So the Kents are alive now?

[SiegePerilous02]

For the life of me, I'll never understand why Superman fans get so upset regarding the Kents being alive, especially their reasoning for why they're upset about it.

I'll just say one of the most poignant aspects of Superman's death in the early 90's was the reaction of the Kents losing their only son, and that I think the more supporting characters you can establish in a character's universe the better.

Doesn't Jonathan save Clark in the afterlife or something?
Wouldn't that have worked even better with him already being dead like the classic setup?

Martha still being alive could work, but I don't see the need for both of them. With Jonathan dead and Martha still around, it might give her the opportunity to actually be treated as a character and not just an extension of Jonathan. MOS was still more skewed towards Jonathan, but I appreciated Martha having more presence in the narrative than we typically saw at the time.

The funny part to me is how many Barry Allen fans scold Geoff Johns for killing off Barry's mother for "no reason except unnecessary tragedy", yet so many Superman fans want a middle-aged couple wiped out.

Fans are an interesting bunch...

Because the middle aged couple were dead first and were dead for a longer period than when they were alive, whereas killing off Nora Allen just seems like a random decision for needless grim darkness. Whereas we have more than enough evidence of Superman not being gratuitously dark when the Kents are dead, like the first 50 years or so of his existence.

[kingaliencracker]

Doesn't Jonathan save Clark in the afterlife or something?
Wouldn't that have worked even better with him already being dead like the classic setup?

The classic setup was Superman being raised in an orphanage, if you want to get technical.

As far as Jonathan saving Clark in the afterlife, that whole business was really left up to your interpretation. Maybe he saved Clark, or maybe he just had a very vivid, near-death dream. The scientific explanation for Clark's resurrection as provided in the comics was that the solar matrix he was placed in by the Eradicator jump started his cells.

Martha still being alive could work, but I don't see the need for both of them. With Jonathan dead and Martha still around, it might give her the opportunity to actually be treated as a character and not just an extension of Jonathan. MOS was still more skewed towards Jonathan, but I appreciated Martha having more presence in the narrative than we typically saw at the time.

I think going back through the history of comics and arguing that certain stories or setups were skewed towards male characters would be an unnecessary endeavor since no one would really argue with you.

Because the middle aged couple were dead first and were dead for a longer period than when they were alive, whereas killing off Nora Allen just seems like a random decision for needless grim darkness. Whereas we have more than enough evidence of Superman not being gratuitously dark when the Kents are dead, like the first 50 years or so of his existence.

Barry was dead for nearly 30 years. Most fans probably wouldn't really remember that Barry's parents were alive and well prior to his death in 1985. It's an unnecessary sticking point for fans that Geoff decided to make that change.

Again for me, it's weird that some Superman fans are so adamant that the Kents should be dead, but can't really provide an argument in favor of that other than "that's how it was for many years". As I stated, the Kents became most relevant and most interesting when they were kept alive. The more supporting characters you can establish with a main character, the better.

[SiegePerilous02]

The classic setup was Superman being raised in an orphanage, if you want to get technical.

And that got phased out faster than the Kents being dead.

I think going back through the history of comics and arguing that certain stories or setups were skewed towards male characters would be an unnecessary endeavor since no one would really argue with you.

No argument, but I guess I still don't feel very strongly towards Martha that I'm not too bothered by her being dead along with Jonathan.

Barry was dead for nearly 30 years. Most fans probably wouldn't really remember that Barry's parents were alive and well prior to his death in 1985. It's an unnecessary sticking point for fans that Geoff decided to make that change.

Again for me, it's weird that some Superman fans are so adamant that the Kents should be dead, but can't really provide an argument in favor of that other than "that's how it was for many years". As I stated, the Kents became most relevant and most interesting when they were kept alive. The more supporting characters you can establish with a main character, the better.

So with Barry's parents there was no precedent before the retcon, and it feels gratuitous especially for those who read the older stuff.

The post-Crisis fans can't really provide a reason for them being alive aside from "that's how it was for many years" either, or what is interesting about them being alive. Everything they do to establish the main character is covered by the origin. As a narrative, he does not need them beyond that point and there is potential for bad writers to use them as a crutch. I didn't grow up reading 90s Superman comics, but I did watch STAS as a kid and my parents watched Lois & Clark. I can't say the Kents left much of a strong impression on me compared to Lois, Jimmy, Lex, Brainiac, or even Mercy Graves. They were just this nice farm couple that Clark whined to sometimes.

