Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 113
  1. #61
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored at 3:00AM View Post
    Sorry, this isn't really accurate. The origin in Action Comics #1 was a cut up version of the full length version, which included Clark's promise to his dead parents. The death of Seigel's father from a heart attack during a burglary was a deeply important formative event for him that informed much of his work (particularly The Spectre). Pa Kent's death was very important to the original conception of the character and was baked in from the very beginning.
    To my knowledge, the first full-length version of the origin was the newspaper strip, and I don't think that included the Kents. They were first introduced in Superman #1, though they may well have been conceived of by the duo before.

    The bit about Siegal's father is interesting. I must admit I'd never heard about it before. But is the extent to which it influenced his decision to have the Kents die during Clark's youth known? Has he discussed it in interviews as a critical element in his conception of Superman?

    The Kents were originally not much more than a plot device to explain how Superman got his civilian identity of 'Clark Kent' and who raised this 'super-baby'. Its the Superboy stories that really made them supporting characters. So I don't think the issue of whether they lived or died was really that important to Superman's origin - certainly not to the extent of other core elements like Krypton exploding, or the infant Kal-El being rocketed to earth. No doubt their deaths were an important secondary story detail back then. But a lot of superhero origins have had such secondary details which have changed over time while the core elements stayed intact.

    To me, Jonathan and/or Martha staying alive is a retcon akin to Alfred Pennyworth being the one to raise Bruce Wayne. It is a major change to the facts of the backstory, and it recalibrates the importance of certain characters to the ongoing narrative, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the hero's origin story.

  2. #62
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,376

    Default

    Clark needs to fail at least once because it’s the moment where he comes to understand that even he has limitations. He can’t save everyone, and accepting that fact is part of his character growth. Also from a practical standpoint, it’s boring to read a happy go lucky dude who has never faced any setbacks lecturing others about the importance of hope and optimism, when he himself has never had to deal with despair.

  3. #63
    Took me a while, I'm back Netherman14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Metropolis, the City of Tomorrow.
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    To my knowledge, the first full-length version of the origin was the newspaper strip, and I don't think that included the Kents. They were first introduced in Superman #1, though they may well have been conceived of by the duo before.

    The bit about Siegal's father is interesting. I must admit I'd never heard about it before. But is the extent to which it influenced his decision to have the Kents die during Clark's youth known? Has he discussed it in interviews as a critical element in his conception of Superman?

    The Kents were originally not much more than a plot device to explain how Superman got his civilian identity of 'Clark Kent' and who raised this 'super-baby'. Its the Superboy stories that really made them supporting characters. So I don't think the issue of whether they lived or died was really that important to Superman's origin - certainly not to the extent of other core elements like Krypton exploding, or the infant Kal-El being rocketed to earth. No doubt their deaths were an important secondary story detail back then. But a lot of superhero origins have had such secondary details which have changed over time while the core elements stayed intact.

    To me, Jonathan and/or Martha staying alive is a retcon akin to Alfred Pennyworth being the one to raise Bruce Wayne. It is a major change to the facts of the backstory, and it recalibrates the importance of certain characters to the ongoing narrative, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the hero's origin story.
    I'd argue that the survival of Jonathan and Martha does fundamentally alter Superman's origin story, unlike Alfred Pennyworth being around to raise Bruce Wayne instead of Alfred Beagle. for starters, them being alive remove any sense of independence on Clark's part as an adult from the offset. it makes him dependent on them for major decisions any other incarnation of Superman would make on his own, second, it introduces the very real risk of someone following Superman whenever he's flying to Smallville to get advice. therefore, allowing said villain/supervillain put two and two hence figuring out that Superman has been Clark Kent all along, which leads to them dying anyway. thirdly, it removes Superman's very core as being a self-made identity having been created by Clark exclusively.
    Pull-List:

    DC: Batman: Damned, The Green Lantern. Young Justice. Wonder Twins

    Boom!: Ronin Samurai.

