Superman issue #9 Spoiler discussion

[Artemisfanboy]

Not really plot holes when DC underwent two large scale universe/multiverse reshaping events that directly added and affected the continuity, added years (10) to the DCU, and brought back characters (Superman Reborn and Metal). This all being hinted at by the fact that Ultraman says that he and Superman have done battle multiple times, but that's not the case if we're just going by New 52 continuity.

But also, it's the DCU. It's possible that in some sections of space Jon and Jor-El went time moved faster relative to Earth time. Not how relativity works? Yeah. But magic wishing rings, dark gods, and alien supermen.

I honestly think you're on the money, though. I think relative to the Earth/universe you're in, time flows differently. Thus Jon only spent 2 to 3 weeks with his grandfather (his sense of time disoriented by the constant space travel), but once he hit the warm hole it had a reverse relativistic effect on him and wherever he went, thus the 6 years on Earth-3 relative to the remaining week or so on Earth-0.

Great example that I wouldn't at all be surprised if Bendis was inspired by: Thor: Ragnarok. In that movie Loki and Thor landed on Sakaar 30 seconds apart with Loki landing first, but by the time Thor lands, Loki had been there weeks. It even includes a wormhole.

I have thought of a small hole in the the time dilation theory though. The altered time rate also should apply to the Syndicate as well while they're in their home universe. Let's establish a theoretical time exchange rate. Jon was missing for a couple of months correct? If time flows at a rate of oh say 2 weeks on the Main Earth to 1 year on Earth 3, in a single main earth year, 26 years would have passed on Earth Three. Just how long ago or recent were these retconned invasion attempts of the crime syndicate onto the main earth? And how would this time dilation affect future use of them? The entire syndicate would collectively need a "get out of aging free" card. While some of them have built in explanations (Superwoman;Amazon immortality), others like say ,Owlman, don't. At the very least I'd expect their next use to establish some kind of equalization between time rates going forward. Not a big hole admittedly, but still worth considering.

I personally find Time Travel back in time to earth 3 in the past to still be the most likely answer given it's simplicity, and either the interview your talking about contained misinformation or it was misinterpreted. I guess we'll probably get more of a firm answer next month, but it really doesn't matter whichever he goes with from where I'm standing. Neither changes the fact this Jon spent his preteen and teenage years being tortured and either way we're stuck with one kind of time related obstacle or another. So I really couldn't care less.

[Kuwagaton]

I disagree on it not being possible to be reset. There is no reason the younger Jon can not be rescued via a time travel story and that said story can not be constructed in such a way to leave the characters guiltless. I can't help but to feel some of the people yelling here that it would effectively amount to killing Jon, actually are just people who wanted to get Jon as a kid written out. I'ts been pointed out you can very easily even keep the older counterpart around alongside a restored young Jon. Yes the characters may have some scars and dirt on them, but I find this situation broken and un-enjoyable. In respect to some of the aforementioned people, I understand this comes down to reader preferences. I simply don't like whats happened here and want the young Jon back in the end. I'm not able to settle for less or to accept this as the permanent status quo. And have every full intention of dropping the books until somebody, be it Bendis or the next writer fixes this and brings rescues the younger Jon. How to get that is almost clinical for me. As a reader I need the young Jon back.

I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm saying that it's a disservice all around.

But how does that make any sense? Jon's story is whatever the next issue says it is. There was no predetermined story beat that Bendis took Jon from. He was the new writer charged with continuing all of these characters' stories, and he did. And this isn't at all framed as Jon's origin but rather his coming of age. I'm not specifically calling you out, but this story moving it away from any predestination that fans had in mind isn't something it or any other writer is required to keep in mind. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by "his own story." Do you mean out of the Superman book for 5 issues? If that's the case, it's not actually his book. It's a book he's been known to be a part of, and even in Tomasi's run he's had whole arcs where Jon wasn't seen too.

That sounds like a justification for anything and everything. There's good in that that I can see, since obviously as you say the story is not limited by random preference... but is that really true, just whatever they decide to write? I try not to judge Bendis by say... his X-Men run where he did essentially the same kind of radical arcs by appealing to the absurdity of the canon to poor results, but that's contingent on the work he puts in here. Most of the nuances of explaining why Jon's original appeal has been put in traction are half explained. And by original appeal, I want to say the main point behind the subjective "what can or should be done." I think the clearest thing I can say is that liking him as he was created and maintained over these short years had nothing to do with what's being developed here.

Among other options, either they leave him (which I prefer) and this is just in his tapestry going forward or they regress. If they do leave him though, are they writing an established character or a character they like better?

[Superlad93]

I have thought of a small hole in the the time dilation theory though. The altered time rate also should apply to the Syndicate as well while they're in their home universe. Let's establish a theoretical time exchange rate. Jon was missing for a couple of months correct? If time flows at a rate of oh say 2 weeks on the Main Earth to 1 year on Earth 3, in a single main earth year, 26 years would have passed on Earth Three. Just how long ago or recent were these retconned invasion attempts of the crime syndicate onto the main earth? And how would this time dilation affect future use of them? The entire syndicate would collectively need a "get out of aging free" card. While some of them have built in explanations (Superwoman;Amazon immortality), others like say ,Owlman, don't. At the very least I'd expect their next use to establish some kind of equalization between time rates going forward. Not a big hole admittedly, but still worth considering.