[manwhohaseverything]

Again for me, it's weird that some Superman fans are so adamant that the Kents should be dead, but can't really provide an argument in favor of that other than "that's how it was for many years". As I stated, the Kents became most relevant and most interesting when they were kept alive. The more supporting characters you can establish with a main character, the better.

I also get an impression that(most of the time) , Superman fans don't seem to want superfamily to be vibrant and expansive like the bat or flash family. They seem to be just content with lonely clark. And clark not having more toys to play of him. Having more toys mean more dynamics and less need of constant shake ups that plague superbooks.
The bain of superman's existence is him being limited to just daily planet staff, smallville friends all the time.even kara wasn't there for a while in post crisis. I had this convo in another thread. Superman's world needs expanding, not shrinking that means as many support characters as possible. You can't just hide behind "superman is bad at family" excuse. Because even goku can do better. And clark even has a role model in pa,who is good at it.
Making the superfamily big and as relevant as possibly can would only increase superman as a brand's popularity. Since, you don't need to enjoy barry to be flash fan you can like wally, jay, bart.. Etc and You don't have to be a dick grayson fan to read a robin book. there will be more people coming into the books, with different tastes. Diversification only helps the brand not reduces its value. More fandoms within fandom.
Oh well! Atleast the editorial is giving importance to jimmy and lois now. Which is great, bendis is f--king fantastic at building superman's world. I will give him that, With all the books that are being connected to superman these days.

[kingaliencracker]

So with Barry's parents there was no precedent before the retcon, and it feels gratuitous especially for those who read the older stuff

I would imagine Johns would argue that he took a character in Nora who had absolutely no fan interest whatsoever and used her death to catapult the Flash/Reverse-Flash rivalry to a new level. Given how it's been adapted in outside media, it would be hard to argue with the results.

The post-Crisis fans can't really provide a reason for them being alive aside from "that's how it was for many years" either, or what is interesting about them being alive. Everything they do to establish the main character is covered by the origin. As a narrative, he does not need them beyond that point and there is potential for bad writers to use them as a crutch. I didn't grow up reading 90s Superman comics, but I did watch STAS as a kid and my parents watched Lois & Clark. I can't say the Kents left much of a strong impression on me compared to Lois, Jimmy, Lex, Brainiac, or even Mercy Graves. They were just this nice farm couple that Clark whined to sometimes.

I can bring up several reasons why the Kents being alive is more important than them being dead:

- They helped and continue to help establish Clark's secret identity.
- They took in Matrix, Conner, and Kara.
- Their depiction during the death/return arc gave that story a more emotional punch.
- They give Clark someone to confide in other than a floating ghost head in the Fortress.
- Their remaining alive helps eliminate unnecessary tragedy in Clark's life (I mean he lost an entire planet as a baby, does he really need to lose both his adopted parents before he's 30 too?).

Any character is only as good as the writer who uses them. But there were plenty of great stories involving the Kents in supporting roles in the 80's and 90's.

[manwhohaseverything]

I would imagine Johns would argue that he took a character in Nora who had absolutely no fan interest whatsoever and used her death to catapult the Flash/Reverse-Flash rivalry to a new level. Given how it's been adapted in outside media, it would be hard to argue with the results.



I can bring up several reasons why the Kents being alive is more important than them being dead:

- They helped and continue to help establish Clark's secret identity.
- They took in Matrix, Conner, and Kara.
- Their depiction during the death/return arc gave that story a more emotional punch.
- They give Clark someone to confide in other than a floating ghost head in the Fortress.
- They're remaining alive helps eliminate unnecessary tragedy in Clark's life (I mean he lost an entire planet as a baby, does he really need to lose both his adopted parents before he's 30 too?).

Any character is only as good as the writer who uses them. But there were plenty of great stories involving the Kents in supporting roles in the 80's and 90's.