  4. #64
    Last Son of Shaolin GreatKungLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    1,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Clark needs to fail at least once because it’s the moment where he comes to understand that even he has limitations. He can’t save everyone, and accepting that fact is part of his character growth. Also from a practical standpoint, it’s boring to read a happy go lucky dude who has never faced any setbacks lecturing others about the importance of hope and optimism, when he himself has never had to deal with despair.
    Preach. But it's not as boring as it doesn't make sense. Having Superman without any problems, troubles and doubts lecturing others about how everything is all good and hopeful just doesn't sound right, like if you have zero experiences that people have, how can you know that everything is going to be all right?

  5. #65
    Extraordinary Member superduperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Metropolis USA
    Posts
    7,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    To my knowledge, the first full-length version of the origin was the newspaper strip, and I don't think that included the Kents. They were first introduced in Superman #1, though they may well have been conceived of by the duo before.

    The bit about Siegal's father is interesting. I must admit I'd never heard about it before. But is the extent to which it influenced his decision to have the Kents die during Clark's youth known? Has he discussed it in interviews as a critical element in his conception of Superman?

    The Kents were originally not much more than a plot device to explain how Superman got his civilian identity of 'Clark Kent' and who raised this 'super-baby'. Its the Superboy stories that really made them supporting characters. So I don't think the issue of whether they lived or died was really that important to Superman's origin - certainly not to the extent of other core elements like Krypton exploding, or the infant Kal-El being rocketed to earth. No doubt their deaths were an important secondary story detail back then. But a lot of superhero origins have had such secondary details which have changed over time while the core elements stayed intact.

    To me, Jonathan and/or Martha staying alive is a retcon akin to Alfred Pennyworth being the one to raise Bruce Wayne. It is a major change to the facts of the backstory, and it recalibrates the importance of certain characters to the ongoing narrative, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the hero's origin story.
    I have the early newspaper strips and you're right, the Kents never make an appearance. There's actually an extended sequence on Krypton with Jor-L and Lora debating sending him to Earth. Even as late as 1943, when his origin was retold, they aren't explicitly mentioned.
    Assassinate Putin!

  6. #66
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    How would the origin have read if they'd added a scene with the Kents post-Superman back then? Either a scene with them handing him the costume (ala Byrne but only as a single panel) or having the scene where Clark notes that he isn't mentioned in the news story be a conversation home rather than just him reading the paper to himself.

  7. #67
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    To my knowledge, the first full-length version of the origin was the newspaper strip, and I don't think that included the Kents. They were first introduced in Superman #1, though they may well have been conceived of by the duo before.

    The bit about Siegal's father is interesting. I must admit I'd never heard about it before. But is the extent to which it influenced his decision to have the Kents die during Clark's youth known? Has he discussed it in interviews as a critical element in his conception of Superman?
    That what I always think of when Siegel's dad is brought up. It seems like the emphasis is from sources outside of himself, but I wouldn't personally know much of where his interviews were recorded.

    As for its relevancy, I think the lack of emphasis on their lives in the very early stories swings both ways and covers their deaths. That wasn't so much of a burden that impacted his daily life. I would say that largely the whole orphan experience made him tougher and more independent... maybe even a bit less calm and steady ironically. By the 50s and 60s, that whole thing got so twisted and bent with their fluid nature (reverse aging, funky pirate treasure, you name it) that the stories didn't attribute his maturation to it much if at all. Secret Years from the beginning of the 80s doesn't really go there. I like the idea of the passing of Pa but I think that many younger generations coming into the original Man of Steel would have associated those ideas to the Waynes or Uncle Ben anyway.

  8. #68
    Obsessed & Compelled Bored at 3:00AM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    To my knowledge, the first full-length version of the origin was the newspaper strip, and I don't think that included the Kents. They were first introduced in Superman #1, though they may well have been conceived of by the duo before.

    The bit about Siegal's father is interesting. I must admit I'd never heard about it before. But is the extent to which it influenced his decision to have the Kents die during Clark's youth known? Has he discussed it in interviews as a critical element in his conception of Superman?

