Do you want Jon to bea de-aged

[Korath]

No.

10 y.o. Jon had quickly became a very unidimensional, boring and cliché good kid with super-power, with stories lacking any depth or interstings plots and draging a far better written haracter (Damian) in the mud to try and become popular.

Case in point : the current arc of the Supersons, where both are in space, alone and stranded, and neither of them seems concerned at all, which is incredibly stupid and bad writing.

17 y.o. Jon as troves of potential stories, a whole corner of the DCU he could develop in his past and an incredible amount of potential for current stories.

[Vordan]

I’m cool with it lasting for however long Bendis wants it to, but only until the end of his run on the Superbooks. Once he’s done I really would prefer Jon gets deaged. That’s how I feel right now at the moment, maybe I’ll feel differently after we’ve had more issues with him.

[manwhohaseverything]

No.

10 y.o. Jon had quickly became a very unidimensional, boring and cliché good kid with super-power, with stories lacking any depth or interstings plots and draging a far better written haracter (Damian) in the mud to try and become popular.

Case in point : the current arc of the Supersons, where both are in space, alone and stranded, and neither of them seems concerned at all, which is incredibly stupid and bad writing.

17 y.o. Jon as troves of potential stories, a whole corner of the DCU he could develop in his past and an incredible amount of potential for current stories.

Ok, how many good kid characters with superpowers exist compared to the other teens/kid with angst, sad/darkness.. Etc? What is ratio here? And depth,unidimensional thing that is just your perception. Sure he is not some great protagonist in pop culture like guts or elric brothers, but he had growth and development.

For instance, First jon came to accept the fact that his father was "the superman" and his powers as it manifested with the help of "the superman" . He learned to control them. He learned the harsh realities of super heroics like death of people and recklessness causing collateral damage. He came to accept himself as superboy,rather than just being jon kent. He began to realise the need and importance of moral code, while confronting evil. He made new friends just as weird as he was.moved out of his home town where he lived for as long as he remembered , to the city. Started new school with his new buddy.came, to realise his friends past was not sunflowers and daisies, which he already had suspected but did not care.Also, realised the dangers of his fluctuating powers can cause as it went out of control. Got rejected by his peers to join a group.I guess this is it. Of the top of my head.
And current supersons is incredibly restricted. It is just there to be as fun book with two kids like scooby doo cartoons.

since you used the word cliché.
Alan moore said "today's comic book industry hasn't had an original idea in two decades" . So maybe, it is normal.

I know the character is not for you. Maybe that is the point. There are plenty of characters not for me too. He has potential stories and a whole corner of Dc as a kid too.

Besides, 17year old jon(son of superman) is hard to sustain. especially since Didio hates silverage characters being aged. And he is not meant to be a reboot. He still has his old history intact.from his personality(except for the pa thing) and bendis interview, he has not forgotten his values he got from Clois and experiences he had before. He is just older, well travelled, better trained and overall more independent .these developments should have been shown in real time, that is just my opinion.

[babybats]

A million times yes. I was really invested in Jon as he was and wanted to actually witness his character development, not skip ahead to him in a different stage of life all at once. I've never once enjoyed rapidly aged up kid characters. Hated it with Chris Kent, hated it with Conner in Angel, etc. I'd rather they tell the story of this character than use them as a plot twist. And I also think it's a cop out because writers either think fatherhood makes their hero boring or they don't know how to write kids.

More importantly, there's already a teenage Superboy. There's absolutely no need for two, especially when they were already very different before this story arc. There are too many teen heroes as it is.

[Jared S]

This is totally not picking on you or whatever, but I'm just using your quote because you summed it up.

I have to wonder why we're talking about Jon in terms of other characters and age groups rather than just, ya know, him. Like, it's almost like a tokenism argument. "We've already got a minority on that team. We've filled out that quota." It's like that rather than taking him as a character going through a story right now. I mean, no one seems to be mad at the idea that Kara is a teen and so is Conner. No one bats an eyelash at the fact that Dick, Jason, Tim, and Damian all look virtually the same, or the fact that Dick, Barbra, and Jason are in their 20s (hell they wanted Tim in there too). Why? Because they're characters and not concepts. They like them because of who they are as (fictional) people.