There are also moments, like in the justice league nail series. where they took in beast boy, plastic man.. Etc into their home.they can be used as support for larger dcu. They also provide an optimistic feel to the larger dcu. If the kents are there kindness will follow. Their need for taking in strays can be really expanded on. Especially, with meta human xenophobia arcs and stories in dc.Not to mention, how they can be used like parental guide figures for the likes for bruce, titans..etc when they interact.

[SiegePerilous02]

I can bring up several reasons why the Kents being alive is more important than them being dead:

- They helped and continue to help establish Clark's secret identity.
- They took in Matrix, Conner, and Kara.
- Their depiction during the death/return arc gave that story a more emotional punch.
- They give Clark someone to confide in other than a floating ghost head in the Fortress.
- They're remaining alive helps eliminate unnecessary tragedy in Clark's life (I mean he lost an entire planet as a baby, does he really need to lose both his adopted parents before he's 30 too?).

Any character is only as good as the writer who uses them. But there were plenty of great stories involving the Kents in supporting roles in the 80's and 90's.

I don't have a strong opinion on the second and third points (aside from the fact that I don't care much for Matrix or Kon so their involvement in their stories isn't a big deal to me, and Kara has her own version of the Kents, the Danvers, so what does she need the Kents for?), but for the others:

- Clark is capable of establishing his secret identity and keeping it secret himself, and is more impressive when he does so.
- Instead of the Kents or the floaty head, he could have neither and use his other options: Pete and Lana, his JL colleagues (particularly Bats and WW, and to an extent, Dick Grayson through the former), KARA, the Legion, Krypto, and of course Lois after a certain point, arguably Perry and Jimmy since they know more than they let on. All of whom have more stuff going on than the Kents.
- It's not unnecessary, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted 50 years and off/on since then. We are also as modern readers conditioned to think of it as tragic because Batman has dead parents. Would you say the pre-Crisis Superman was a tragic character? No, you almost objectively can't.
Also the baby slept through the planet exploding and only learned about it when he was older and could process it and by that time he had an established life on Earth with more directly personal loved ones. Kara was more directly effected by it than he was, whether she grew up on Krypton or was born after its destruction but still lived within a chunk of their society floating through space.

[JAK]

.....I could roll with that. Dammit JAK, dont you make me change my opinion on dead Kents!

It's what I do. Seriously, DC/WB just needs to throw things our way and let us play with them until stuff like this comes out. Superman'd sell top numbers easily. hehe

Ooo I'll play (I admit it'd be powerful).

"A long time ago, I gave you to them. Now, I give them back to you."

If they did something like this I'd also show time being fixed and Jor-El being sent back moments before Krypton's destruction, only in that moment he retains the memories of the timeline in which he lived. And when he touches Lara's face, she's filled with visions of his memories of their son and his family, so she can know like Jor-El did what her son became. Then Krypton explodes.

I LOVE it! I still like the idea of Clark knowing they were gone, but in the end I'd be good with it either way. But those lines are perfect!

...

Ok, so two converts so far lol... who's next? rotflmao

*pitchforks activated*

Just want to say that I can't stop laughing at that. Still laughing now.

I can bring up several reasons why the Kents being alive is more important than them being dead:

I like those. I also just enjoy them as characters. That'd be the most important reason. There are a number of characters who don't serve a purpose that isn't filled somewhere else, but those particular characters are enjoyable (when written right).

There are also moments, like in the justice league nail series. where they took in beast boy, plastic man.. Etc into their home.they can be used as support for larger dcu. They also provide an optimistic feel to the larger dcu. If the kents are there kindness will follow. Their need for taking in strays can be really expanded on. Especially, with meta human xenophobia arcs and stories in dc.

Absolutely!

[kingaliencracker]

- Clark is capable of establishing his secret identity and keeping it secret himself, and is more impressive when he does so.

Sure he's capable. But what's wrong with him having help in the Kents?

- Instead of the Kents or the floaty head, he could have neither and use his other options: Pete and Lana, his JL colleagues (particularly Bats and WW, and to an extent, Dick Grayson through the former), KARA, the Legion, Krypto, and of course Lois after a certain point, arguably Perry and Jimmy since they know more than they let on. All of whom have more stuff going on than the Kents.

Because sometimes your mom and dad are more important than anyone else?