    The Kents were originally not much more than a plot device to explain how Superman got his civilian identity of 'Clark Kent' and who raised this 'super-baby'. Its the Superboy stories that really made them supporting characters. So I don't think the issue of whether they lived or died was really that important to Superman's origin - certainly not to the extent of other core elements like Krypton exploding, or the infant Kal-El being rocketed to earth. No doubt their deaths were an important secondary story detail back then. But a lot of superhero origins have had such secondary details which have changed over time while the core elements stayed intact.

    To me, Jonathan and/or Martha staying alive is a retcon akin to Alfred Pennyworth being the one to raise Bruce Wayne. It is a major change to the facts of the backstory, and it recalibrates the importance of certain characters to the ongoing narrative, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the hero's origin story.
    As I said, you don't NEED the death of Pa Kent to have a Superman work, much like you don't need the costume, the cape, the undies, Lois, the Daily Planet, or flying. However, the death of Jonathan Kent makes the character better. Keeping him alive does not make the character better because he doesn't add anything that Ma Kent or a flashback can't already provide.

    I understand people want any character they love to be exactly the same as when they first encountered them, so it's difficult for a lot of Post-Crisis Superman fans to appreciate how important this is for the character because it wasn't present at all during those couple decades. However, the character has been around for eight decades, not just those two, during which Pa Kent played little to no role of genuine importance during Superman's adult life.

    If anyone could explain why it's so important for Pa Kent to be alive into Superman's adulthood, I'd love to hear it, because "Clark shouldn't be too sad about stuff" is not a particularly compelling argument. If Superman were regularly outselling Batman comics since Pa Kent was resurrected, I could maybe see an argument that it benefited the character somehow, but, guess what, that's the exact opposite of what happened. There are other reasons, of course, for Batman finally surpassing Superman in popularity, but the removal of one of the most compelling parts of his origin story would seem to be a major factor.

  9. #69
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored at 3:00AM View Post
    As I said, you don't NEED the death of Pa Kent to have a Superman work, much like you don't need the costume, the cape, the undies, Lois, the Daily Planet, or flying. However, the death of Jonathan Kent makes the character better. Keeping him alive does not make the character better because he doesn't add anything that Ma Kent or a flashback can't already provide.

    I understand people want any character they love to be exactly the same as when they first encountered them, so it's difficult for a lot of Post-Crisis Superman fans to appreciate how important this is for the character because it wasn't present at all during those couple decades. However, the character has been around for eight decades, not just those two, during which Pa Kent played little to no role of genuine importance during Superman's adult life.

    If anyone could explain why it's so important for Pa Kent to be alive into Superman's adulthood, I'd love to hear it, because "Clark shouldn't be too sad about stuff" is not a particularly compelling argument. If Superman were regularly outselling Batman comics since Pa Kent was resurrected, I could maybe see an argument that it benefited the character somehow, but, guess what, that's the exact opposite of what happened. There are other reasons, of course, for Batman finally surpassing Superman in popularity, but the removal of one of the most compelling parts of his origin story would seem to be a major factor.
    I certainly wouldn't regard the death of Pa Kent to be anywhere near as important to the mythos as the any of the stuff you mentioned. Even the undies (which I'm not fanatical about) since they are an iconic aspect of the character's image.

    I don't think its 100% important for Pa Kent to be alive. In fact, I liked what Geoff Johns did - killing him off in the present-day and having his death be a major blow to Superman, rather than just having it as part of the backstory.

    The thing is that having the Kents alive simply adds to the supporting cast and gives writers another setting to play with if they choose. 'If they choose' being the operative term.

    One of the major complaints people seem to have about the Kents being alive, apart from the claims that its somehow important to the origin story, is that Clark was too dependent on them and spent too much time in Smallville. Now, if the Kents are alive and well in Smallville, a writer can either choose to have Clark visit them frequently and make it an important setting in the stories - or he/she can choose to simply ignore their existence and focus more on the Metropolis supporting cast. Either way, having the Kents alive gives the writers more options. Having them dead closes off one option completely.