The arguments I hear against his age up seem to point to more of a fascination with his concept in a panoramic sense. I'm not totally knocking that (given I know I'm guilty of it too), but just pointing it out given all the issues we've had with concept vs character when it comes to Superman. For better or worse, Bendis seems to be stress testing that for Jon. Dude's giving Jon 7 ish years of solo lore to mine, basically making space his turf, and technically making him a space prince (yeah, that's a thing if you haven't read the latest issue. I won't say how but you'll likely dig it).

Again, I'm just making an observation.

Age is an integral part of characterization. Characters who are younger act differently, have different expectations placed upon them, and are viewed differently. To change a character's age dramatically is, in essence, to turn them into a different person. The new character can only be tangentially related to the old.

Because of this, there are certain stories that are simply better with child characters. You could NOT have told the same story with an older character, even if that character had the same personality. Mark Twain would have changed beyond recognition if the main character were an adult. The Chronicles of Narnia would have been a different all together if Lucy was 19. There is an aspect of the person that changes in aging, closing up some story options, while opening up others. In this case, I would argue that Jon as a child was exploring an aspect of Superman comics that was previously unexplored, and aging him up removes this.

____________________

Personally, I don't actually think there is any inherent problem with having two Superboys the same age, so long as they have different characterizations and are drawn so that we can distinguish between the two at a glance. I would rather see Jon and Conner have a "younger brother/older brother" relationship, though, instead of being just peers. I think it would be more interesting, and would give the Superfamily a more interesting dynamic (unlike the Batfamily, they seem extremely distant). I don't know if you can do that with two characters who are basically the same age.

That being said, you seem to be criticizing Jon as a flat, "token child" character who is nothing aside from being young. While I do think that being a 10-yr old was important to the character and the story, I don't think that was all there was to his personality. [In all fairness, however, the characters with which you compared him have literally decades of story development, whereas Jon has had only two years of story development. It shouldn't be surprising that he isn't as complicated as any of them yet.] I don't think it's true that someone who is critical of this move is inherently more fascinated with Jon's "concept in a panoramic sense." I can name several character traits Jon has, that, while informed and made better by the fact that he is a child-character, are not just copied from some sort of "universal child archetype." Ultimately, I don't think being a young child is somehow inherent to Jon's nature; I would be fine with him growing up slowly, as the story progresses.

I DO have a problem with seven-years worth of character development and relationship development that I was looking forward to reading suddenly being shoved behind the scenes and explained in, at worst, a few comic flashbacks, or at best, a maxi-series where he can never interact with the main cast I'm interested in seeing him interact with. Who cares who he meets in space or what he does? I would rather see him interacting with his Mom, Dad, Kara, Kon-El, Lor Zod, and Damian (and other, new people) than go through the tedium of some sort of "lost in space" adventure.

Honestly, for that reason, I don't think there is any pathway forward that Bendis can use to win me over. (I suppose I could be proven wrong, but I can't see how. At any rate, I couldn't devise a conclusion to this story that would satisfy me.) Even if the new Jon is a fun character, we will still miss out on all of those important stories and relationships, and that alone is enough to make me dislike it. If Jon is characterized badly, it was obviously a bad decision. If he is characterized well, then I would have rather seen him develop into that character over time rather than having it happen off-stage. If he does not change at all, then it's bad writing. No matter what happens, I will miss the novelty of seeing the world of Superman through a child's eyes and the relationship between a father and his young son. For me at least, Bendis has gone and written himself into a corner.

[manwhohaseverything]

Age is an integral part of characterization. Characters who are younger act differently, have different expectations placed upon them, and are viewed differently. To change a character's age dramatically is, in essence, to turn them into a different person. The new character can only be tangentially related to the old.