- It's not unnecessary, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted 50 years and off/on since then. We are also as modern readers conditioned to think of it as tragic because Batman has dead parents. Would you say the pre-Crisis Superman was a tragic character? No, you almost objectively can't.

I'm not going to get into the argument of "it was like that for 50 years" because if that's ultimately how you feel about it then nothing I say or do will change your mind.

Also the baby slept through the planet exploding and only learned about it when he was older and could process it and by that time he had an established life on Earth with more directly personal loved ones. Kara was more directly effected by it than he was, whether she grew up on Krypton or was born after its destruction but still lived within a chunk of their society floating through space.

The bottom line is that Superman was born from tragedy - his entire planet and race being destroyed. Whether he was a baby when that happened is irrelevant. The knowledge of that, even if it came later in his life, will undoubtedly have a profound effect on him. Keeping the Kents alive gives him a tether to his childhood and his humanity that I don't believe he can get from the other characters you mentioned. It's a grounding effect - no matter how big his world gets or how many times he goes to space or how many times he saves the Earth, he always has a farmhouse in Kansas to go home to.

Yeah sorry, I find that much more interesting than the Kents being dead just because it worked for 50 years.

[JAK]

The bottom line is that Superman was born from tragedy - his entire planet and race being destroyed. Whether he was a baby when that happened is irrelevant. The knowledge of that, even if it came later in his life, will undoubtedly have a profound effect on him. Keeping the Kents alive gives him a tether to his childhood and his humanity that I don't believe he can get from the other characters you mentioned. It's a grounding effect - no matter how big his world gets or how many times he goes to space or how many times he saves the Earth, he always has a farmhouse in Kansas to go home to.

Yeah sorry, I find that much more interesting than the Kents being dead just because it worked for 50 years.

I think there's more to it than "it worked for 50 years." Done right, it can be very powerful for the character. I can see why people would have that preference. I just don't share that preference - I prefer them to be alive and think they have something to offer Superman and the DCU as characters (again, if written correctly).

[manwhohaseverything]

I don't have a strong opinion on the second and third points (aside from the fact that I don't care much for Matrix or Kon so their involvement in their stories isn't a big deal to me, and Kara has her own version of the Kents, the Danvers, so what does she need the Kents for?), but for the others:

- Clark is capable of establishing his secret identity and keeping it secret himself, and is more impressive when he does so.
- Instead of the Kents or the floaty head, he could have neither and use his other options: Pete and Lana, his JL colleagues (particularly Bats and WW, and to an extent, Dick Grayson through the former), KARA, the Legion, Krypto, and of course Lois after a certain point, arguably Perry and Jimmy since they know more than they let on. All of whom have more stuff going on than the Kents.
- It's not unnecessary, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted 50 years and off/on since then. We are also as modern readers conditioned to think of it as tragic because Batman has dead parents. Would you say the pre-Crisis Superman was a tragic character? No, you almost objectively can't.
Also the baby slept through the planet exploding and only learned about it when he was older and could process it and by that time he had an established life on Earth with more directly personal loved ones. Kara was more directly effected by it than he was, whether she grew up on Krypton or was born after its destruction but still lived within a chunk of their society floating through space.

why have kents in his back story at all, if it wasn't to have 'how sad' moment? Just, let him be from the orphanage.Kents are important to only superboy and his upbringing . And having them die before he became a man doesn't change anything, by your logic.it shouldn't change much with them. So, why the obsessive need for dead parents?
The tragedy is clark never got to feel his parents love, never got to smell a flower from his native world, never got to feel the soil of his home world beneath his feet. The tragedy is he will never know, what he missed out on. Some tragedies are about things we didn't know we lost. like wolverine's memories and the relationships he lost.

[SiegePerilous02]

Sure he's capable. But what's wrong with him having help in the Kents?

If he's getting help, he's not as capable of doing it on his own.

Because sometimes your mom and dad are more important than anyone else?

Sometimes, but again we have enough precedence for him having other people to turn to that it works either way and the Kents doing it isn't some dramatic shift that improves the mythos.

I'm not going to get into the argument of "it was like that for 50 years" because if that's ultimately how you feel about it then nothing I say or do will change your mind.

Fair, but I don't think I can change your mind either if it's going to be "they were alive for 20 something years and it worked."