    No offence, but the notion that the Kents being alive is what has caused the decline in Superman's popularity is a laughable one. There are a LOT of factors which have contributed to this decline, many of them being external to the character and even the quality of stories - but I wouldn't say the Kents being alive were anywhere close to being a factor. All the major popular adaptations and interpretations of the character for the last 30 years have had one or both of them alive - with the mainstream comics being the 'outlier' in that regard since 2011.
    Last edited by bat39; 11-07-2018 at 01:47 AM.

  10. #70
    Obsessed & Compelled Bored at 3:00AM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I certainly wouldn't regard the death of Pa Kent to be anywhere near as important to the mythos as the any of the stuff you mentioned. Even the undies (which I'm not fanatical about) since they are just an iconic aspect of the character's image.

    I don't think its 100% important for Pa Kent to be alive. In fact, I liked what Geoff Johns did - killing him off in the present-day and having his death be a major blow to Superman, rather than just having it as part of the backstory.

    The thing is that having the Kents alive simply adds to the supporting cast and gives writers another setting to play with if they choose. 'If they choose' being the operative term.

    One of the major complaints people seem to have about the Kents being alive, apart from the claims that its somehow important to the origin story, is that Clark was too dependent on them and spent too much time in Smallville. Now, if the Kents are alive and well in Smallville, a writer can either choose to have Clark visit them frequently and make it an important setting in the stories - or he/she can choose to simply ignore their existence and focus more on the Metropolis supporting cast. Either way, having the Kents alive gives the writers more options. Having them dead closes off one option completely.

    No offence, but the notion that the Kents being alive is what has caused the decline in Superman's popularity is a laughable one. There are a LOT of factors which have contributed to this decline, many of them being external to the character and even the quality of stories - but I wouldn't say the Kents being alive were anywhere close to being a factor. All the major popular adaptations and interpretations of the character for the last 30 years have had one or both of them alive - with the mainstream comics being the 'outlier' in that regard since 2011.
    You are either misunderstanding what I am saying or you haven't been reading what I've posted thus far in this thread. I have never said it is 100% important for the Kents to be dead. I think it's important for Pa Kent to be dead because it makes his origin more compelling. However, I think Ma Kent works perfectly well being kept alive. Also, I have acknowledged and will continue to acknowledge that some creators were able to make both of the Kents being alive work. Furthermore, I think I was pretty clear that there were, of course, other factors involved in Batman surpassing Superman in popularity since Byrne's reboot, but removing one of the best parts of his origin didn't help and keeping Pa Kent alive didn't win over any new fans because he was either ignored or served no good purpose that Ma Kent or a flashback couldn't already accomplish.

    We can't really have a discussion about this if you are going to assume I am taking extreme positions that I'm not. I'm more than happy to talk with you about this, because I enjoy chatting about Superman with fellow fans, but I'm not really interested in being whatever strawman you think you are arguing with.

  11. #71
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored at 3:00AM View Post
    You are either misunderstanding what I am saying or you haven't been reading what I've posted thus far in this thread. I have never said it is 100% important for the Kents to be dead. I think it's important for Pa Kent to be dead because it makes his origin more compelling. However, I think Ma Kent works perfectly well being kept alive. Also, I have acknowledged and will continue to acknowledge that some creators were able to make both of the Kents being alive work. Furthermore, I think I was pretty clear that there were, of course, other factors involved in Batman surpassing Superman in popularity since Byrne's reboot, but removing one of the best parts of his origin didn't help and keeping Pa Kent alive didn't win over any new fans because he was either ignored or served no good purpose that Ma Kent or a flashback couldn't already accomplish.

    We can't really have a discussion about this if you are going to assume I am taking extreme positions that I'm not. I'm more than happy to talk with you about this, because I enjoy chatting about Superman with fellow fans, but I'm not really interested in being whatever strawman you think you are arguing with.
    Well, I certainly don't consider you a strawman and I apologise if I've given that impression And yes, I agree that I might have inadvertantly glossed over the fact that you are insistent primarily on Pa Kent being dead, and not both of them.