Because of this, there are certain stories that are simply better with child characters. You could NOT have told the same story with an older character, even if that character had the same personality. Mark Twain would have changed beyond recognition if the main character were an adult. The Chronicles of Narnia would have been a different all together if Lucy was 19. There is an aspect of the person that changes in aging, closing up some story options, while opening up others. In this case, I would argue that Jon as a child was exploring an aspect of Superman comics that was previously unexplored, and aging him up removes this.

____________________

Personally, I don't actually think there is any inherent problem with having two Superboys the same age, so long as they have different characterizations and are drawn so that we can distinguish between the two at a glance. I would rather see Jon and Conner have a "younger brother/older brother" relationship, though, instead of being just peers. I think it would be more interesting, and would give the Superfamily a more interesting dynamic (unlike the Batfamily, they seem extremely distant). I don't know if you can do that with two characters who are basically the same age.

That being said, you seem to be criticizing Jon as a flat, "token child" character who is nothing aside from being young. While I do think that being a 10-yr old was important to the character and the story, I don't think that was all there was to his personality. [In all fairness, however, the characters with which you compared him have literally decades of story development, whereas Jon has had only two years of story development. It shouldn't be surprising that he isn't as complicated as any of them yet.] I don't think it's true that someone who is critical of this move is inherently more fascinated with Jon's "concept in a panoramic sense." I can name several character traits Jon has, that, while informed and made better by the fact that he is a child-character, are not just copied from some sort of "universal child archetype." Ultimately, I don't think being a young child is somehow inherent to Jon's nature; I would be fine with him growing up slowly, as the story progresses.

I DO have a problem with seven-years worth of character development and relationship development that I was looking forward to reading suddenly being shoved behind the scenes and explained in, at worst, a few comic flashbacks, or at best, a maxi-series where he can never interact with the main cast I'm interested in seeing him interact with. Who cares who he meets in space or what he does? I would rather see him interacting with his Mom, Dad, Kara, Kon-El, Lor Zod, and Damian (and other, new people) than go through the tedium of some sort of "lost in space" adventure.

Honestly, for that reason, I don't think there is any pathway forward that Bendis can use to win me over. (I suppose I could be proven wrong, but I can't see how. At any rate, I couldn't devise a conclusion to this story that would satisfy me.) Even if the new Jon is a fun character, we will still miss out on all of those important stories and relationships, and that alone is enough to make me dislike it. If Jon is characterized badly, it was obviously a bad decision. If he is characterized well, then I would have rather seen him develop into that character over time rather than having it happen off-stage. If he does not change at all, then it's bad writing. No matter what happens, I will miss the novelty of seeing the world of Superman through a child's eyes and the relationship between a father and his young son. For me at least, Bendis has gone and written himself into a corner.

So in short, jon being a kid is sort of like spiderman being teen highschool kid. It might have changed in reality in comics but perception will always be that. Hence, spiderman is always reverted back to being highschool kid in movies. Is that what you are saying?

[Jared S]

So in short, jon being a kid is sort of like spiderman being teen highschool kid. It might have changed in reality in comics but perception will always be that. Hence, spiderman is always reverted back to being highschool kid in movies. Is that what you are saying?

Not quite. Jon has been around long enough to be iconic and if Bendis manages to get this to stick, perceptions could change.

What I'm saying in the first part is that having such a young kid character explores an important aspect of the superhero world that is new and interesting, just as having a teenage superhero in Spiderman did. Before Spiderman, no one had really explored the difficulties and challenges of being a teen and learning to finally move beyond childhood and take responsibility. Spiderman could not have been told with an adult Peter Parker because the story would be automatically different.

There are some stories that, by their nature, can only be told with children. "Learning to grow up" is one of them. I think we should embrace those stories rather than rejecting, ignoring, or skipping over them.

[manwhohaseverything]

Not quite. Jon has been around long enough to be iconic and if Bendis manages to get this to stick, perceptions could change.

What I'm saying in the first part is that having such a young kid character explores an important aspect of the superhero world that is new and interesting, just as having a teenage superhero in Spiderman did. Before Spiderman, no one had really explored the difficulties and challenges of being a teen and learning to finally move beyond childhood and take responsibility. Spiderman could not have been told with an adult Peter Parker because the story would be automatically different.

