Will Doomsday Clock give us an answer to why Jor-El is in the present ?

[Cmbmool]

In Doomsday Clock #10 we see Dr. Manhattan and his interference in the DCU and Superman's history, but it seems that they left out a bigger question: WHY DID DR. MANHATTAN SAVED JOR-EL FROM KRYPTON EXPLODING ?

Shouldn't that question be answered in Doomsday Clock ?

[MajorHoy]

In Doomsday Clock #10 we see Dr. Manhattan and his interference in the DCU and Superman's history, but it seems that they left out a bigger question: WHY DID DR. MANHATTAN SAVED JOR-EL FROM KRYPTON EXPLODING ?

Shouldn't that question be answered in Doomsday Clock?

Who knows?

Was that something Geoff Johns came up with himself, or was the Superman-side of things responsible for that head-scratcher?

If it turns out Johns didn't come up with it, should he be the one stuck explaining it?

[Sacred Knight]

It was Johns. Mr Oz was properly introduced during his New 52 Superman run. Tying it into Doomsday Clock and all that jazz was obviously much later developments, but the core concept was his.

[Ascended]

It might be explained in Clock. It was Johns' idea, after all so it'd make sense for him to be the one to wrap it up. But plans at DC have changed, and we know that Bendis worked with Johns (among others) in crafting his run so I could see this particular subplot being shifted from Clock to Bendis' Superman.

Time will tell I guess.

[MajorHoy]

While I know Johns was using "Mr. Oz", I didn't know if the fact that he was really Jor-El came from Geoff Johns himself or not. (It did seem a bit bizarre.)

[Sacred Knight]

Well, the line is that Mr. Oz was always intended to be Jor-El. Which would mean it was Johns' idea. Of course, "it was always the plan" is an oft used cliche even when actually not true, so there's always that to consider. Not to mention even if it was always intended to be Jor-El, during the New 52 who knows if it was intended to be the Jor-El from that reality. So a couple provisos, but just based on what's been said and what can be proven, I think its at least reasonable to give the credit (or discredit?) to Johns here, unless we ever hear otherwise.