I personally find Time Travel back in time to earth 3 in the past to still be the most likely answer given it's simplicity, and either the interview your talking about contained misinformation or it was misinterpreted. I guess we'll probably get more of a firm answer next month, but it really doesn't matter whichever he goes with from where I'm standing. Neither changes the fact this Jon spent his preteen and teenage years being tortured and either way we're stuck with one kind of time related obstacle or another. So I really couldn't care less.

All the more reason to have a Jon Kent solo book chronicling his adventures in space and Earth-3.

That sounds like a justification for anything and everything.

Well, yeah. More or less. American comics are a tapestry before anything. How Grant Morrison view Superman or Batman doesn't have to line up with how Alan Moore or Dan Jurgens views them.

I think the clearest thing I can say is that liking him as he was created and maintained over these short years had nothing to do with what's being developed here.

And in the name of moving towards a new story for the character, continuing an old one, or only taking bits from past work, that's the call made by DC and the writers working on the character.

To accept that and find the old character in it while seeing the new is a call made by you, me, and other readers. And specifically with a character as new and not Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman as Jon, he's still "cooking" and by the nature of being a child in comics is personifies the idea not being totally tethered to completely to his conception.

I myself still see that kid from Lois and Clark and Superman (2016) issue 1 in this guy. That's genuinely what made the moment where he escapes the volcano so cathartic and impacting for me. Him being cut off from the likes of his mom, Damian, and, most of all, his dad, yet digging deeper than he ever has before and rising to the occasion doesn't work for me unless I've read his story up to this point.

But if you didn't get the same take away, that's totally fine. I just don't think it's an inherent flaw in the the work because myself and others still came away with the feeling.

If they do leave him though, are they writing an established character or a character they like better?

If you asked, I'm not sure they'd see it that way. I don't at least, and I'm a well documented super fan of 10 year old Jon.

[Artemisfanboy]

I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm saying that it's a disservice all around.



That sounds like a justification for anything and everything. There's good in that that I can see, since obviously as you say the story is not limited by random preference... but is that really true, just whatever they decide to write? I try not to judge Bendis by say... his X-Men run where he did essentially the same kind of radical arcs by appealing to the absurdity of the canon to poor results, but that's contingent on the work he puts in here. Most of the nuances of explaining why Jon's original appeal has been put in traction are half explained. And by original appeal, I want to say the main point behind the subjective "what can or should be done." I think the clearest thing I can say is that liking him as he was created and maintained over these short years had nothing to do with what's being developed here.

Among other options, either they leave him (which I prefer) and this is just in his tapestry going forward or they regress. If they do leave him though, are they writing an established character or a character they like better?

Well, I consider what Bendis has done to him so far a greater disservice, and that rectifying that by finding someway to undo it worthwhile. And I understand even if we do get it undone we might still have long term damage to deal with. But it's that or nothing for me.

All the more reason to have a Jon Kent solo book chronicling his adventures in space and Earth-3.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not interested. Getting the younger Jon back will be non-negotiable selling term for me to come back to this continuity's Superman once I drop the book after unity wraps-up, if I don't decide quit earlier once the flashback part ends next month. If they keep the older version around alongside his younger counterpart, I wouldn't necessarily mind, and may even come to accept him as a separate character in time. But I need the younger Jon back first.

[Kuwagaton]

Well, yeah. More or less. American comics are a tapestry before anything. How Grant Morrison view Superman or Batman doesn't have to line up with how Alan Moore or Dan Jurgens views them.

A corporate tapestry, so the details are "within reason." Not that they really need whichever limitations, they haven't shown any indication of creating something distinctly different under the same guise. No one has to tell you which of their takes are Superman. Weirdly enough, Jurgens had his own Teen Jon about eight years in with the electric Superman, who didn't operate any differently or entertain permanence but still spoke to the point about radical, needless change.

And in the name of moving towards a new story for the character, continuing an old one, or only taking bits from past work, that's the call made by DC and the writers working on the character.

To accept that and find the old character in it while seeing the new is a call made by you, me, and other readers. And specifically with a character as new and not Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman as Jon, he's still "cooking" and by the nature of being a child in comics is personifies the idea not being totally tethered to completely to his conception.

I myself still see that kid from Lois and Clark and Superman (2016) issue 1 in this guy. That's genuinely what made the moment where he escapes the volcano so cathartic and impacting for me. Him being cut off from the likes of his mom, Damian, and, most of all, his dad, yet digging deeper than he ever has before and rising to the occasion doesn't work for me unless I've read his story up to this point.

But if you didn't get the same take away, that's totally fine. I just don't think it's an inherent flaw in the the work because myself and others still came away with the feeling.

I mostly left it up to my original response to Sacred to establish my acceptance of subjectivity. Why I bring up what has or hasn't worked isn't to determine what has to fail or succeed in the future, but saying that it's pretty easy to come away with the storytelling flaws paving the way for what we've seen before where results go. And those things you can say aren't even flaws, but I think it's an uphill battle of consensus if you're talking about a can of worms like Lois or the Kents general parenting which gets worse in hindsight as things build. They don't have to be perfect but I think many of us can agree that we can get a better explanation of how they're not.

[Slim Shady]

Thought this issue was great, actually! Bendis wrote a great Ultraman.

Jon having all these weird timey wimey adventures out in space, works really well tbh.

Yeah it does. Pretty fun. I loved how in either 7 or 8, Jon just bumps into Lobo in some space station. You’re on a weird trip through the galaxy with your kinda crazy granddad and one of the first beings you come across is Lobo