There are some stories that, by their nature, can only be told with children. "Learning to grow up" is one of them. I think we should embrace those stories rather than rejecting, ignoring, or skipping over them.

Ok.just wanted to be sure. Funny enough, i made the same argument before a while ago in the bendis thread.

[Superlad93]

Age is an integral part of characterization. Characters who are younger act differently, have different expectations placed upon them, and are viewed differently. To change a character's age dramatically is, in essence, to turn them into a different person. The new character can only be tangentially related to the old.

A very fair point, yes. That can't be argued.

Because of this, there are certain stories that are simply better with child characters. You could NOT have told the same story with an older character, even if that character had the same personality.

This is where it becomes slightly hazy though. You're speaking conceptually, which is fine, but this is no longer in regards to specific character, but rather what situation you can put his archetype in. That in and of itself is an irrefutable loss, I wholeheartedly admit, but not necessarily something specific to Jon Sam Kent, if you follow me.

In this case, I would argue that Jon as a child was exploring an aspect of Superman comics that was previously unexplored, and aging him up removes this.

Again, I agree speaking in the macro sense of the Superman brand, but that's a concern that leaves Jon's actual character development as incidental rather than the driving force behind the choice. This is the clear distinction I want to make. It is not to say that these storytelling pathways are in fact not inherently closed off from Jon now, because they are. I totally admit that. But, as far as I can tell at present, the specific pathways now available may be just as rich for him as a character. In this sense the Superman brand's benefit becomes incidental to the success of this new venture. Similar to how even though Batman's brand primarily makes use of four dark haired young men that look virtually identical to the unaware, yet they're so very unique in character and story that you'd be hard pressed to justify saying something like "well we already have Damian, so why do we need Tim?" Or "Why do we need Jason?" You don't say that or care that they're all creeping ever closer in age to one another because they are 4 very distinct characters that incidentally bolster the Batman brand.

[In all fairness, however, the characters with which you compared him have literally decades of story development, whereas Jon has had only two years of story development. It shouldn't be surprising that he isn't as complicated as any of them yet.]

I can see what you and others mean by bring up the sheer time of other characters, but I'm pretty comfortable with countering with the simple fact that distinct and memorable characters have been regularly made in but the span of a book, seasons worth of TV, or an hour and a half movie. Simply because comics are such a long form medium doesn't exempt them from the same capabilities as any other medium that starts with a script about characters.

Personally, I don't actually think there is any inherent problem with having two Superboys the same age, so long as they have different characterizations and are drawn so that we can distinguish between the two at a glance.

Yes, I just want this acknowledged is all. Having a personal preference for what you'd like to see is one very understandable and perfectly fine thing, but simply saying that "since we have teen Conner, what's the point of teen Jon" or vice versa fallacy, is a genuine put down towards their characters. That's perceiving them as interchangeable because the archetype of "teen super guy" has apparently override whatever actual character is present.

That being said, you seem to be criticizing Jon as a flat, "token child" character who is nothing aside from being young.

No. That's not remotely what I'm doing. Or at the very least not what I intend to be doing. What I'm more so criticizing are the reasons I've been hearing for why the age up is bad. If someone were to compile all of the reasons into one list and present it, then it'd sound very much like the loss of a "token child" character rather than specifically Jon Sam Kent. So little seems to be said about whatever was possibly lost in regards to his actual personality--and frankly nothing can be said (out side of your very specific argument above about the interstice changes from child to teen) about the difference in personality because it's been less than an issue with teen Jon.

But that's not to say I'm not in agreement of what is being lost. I just want clarity. The fact that we're lamenting the passing of a concept and childlike traits on a character rather than the whole baby with the bath water. Saying things like "his character is destroyed forever" needs more to it, ya know? That's not to say that I don't sympathize with the passion behind the words though.

My point was only to point out the disservice in only speaking of him as the concept of a child super-man or playmate to another character. While those are very real aspects enjoyed by many, a whole character that does not make.

While I do think that being a 10-yr old was important to the character and the story, I don't think that was all there was to his personality.