The bottom line is that Superman was born from tragedy - his entire planet and race being destroyed. Whether he was a baby when that happened is irrelevant. The knowledge of that, even if it came later in his life, will undoubtedly have a profound effect on him. Keeping the Kents alive gives him a tether to his childhood and his humanity that I don't believe he can get from the other characters you mentioned. It's a grounding effect - no matter how big his world gets or how many times he goes to space or how many times he saves the Earth, he always has a farmhouse in Kansas to go home to.

Yeah sorry, I find that much more interesting than the Kents being dead just because it worked for 50 years.

I don't find the character needing "tethers" or "grounding" is very interesting, and has actually been kind of detrimental. He doesn't need them to be physically present to be connected to humanity. He is alien, so he isn't 100% like us, but he has a lot of inherent humanity to him because of them. But it's more effective, IMO, if he has the conviction to hold onto it without them physically there to remind him of it. Because needing them, or Lois, there to "ground" him is the thinking that leads to stuff like Injustice Superman or Snyder's botched DCEU arc, where removing them leads to evil/weak willed mind controlled Superman who has no more ties to humanity. And the farmhouse leads to the "Naive Farm Boy" perception, which totally sucks. And hell in the old stories, they sold the farm and moved into town.

I'm sorry, I just don't find the setup very interesting just because it worked in the post-Crisis setup for a time. That's not my era, and I think the character shouldn't be attached to that era because, as all things do, its time has come and gone.

why have kents in his back story at all, if it wasn't to have 'how sad' moment? Just, let him be from the orphanage.Kents are important to only superboy and his upbringing . And having them die before he became a man doesn't change anything, by your logic.it shouldn't change much with them. So, why the obsessive need for dead parents?

I feel like you know enough of what I'm talking about that you don't need to go with these extremes. You know nobody here is asking for them to be removed entirely or not wanting any stories told about them in a certain period.
Why the obsessive need for living Kents from some of you
Like JAK said there is a though process for prefering both takes. Ultimately nostalgia for certain eras, either the pre-Crisis or post-Crisis, still plays a part in what we like though. I wasn't alive for the pre-Crisis era, but it appeals to me a great deal more, and I associate living Kents with the era of Superman that never appealed to me too much as a kid compared to other characters.

The tragedy is clark never got to feel his parents love, never got to smell a flower from his native world, never got to feel the soil of his home world beneath his feet. The tragedy is he will never know, what he missed out on. Some tragedies are about things we didn't know we lost. like wolverine's memories and the relationships he lost.

Krypton is a tragedy. I think using the word "tragedy" to describe the death of the Kents, depending on the version, is a bit much. Loved ones leaving us is just life.
Also, both sets of his parents were dead during the era when he and his cast were doing the goofiest **** imaginable, so there really isn't much support for both parents being dead overdoing it as far as darkness goes.

[kingaliencracker]

If he's getting help, he's not as capable of doing it on his own.

That's just silly thinking. Just because you can do something on your own doesn't mean it isn't beneficial to get help if it's available.

Sometimes, but again we have enough precedence for him having other people to turn to that it works either way and the Kents doing it isn't some dramatic shift that improves the mythos.

So what does it hurt to have the Kents around as more people for him to turn to?

Fair, but I don't think I can change your mind either if it's going to be "they were alive for 20 something years and it worked."

That's not really how I feel, though. I've been following Superman for 30 years. I've read plenty of comic books and seen plenty of movies/television shows that depicted the Kents both alive and dead (or Martha alive with Jonathan dead). I've enjoyed depictions where they've died (All Star Superman, Morrison's Action run, Superman the Movie, Man of Steel) and I've disliked depictions where they've lived (Lois & Clark). Currently they've both been dead for 8 years and I've still read Superman comic books, to varying degrees of like and dislike.

I just believe there's been more interesting stories and more relevance to them being depicted as alive versus dead. And their original deaths in the Silver Age was beyond silly.