    Ultimately though, I suppose that the only thing I really disagree with you on is the issue of Pa Kent's death being one of the 'best parts' of the origin. As you've just said, how Jonathan is used as a character depends on who's writing him and how he's been written, and I agree with that. I suppose the difference is that you think Jonathan being dead is important enough to close off that option completely to writers who want to use him, while I come down on the side of keeping him alive as long as possible to keep the option open, because his dying isn't really fundamental to the origin in my opinion.

    When it comes to Rebirth, if, when the dust settles, they make it so that Jonathan and Martha were alive when Superman started out and that Jonathan was killed during Brainiac's attack while Martha died a few years later - but definitely got to meet her grandson - I would be totally happy with that arrangement. A lot of Post-COIE stories with the Kents can be fully in canon, there's scope for flashback stories to depict the relationship between the adult Clark and his parents, and to even show Lois' relationship with them, and of course, as I've mentioned, have Jon meet at least one of his paternal grandparents. As it stands though, both the Kents died before Clark went off to college and never got to see their son become the world's greatest hero, or a top reporter, or start a family of his own. Now people might argue that Superman needs a little tragedy in his life, but I don't think someone who's already technically an orphan and the sole survivor of an entire RACE necessarily needs more tragedy, especially so early in life. Let the tragedy come later, possibily as a result of the actions of one of Superman's villains.

  12. #72
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    It's been my personal observation in watching the long running Dead Parents vs Living Parents discussion is that generally the people that want the Kents to stick around into Superman's adulthood are generally more defensive about it. Where as people like myself that prefer them dead don't really care that much in the end because the ultimate truth to the Superman situation is that Ma and Pa aren't relevant to Superman's overall success. The Kent's at face value are a neutral concept that neither foretells the end times nor is it a good omen; they're just another set of people in the Superman world who happen to be his adopted parents. The Kent's being alive

    My issue with the Kents is that they are part of the larger problem with modern Superman and that is the greater mechanisms trying to move Superman away from being a Superhero first and foremost. Much of the modern era has been trying to re brand him so that he'll be more relateable, Farmer in a cape, farmboy at heart, Clark first, etc. Why is the guy who arguably is responsible for the mass popularization of superheroes trying to so hard to push it into the background? The Kents are there to be loud resounding identifiers that Superman is a "farmer". The married life is there to make sure he isn't spending too much time stopping evil and helping people. The largely semantic fueled "His name is Clark not Superman" helps to make sure the extraordinary is secondary to the mundane.

    For whatever reason some people see Superman at the conceptual level as intimidating and the Kent's help alleviate that by bringing him back down to being a "farmboy at heart". A lot of modern Superman is about bringing Supes down a notch to where people can find him palatable, hell Hoechlin!Supes is this mentality embodied.

    Finally from a pure pride angle, it irritates me when people try to alter Superman to fill some emotional void they feel exist within Superheroics. If you really need a hero with parents he regularly visits use the imitators and you can start with Batman.
    Last edited by The World; 11-07-2018 at 09:20 AM.
    Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory

  13. #73
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    It's been my personal observation in watching the long running Dead Parents vs Living Parents discussion is that generally the people that want the Kents to stick around into Superman's adulthood are generally more defensive about it. Where as people like myself that prefer them dead don't really care that much in the end because the ultimate truth to the Superman situation is that Ma and Pa aren't relevant to Superman's overall success. The Kent's at face value are a neutral concept that neither foretells the end times nor is it a good omen; they're just another set of people in the Superman world who happen to be his adopted parents. The Kent's being alive
    I guess it goes back to what I said in my last reply to Boredat3:00AM - killing them off cuts off a storytelling option, while keeping them alive gives the option to both use them and ignore them. So in that regard, it makes sense that the people who want them alive are more defensive about it. There's also the fact that the current status quo has both of them dead, so its something the 'Alive' camp is hoping changes.