I totally agree.

I don't think it's true that someone who is critical of this move is inherently more fascinated with Jon's "concept in a panoramic sense."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying saying that's the picture being painted by the specific criticisms some decide to use. It's the way I'm seeing it articulated.

I can name several character traits Jon has, that, while informed and made better by the fact that he is a child-character, are not just copied from some sort of "universal child archetype." Ultimately, I don't think being a young child is somehow inherent to Jon's nature

Again, in total agreement with this quote.

I DO have a problem with seven-years worth of character development and relationship development that I was looking forward to reading suddenly being shoved behind the scenes and explained in, at worst, a few comic flashbacks, or at best, a maxi-series where he can never interact with the main cast I'm interested in seeing him interact with. Who cares who he meets in space or what he does? I would rather see him interacting with his Mom, Dad, Kara, Kon-El, Lor Zod, and Damian (and other, new people) than go through the tedium of some sort of "lost in space" adventure.

That's a fair stance.

Honestly, for that reason, I don't think there is any pathway forward that Bendis can use to win me over.

Again, that's fair. It's the naked truth of it all for you, and I can respect that. I myself remain undecided because I'm wrestling with much the same issues you are, but with the only difference being that my curiosity, interest, and taste are not the same as yours. I can still respect where you're coming from though.

[Miles To Go]

No.

10 y.o. Jon had quickly became a very unidimensional, boring and cliché good kid with super-power, with stories lacking any depth or interstings plots and draging a far better written haracter (Damian) in the mud to try and become popular.

"Try?" he succeeded.

[manwhohaseverything]

I didn't even think Damian was ever dragged through the mud ever. I mean, if you are damian fan then you should never be complaining in that regard. How many times has dick, tim, kory or any other characters with longer history, has been treated the same for the sake of damian. Especially, in dcamu where he beat deathstroke. He is pushed so damn hard and so annoyingly persistent that he becomes an irritation.
They even had him give wally a heart attack.
For me, tomasi is the only one, other than morrison who makes me like him and be excited to read him. And the only sin tomasi did was make Jon be equal to damian. And guess what? Any son of superman(clone or otherwise adopted) will be equal to any son of bat. And damian was the one who basically kidnapped him and was using kryptonite on him. Ofcourse, he was going to get clocked.

[Miles To Go]

I don't agree he dragged Damien through the mud either, I was just saying he succeeded in becoming popular, and the fact he's gradually being thrown into the animation medium and lego video games is a testament to how much he's caught on in the mainstream. Henry Caville's even talked about him.

Damien is defined more these days by his super sons association with Jon. I don't see a lot of people talk about him as a separate entity anymore.

[manwhohaseverything]

While i like that and agree that jon and supersons seems to have caught on. I do believe the damian character should be given credit for paving the way for jon like characters to stick around or even be considered. It was an uphill battle for damian. And because he succeeded superheroes can finally have status quos where they are fathers or mothers. He is also damn wonderful character on his own,when he is not pushed so hard. even without the supersons. And hopefully jon becomes that as well. He is on his way, if everything goes right.

[Artemisfanboy]

Dr. Manhattan?

Honestly, considering how much this threatens to screw up their lives, If I was in Clark's position I'd be checking to see if there's a deaging ray either I or the League confiscated from a super villain or if Zatanna or anybody else I know can knock 6 or so years off of Jon's age. If Jon's a mature young adult, he should be able to understand that sooner or later his parents are going to find themselves in hot water for not being able to answer the question of what happened to their child. Clark and Lois need to be able to preserve their public lives and relationships and not face investigation and prosecution from child protective services. Even if he's unhappy about it think he'd understand.

[daBronzeBomma]

Yes.

Absolutely yes.

De-age Jon back to where he was before Bendis messed with him.

If this sticks, it is easily the most egregious mistake of Bendis' already checkered tenure on the Superverse.



From 10 to 17.

7 years of development. Poof. Gone.

Everyone who thought Bendis had it out for the Family is not being convinced otherwise.

The Bendis Era cannot end soon enough.