I don't find the character needing "tethers" or "grounding" is very interesting, and has actually been kind of detrimental. He doesn't need them to be physically present to be connected to humanity. He is alien, so he isn't 100% like us, but he has a lot of inherent humanity to him because of them. But it's more effective, IMO, if he has the conviction to hold onto it without them physically there to remind him of it. Because needing them, or Lois, there to "ground" him is the thinking that leads to stuff like Injustice Superman or Snyder's botched DCEU arc, where removing them leads to evil/weak willed mind controlled Superman who has no more ties to humanity. And the farmhouse leads to the "Naive Farm Boy" perception, which totally sucks. And hell in the old stories, they sold the farm and moved into town.

I'm sorry, I just don't find the setup very interesting just because it worked in the post-Crisis setup for a time. That's not my era, and I think the character shouldn't be attached to that era because, as all things do, its time has come and gone.

Well, it appears then we've both made our points and we're at an impasse.

[JAK]

If he's getting help, he's not as capable of doing it on his own.

Having a sounding board from time to time doesn't mean he's not capable. Half the time, they told him what he already knew. He's capable. Some writers just got lazy over time and made them "Wilson" from "Home Improvement", lol. That's not how they should be used.

Sometimes, but again we have enough precedence for him having other people to turn to that it works either way and the Kents doing it isn't some dramatic shift that improves the mythos.

No, but it doesn't inherently hurt it, either. Besides, it doesn't have to always be about him "going to them" for something. That reduces them to a plot device, and I'm not a fan of that. They have much more to offer as characters in their own right.

Fair, but I don't think I can change your mind either if it's going to be "they were alive for 20 something years and it worked."

That's not really what's been presented, though. Much as the reverse was also not what was presented.

I don't find the character needing "tethers" or "grounding" is very interesting, and has actually been kind of detrimental. He doesn't need them to be physically present to be connected to humanity. He is alien, so he isn't 100% like us, but he has a lot of inherent humanity to him because of them. But it's more effective, IMO, if he has the conviction to hold onto it without them physically there to remind him of it. Because needing them, or Lois, there to "ground" him is the thinking that leads to stuff like Injustice Superman or Snyder's botched DCEU arc, where removing them leads to evil/weak willed mind controlled Superman who has no more ties to humanity. And the farmhouse leads to the "Naive Farm Boy" perception, which totally sucks. And hell in the old stories, they sold the farm and moved into town.

I'm sorry, I just don't find the setup very interesting just because it worked in the post-Crisis setup for a time. That's not my era, and I think the character shouldn't be attached to that era because, as all things do, its time has come and gone.

I see this differently. I agree that he doesn't need them for a grounding effect. He'd still have it in himself if they're gone, at least in any decent mainstream interpretation. Them being alive does have a grounding effect from a narrative standpoint, though, which isn't the same thing. If that makes any sense. I'm not even saying I want them in every story - there are very few characters I want to see in every story (besides Clark) - only that, depending on the story, that's an effect they potentially have on it.

Like JAK said there is a though process for prefering both takes. Ultimately nostalgia for certain eras, either the pre-Crisis or post-Crisis, still plays a part in what we like though. I wasn't alive for the pre-Crisis era, but it appeals to me a great deal more, and I associate living Kents with the era of Superman that never appealed to me too much as a kid compared to other characters.

That'd certainly have at least a bit to do with it. I enjoyed their usage mostly (at least early on), and if they can have a similar characterization, that'd be fun. I'm reluctant to put it fully in nostalgia, though, because I like the narrative prospects as much as anything.

Krypton is a tragedy. I think using the word "tragedy" to describe the death of the Kents, depending on the version, is a bit much. Loved ones leaving us is just life.
Also, both sets of his parents were dead during the era when he and his cast were doing the goofiest **** imaginable, so there really isn't much support for both parents being dead overdoing it as far as darkness goes.

Yep - it all comes down to execution. I can live with them being gone, but my preference is for them to be back.

[Sacred Knight]

Again for me, it's weird that some Superman fans are so adamant that the Kents should be dead, but can't really provide an argument in favor of that other than "that's how it was for many years". As I stated, the Kents became most relevant and most interesting when they were kept alive. The more supporting characters you can establish with a main character, the better.

With all due respect, we've all provided reasons that go beyond just "it was the classic status quo". That's been a large part of the discussion. If you missed them, fine, but they're there. To disagree or agree with as the individual sees fit of course, but its just blatantly off to say that no one can provide an argument why.