite DC characters list. A lot of folks like to complain that they somehow take away Clark's agency and independence when in reality, their presence offers more character introspection and personal relationships in the Superman comics. Keeping the Kents alive in Post Crisis DC was one of the best things John Byrne did in his reinvention of Superman.

He’s got Lois, Perry, and Jimmy for that though. Besides I always hear about this deep introspection and relationship they have but I haven’t really seen that in a story set in the “present”. As a kid sure you can see the love they have and the struggles they have raising Clark but once he becomes a (Super)Man, there’s not really much they bring to the table in terms of depth. Instead it’s just painful cliches where Ma and Pa give him either basic cookie cutter advice along the lines of “follow your heart/do the right thing/trust your gut” (which c’mon Clark should know all that already) or they just tel him they can’t help him. That’s why they work better dead, you can always have Clark flash back to Ma and Pa giving him a pep talk in his childhood when he needs one.

That said I was never fan of Aunt May either, I remain convinced that she should be dead, but Bendis managed to win me over with Ultimate Aunt May, and Fraction is a great writer in his own right. I’ll allow them the chance to win me over. But as of right now? No they’re better off dead in my eyes, once Clark becomes Superman they become dead weight.

[Ascended]

I'm just resigned that when DC thinks of Superman, for the most part they just think post-Crisis. Its maddening that they compartmentalize him in such a small window which doesn't even include his best years comparatively, but its what they default to even when they briefly try doing something different (not necessarily new, in fact older, but still superior).

Someday one of us (not you and me, but someone who sees things the same way) will slip into editorial and fix things.

And it shall be glorious.

The tears of post-Crisis fans shall keep us fed!

(just kidding on that last part. mostly )

[Vordan]

Someday one of us (not you and me, but someone who sees things the same way) will slip into editorial and fix things.

And it shall be glorious.

The tears of post-Crisis fans shall keep us fed!

(just kidding on that last part. mostly )

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Gen Z people who grew up on Morrison and Waid as their iconic Superman writers take over. We’re starting to see it now with people like Donny Cates and Tynion. And once the people who grew up on the New 52 take over? That will be very interesting indeed.

[LordUltimus]

Do the Kents not get enough love on this forum? I seem to recall pretty much every poll on the subject very slanted to at least one of them living; the other side just seems louder.

[The World]

Why? Jon hanging out on a farm with his two Baby Boomer grandparents sounds insanely boring. Stuff like that is why I don’t want the Kents back, beyond “OMG it would be so cute if Jon met Pa and Ma ” there’s no actual worthwhile stories that you couldn’t just tell with Clark and Jon.

Don’t mean to target you, I’m just venting my own personal unpopular opinion lol.

Eh I'm a Pre-Crisis guy through and through but I can't really say it bothers me that the Kent's are back for this particular iteration of Supes because frankly there just isn't much to this particular guy. The guy needs all the help he can't get because Byrne and Wolfman gutted the character Post-Crisis. I'd say Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis Superman are more different than Post-Crisis Superman and Batman were.

The Pre-Crisis guy was industrious, inquisitive, and adventurous; if you took him out into the middle of nowhere and left him be he would make a story . But the Post-Crisis guy? That guy by his own admission was pretty happy with a home to work, work to home, and occasionally going out with friends loop. He's just not the most interesting person and without more lively side characters to distract from his general 2D nature you're not going to have much to work with. Hell what was the first thing they even did when the brought Post-Crisis Superman back? Put him on a farm because his character was essentially that he was a farmboy and the Kents for their part are basically the part the reinforces that Supes comes from the American farmland. Modern writing is often that way too, thinks you won't get something unless it screams it at you.

What else do you really do with the guy? He's got none of the passion, drive, or lofty goals of his Golden Age counterpart, but rather his mentality centers around doing just enough to scrape by and get back to his work->home->work->home life loop. He doesn't have the psychological quirks and ambiguities that allowed the writers in the 70's to really flesh out his character. The Post-Crisis Supes was neatly fitted into his "regular guy" shtick early on and basically wanted to stay within his box. There's just nothing there so the Kents, the marriage, and Jon help to patch in what would otherwise be a lot of blank space where a deeper or at least more adventurous character might fill with possibility.

Take a look at Batman who has a supporting cast that probably dwarfs Superman's yet he doens't need them for dear life to be interesting to the reader, hell they just (idiotically) killed off his father figure. Batman's people aren't scared that Bruce can't handle his own story, they know he's been handled with care through the years and his writers has had at least some attempt to keep who he is intact. Look at Spiderman, his readers desperately want Aunt May dead. Look at One Piece, Luffy wanders from most of the Straw Hats frequently and his character isn't even particularly complex but he has the sort of character that can make a story. But modern Superman? He has none of that; this is a guy who at one point a flying dog was considered too much.

So yeah I'm fine and even a little glad to see the Kent's come back and add some meat to this guy's character. My only real complaint is that this guy doesn't really deserve two books to himself. The world shouldn't go on thinking that Superman was always just some hayseed from Kansas. We know that the other Pre-Crisis Supermen are out there, so imo they should give one of the books to one of those guys.

[Kuwagaton]

I'm just resigned that when DC thinks of Superman, for the most part they just think post-Crisis. Its maddening that they compartmentalize him in such a small window which doesn't even include his best years comparatively, but its what they default to even when they briefly try doing something different (not necessarily new, in fact older, but still superior).

To their credit I think DC managed to get past those old models with the last few revisions. Bendis is working in whatever he seems to think fits regardless of the history and the foundation he went in on was a milder version of the same. I'm all in if there's any way to get that Earth 85 Superman and for all I say is different about the current Superman, I think there are even post crisis ideas you can fit in that aren't part of the Bendis tapestry.