    My issue with the Kents is that they are part of the larger problem with modern Superman and that is the greater mechanisms trying to move Superman away from being a Superhero first and foremost. Much of the modern era has been trying to re brand him so that he'll be more relateable, Farmer in a cape, farmboy at heart, Clark first, etc. Why is the guy who arguably is responsible for the mass popularization of superheroes trying to so hard to push it into the background? The Kents are there to be loud resounding identifiers that Superman is a "farmer". The married life is there to make sure he isn't spending too much time stopping evil and helping people. The largely semantic fueled "His name is Clark not Superman" helps to make sure the extraordinary is secondary to the mundane.
    I see what you mean and I agree that, in general, Superman has got a fairly raw deal from the 'Modern Age' of comics, and whatever the current era is - at least compared to many of DC's other major characters. But part of what you're saying has to do with the larger trend of trying to recontextualise these characters as being more than just 'superheroes' in their respective stories. Hence, you have Batman being defined as a 'vigilante', Green Lantern as a 'space cop', Hawkman as an 'explorer', Wonder Woman as an 'ambassador' or 'warrior princess', Aquaman as a 'king', and so on. Superman in some ways is the most generic 'superhero' character of the lot - which makes sense because he's the character who served as the blueprint for the entire genre. So it becomes a bit harder to contextualise him the way the other character have been - and 'farmboy at heart' was one approach which was taken which did not appeal to a major part of the fanbase. Having Superman be a paragon of virtue and living embodiment of all things moral is another approach taken which IMO has been way more detrimental to the character compared to the farmboy approach.

    For whatever reason some people see Superman at the conceptual level as intimidating and the Kent's help alleviate that by bringing him back down to being a "farmboy at heart". A lot of modern Superman is about bringing Supes down a notch to where people can find him palatable, hell Hoechlin!Supes is this mentality embodied.
    I don't think its necessarily about bringing him down a notch, though sometimes that has happened. But it does help ground the character in a way and make him more relatable. If Superman has no family on earth and considers himself as Kryptonian first and foremost, an alien visitor to earth, then from a character point of view there's no real difference between him and the Martian Manhunter, apart from the details of his origin story. The Kents are important because they symbolize the fact that Superman was raised as a human, and has lived a human life for the most part - so it makes sense for him to consider himself as a human being on some level, albeit with an alien heritage. I agree its not necessary for the Kents to survive into Clark's adulthood to make them important, but having Clark able to fly home to Smallville and talk to his mom and dad, who are ordinary townsfolk, does ground this character who is the world's greatest superhero and practically a demi-god.

  14. #74
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I guess it goes back to what I said in my last reply to Boredat3:00AM - killing them off cuts off a storytelling option, while keeping them alive gives the option to both use them and ignore them. So in that regard, it makes sense that the people who want them alive are more defensive about it. There's also the fact that the current status quo has both of them dead, so its something the 'Alive' camp is hoping changes.
    You keep stating that killing them closes of storytelling options, as if having them alive is automatically neutral. The Kents are part of Superman's support system. Pre-crisis when they were both gone and we didn't have Lana in the loop there was a period of Clark's life where he had no one in on the secret he could turn to. Morrison had a similar set-up in his New-52 Action run where a distant Batman was the closest person Clark could talk to. If the Kents were alive, even if you didn't want to use them in a story they make it harder to set a story where Clark actually feels alone at any point.

  15. #75
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    You keep stating that killing them closes of storytelling options, as if having them alive is automatically neutral. The Kents are part of Superman's support system. Pre-crisis when they were both gone and we didn't have Lana in the loop there was a period of Clark's life where he had no one in on the secret he could turn to. Morrison had a similar set-up in his New-52 Action run where a distant Batman was the closest person Clark could talk to. If the Kents were alive, even if you didn't want to use them in a story they make it harder to set a story where Clark actually feels alone at any point.
    Well, I was talking from the point-of-view of people complaining that Clark visited his parent 'too much' and was too dependent on them. Of course, if your goal is a story where Superman feels completely alone, then the Kents being alive is a problem. In that case, it becomes a straight-away case of me, and others, being opposed to the idea of Superman just being an alien who feels completely alone, doesn't consider himself part of humanity, and treat 'Clark Kent' as just a cover identity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •