So the Kents are alive now?

[Sacred Knight]

I don't think he was insinuating the Kents being alive killed the show, rather its just not the greatest example overall to show of certain concepts working or not. It just didn't last long enough in the scheme of things. I mean for a tv show, 4 seasons is fine. But I mean, this is a character that even then was on the far side of 100 years old. In those terms its really a blip on the radar. Not a bad thing by any stretch, just hard to look at anything within it and say "it doing this is proof of this". Likewise its pretty impossible to prove them being alive was one of the reasons it did last said four years.

[Jon Clark]

It lasted 4 seasons and the frog clone Lois fiasco plus switching days and time slots around the 4th season was what killed the show, not the Kents being alive.
The show was very popular up until that point. So that proves it worked out well up until that point in time. If anything the Kents being alive was one of the
reasons for the show's popularity.

I don't know that the Kents being alive had any effect on the ratings at all. If they had just used the Kents in the pilot and then for the most part dropped them I suspect the ratings needle would stay about the same over the run of the series. It pretty much rose and fell on the chemistry between the two stars with all the other stuff being window dressing.

[DochaDocha]

Lois and Clark lasted 4 seasons and the frog clone Lois fiasco plus switching days and time slots around the 4th season was what killed the show, not the Kents being alive.
The show was very popular up until that point. So that proves it worked out well up until that point in time. If anything the Kents being alive was one of the
reasons for the show's popularity. Lois and Clark had an average of around 18 million viewers the from season one until season three. In season 4 the show
dropped to 12 million viewers and the last three episodes of season 4 had dropped to 4.5 million viewers. If the Kents being alive were the problem, why did it
take 4 years to make it self known?

It worked for a certain audience, sure. L&C was aiming for, what, the 18-49 audience who enjoy romantic TV dramas, largely people who don't care about Superman or superheroes in general?

I think shows can do what they want, and aren't necessarily beholden to what happens to comics and other media, but as a consequence I ended up liking the show less than other Superman stories. Superman's insecurity in his relationship(s) is what the show was trying to sell, and I'd rather we leaned away from that. And to be fair, it's not just L&C that goes for that theme. Movies like Superman Unbound went for that angle, too, and not coincidentally that was my least favorite animated Superman movie since 2007.

[kingaliencracker]

I don't think he was insinuating the Kents being alive killed the show, rather its just not the greatest example overall to show of certain concepts working or not. It just didn't last long enough in the scheme of things. I mean for a tv show, 4 seasons is fine. But I mean, this is a character that even then was on the far side of 100 years old. In those terms its really a blip on the radar. Not a bad thing by any stretch, just hard to look at anything within it and say "it doing this is proof of this". Likewise its pretty impossible to prove them being alive was one of the reasons it did last said four years.

The counter to that argument is that Smallville's best, top-rated seasons (1-5) had both Kents alive, and Smallville is probably the most popular version of the Kents from a mass audience perspective.

[DochaDocha]

The counter to that argument is that Smallville's best, top-rated seasons (1-5) had both Kents alive, and Smallville is probably the most popular version of the Kents from a mass audience perspective.

I think we could universally say that fans want to see the Kents alive for at least some portion of Clark Kent's formative years. Once he's a grown man and actively being Superman, whether fans want the Kents alive comes into question.

[kingaliencracker]

I think we could universally say that fans want to see the Kents alive for at least some portion of Clark Kent's formative years. Once he's a grown man and actively being Superman, whether fans want the Kents alive comes into question.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison for sure.

However, if the Kents were popular and useful for 5 seasons in Smallville, I don't understand the rationale in how they can't still be useful for Clark later in his life. To hear some people talk here, parents are absolutely useless once you turn 18-years-old. It makes me sympathetic for how bad some of their childhoods must have been.

[JAK]

I started comics with Post Crisis Supes. I grew up with living Kents in the DCAU and in the comics. Yet that’s not the status quo I prefer for Supes at all, even as someone who didn’t enjoy the New 52 era of Superman besides Morrison, and who didn’t start getting into Pre-Crisis Supes until recently. I feel that dead Kents make the character stronger for reason I’ve already said in this thread.

Conversely a lot of the pro-Kents camp seem to just want them to be back “for the feels”. Just because “oh it would be so cute to see Jon with his grandparents!” which yeah it might but what’s the story? What story is there with the Kents being alive? The back end of the Tomasi run shows that “cute moments” can’t sustain an ongoing for long. Happiness can get as boring as grimdarkness after a while. The Kents can’t be anything other than the perfect moral guardians so the stories you can tell with them are painfully limited in scope.

But "the feels" are also character moments, or they can be. And for me, character is paramount - what happens isn't as important as how the characters react to said happening, etc. I'm up for 10 straight issues of "Superman's most boring week ever" as long as the characterization is there and said characters move the plot along. Mostly because it's preferable to 10 issues of non-stop action where it's basically an X-man in a Super-suit calling himself Clark. (just as a "for instance"). More on this below, as it pertains to the same basic point:

But is it how they will be used? For all the "there are no bad characters, only bad writers" arguments, I've seen the creative teams for the last 40+ years and think some characters and concepts are just too easy to abuse. Adult Clark using the Kents as a sounding board being one of them. We have 22 pages an issue and having Clark pop by the Kent farm for a pep-talk to me is a waste of them. If Superman already has the answer, then I want him to just do the thing already. If he doesn't then I'd prefer he discover it through a process other than asking the Kents (or Lois) as it makes them the star of that story in my mind.

Story ideas have already been provided earlier in the thread, but them being caretakers of a sort of "superhero halfway house" is not a bad one. Some friction between them and Sam Lane could be good. Them travelling can bring a set-up for all kinds of stories, etc. Is their scope more limited than Jimmy/Lois? Sure. But they have more to do than Steve Lombard, certainly, and he's ok to be not dead, so I don't see it as a major issue.

Also, there seems to be the impression that they'd have to be in every issue, and I don't get that either. I don't see them as characters that we'd see often - it'd just depend on the story. After all, how many issues did we go without seeing Jimmy not too long ago, and he's a main supporting character?

I also agree that "sounding board" is also too often used. Again, as a "sometimes" thing, I like it. Everybody needs more than a few people they can do that with, it doesn't make them weak. But even then, it doesn't have to be all the time. I'd personally save it for the more personal issues (like when this whole "the universe is forcing Clark and Lois together and they're figuring it all out" thing comes to a head).

In addition, now that I think about it... having them dead means that, due to space limitations, most of what we'd have to see from them in Clark's memories (that'd be relevant) would be in their "sounding board" position. Unless it's a major story, set in the past. So by that measure, you get more mileage out of them if they can interact in the here-and-now.

Except that most writers have as much ability to give the Kents a role outside of "wisdom dispensers" as they do of having Lois be both "mother" and "reporter". The few with talent don't IMO counter balance the abundance of others using the characters badly.

If we're doing this to make it easy on bad writers, though, we'd have to kill Lois and just make Superman the Injustice villain in the mainstream comics - or just cancel both Super-books altogether. I'm pushing that for a tiny bit of hyperbole, but you get my point.

I did enjoy the story about Clark trying to balance their anniversary with his duties in Metropolis. Their scenes in Funeral for a Friend were great. If they were used like that I'd enjoy it.

Me, too! That's how I want them used. Heck, having Lois go to them more often than Clark could be kinda fun. Sharing stories of "what we/I did when he did X" could be a real hoot on nearly the level of the Lois/Selena in the Fortress story.

But the counterbalance is Martha in the last few Superman movies. Or Death of Clark Kent. I don't want to have them come back just to be pawns to drive Clark in directions for plot purposes. Or to have Superman shown as a clueless basketcase who only becomes a her after Mom and Dad impart their wisdom.

For the last Superman movies, Martha is the least of my worries, lol - my counterbalance is how they wrote Clark himself, imo. Back to Ma and Pa, I don't mind the plot device or wisdom stuff, as long as it's got solid character drive behind it and isn't more than 40% of what we see out of them.

The fact that there are long stretches of continuity in which the Kents are alive as well as not alive means that you can compare the different scenarios and figure out, on average, which you prefer.

Yep!

I don't think he was insinuating the Kents being alive killed the show, rather its just not the greatest example overall to show of certain concepts working or not. It just didn't last long enough in the scheme of things. I mean for a tv show, 4 seasons is fine. But I mean, this is a character that even then was on the far side of 100 years old. In those terms its really a blip on the radar. Not a bad thing by any stretch, just hard to look at anything within it and say "it doing this is proof of this". Likewise its pretty impossible to prove them being alive was one of the reasons it did last said four years.

I agree that it's not a strong example, one way or another. I will say that they were integral to the setup of the show, seeing how this was Clark's origin and first few years (since, L&C's highly uneven execution aside, haven't people been saying they don't want Superman to have it all figured out right away? Just saying.)

[The World]

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison for sure.

However, if the Kents were popular and useful for 5 seasons in Smallville, I don't understand the rationale in how they can't still be useful for Clark later in his life. To hear some people talk here, parents are absolutely useless once you turn 18-years-old. It makes me sympathetic for how bad some of their childhoods must have been.

And yet his creators created him with the Kents dead and the character was so successful that people ripped him off left, right, and center including the most popular character of the modern era Batman. If we're going to sling around "proof" that a concept works I don't see why two tv shows are valid but the decades of work that went into building the character up into what was at one point one of the most significant fictional creations of the the 20th century are not. The 50 years you don't like hearing about come straight from the veins of the character when he was at his peak.

[Ascended]

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

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

Okay, if DC lets you write Superman and you run this story I'll be all over it. But it'll take something equally genius to change my mind on the Kents.

And if DC does let you write Superman, see if you can't get me in as your editor.

[Vordan]

But "the feels" are also character moments, or they can be. And for me, character is paramount - what happens isn't as important as how the characters react to said happening, etc. I'm up for 10 straight issues of "Superman's most boring week ever" as long as the characterization is there and said characters move the plot along. Mostly because it's preferable to 10 issues of non-stop action where it's basically an X-man in a Super-suit calling himself Clark. (just as a "for instance"). More on this below, as it pertains to the same basic point:



Story ideas have already been provided earlier in the thread, but them being caretakers of a sort of "superhero halfway house" is not a bad one. Some friction between them and Sam Lane could be good. Them travelling can bring a set-up for all kinds of stories, etc. Is their scope more limited than Jimmy/Lois? Sure. But they have more to do than Steve Lombard, certainly, and he's ok to be not dead, so I don't see it as a major issue.

Also, there seems to be the impression that they'd have to be in every issue, and I don't get that either. I don't see them as characters that we'd see often - it'd just depend on the story. After all, how many issues did we go without seeing Jimmy not too long ago, and he's a main supporting character?

I also agree that "sounding board" is also too often used. Again, as a "sometimes" thing, I like it. Everybody needs more than a few people they can do that with, it doesn't make them weak. But even then, it doesn't have to be all the time. I'd personally save it for the more personal issues (like when this whole "the universe is forcing Clark and Lois together and they're figuring it all out" thing comes to a head).

In addition, now that I think about it... having them dead means that, due to space limitations, most of what we'd have to see from them in Clark's memories (that'd be relevant) would be in their "sounding board" position. Unless it's a major story, set in the past. So by that measure, you get more mileage out of them if they can interact in the here-and-now.



If we're doing this to make it easy on bad writers, though, we'd have to kill Lois and just make Superman the Injustice villain in the mainstream comics - or just cancel both Super-books altogether. I'm pushing that for a tiny bit of hyperbole, but you get my point.



Me, too! That's how I want them used. Heck, having Lois go to them more often than Clark could be kinda fun. Sharing stories of "what we/I did when he did X" could be a real hoot on nearly the level of the Lois/Selena in the Fortress story.



For the last Superman movies, Martha is the least of my worries, lol - my counterbalance is how they wrote Clark himself, imo. Back to Ma and Pa, I don't mind the plot device or wisdom stuff, as long as it's got solid character drive behind it and isn't more than 40% of what we see out of them.



Yep!



I agree that it's not a strong example, one way or another. I will say that they were integral to the setup of the show, seeing how this was Clark's origin and first few years (since, L&C's highly uneven execution aside, haven't people been saying they don't want Superman to have it all figured out right away? Just saying.)

Fair enough that you feel that way but I don’t believe the majority of people feel the same as you do. When Tomasi took the Kents on a family vacation trip, I didn’t really have too much of a problem with the characterization (although there were a few points). It was warm feels and wholesome fun. It was also incredibly boring and dull and that’s when sales started to drop. People are not sticking around for 10 issues of “feel-good filler” they just won’t. It’s why I think you’re better off leaving them as flashbacks of inspiration.

[kingaliencracker]

And yet his creators created him with the Kents dead and the character was so successful that people ripped him off left, right, and center including the most popular character of the modern era Batman. If we're going to sling around "proof" that a concept works I don't see why two tv shows are valid but the decades of work that went into building the character up into what was at one point one of the most significant fictional creations of the the 20th century are not. The 50 years you don't like hearing about come straight from the veins of the character when he was at his peak.

Actually, and as I mentioned previously, Action Comics #1 established that Superman was raised in an orphanage after he was found by "passing motorists". And to say that Bill Finger and Bob Kane ripped off Superman by killing the Waynes off? Come on, even you know that's not true. The two don't even equate. The death of the Kents had no influence on Superman becoming a hero, whereas the Waynes' deaths were the major catalyst for Bruce to become Batman. The two had nothing in common. Further, in the two primary adaptations developed for the masses - The Adventures of Superman television series and Superman: The Movie - they didn't even kill both parents off!

Superman has been a continuously evolving character for the majority of his existence. So to harp on the notion that because "it worked" from circa 1939 until 1986 (which isn't even entirely accurate itself considering that Superman comics experienced a significant sales decrease from the 1970's up to the reboot necessitating major changes to the mythology such as the Kents living into Clark's adulthood) is silly to me.

[SiegePerilous02]

To be fair, I was responding to one fan in particular who stated repeatedly that "it worked for 50 years". If you felt that my response was blanket or all encompassing then I apologize.

I brought up other points, but you disagreed. Which is fine.

But it's not that different than saying it worked for some 90s stories over and over again. Ultimately both takes have an extended usage, enough for fans to determine what the prefer. But saying stuff like it adds unnecessary tragedy to Clark seems a bit much when it worked just fine without going over the top with the tragedy in the old school comics.

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison for sure.

However, if the Kents were popular and useful for 5 seasons in Smallville, I don't understand the rationale in how they can't still be useful for Clark later in his life. To hear some people talk here, parents are absolutely useless once you turn 18-years-old. It makes me sympathetic for how bad some of their childhoods must have been.

That's awfully personal when discussing the status of afictional set of superhero parents, isn't it? None of us should be examining what each others childhoods were like over silly stuff like this. It's just comic books.

And by the logic of thinking parents are useless when we turn 18 years old, some of us would be clamoring for Hippolyta to bite the dust. You don't see that, do you? No, because Wonder Woman (for example) has a different classic set up than Superman.

And a parental figure like Hippolyta has more potential to add to an ongoing narrative than the Kents do past the origin stories, IMO, so it's a case by case basis for each narrative.

[Vordan]

Actually, and as I mentioned previously, Action Comics #1 established that Superman was raised in an orphanage after he was found by "passing motorists". And to say that Bill Finger and Bob Kane ripped off Superman by killing the Waynes off? Come on, even you know that's not true. The two don't even equate. The death of the Kents had no influence on Superman becoming a hero, whereas the Waynes' deaths were the major catalyst for Bruce to become Batman. The two had nothing in common. Further, in the two primary adaptations developed for the masses - The Adventures of Superman television series and Superman: The Movie - they didn't even kill both parents off!

Superman has been a continuously evolving character for the majority of his existence. So to harp on the notion that because "it worked" from circa 1939 until 1986 (which isn't even entirely accurate itself considering that Superman comics experienced a significant sales decrease from the 1970's up to the reboot necessitating major changes to the mythology such as the Kents living into Clark's adulthood) is silly to me.

I mean that was exactly why the New 52 reboot happened as well. Post-Crisis Superman in particular was in the toilet around the time they rebooted, and the New 52, initially, was a huge boost to his and DC as a wholes sales. And the Kents were dead again there.

[kingaliencracker]

I brought up other points, but you disagreed. Which is fine.

But it's not that different than saying it worked for some 90s stories over and over again. Ultimately both takes have an extended usage, enough for fans to determine what the prefer. But saying stuff like it adds unnecessary tragedy to Clark seems a bit much when it worked just fine without going over the top with the tragedy in the old school comics.

Actually, I brought up several stories, moments, and uses of the Kents post-Crisis that not only showed their usefulness but also their importance to Clark's life as an adult. What I'm hearing in response to that is that the Kents are "boring" or "a crutch" or "unnecessary" or "not how it used to be". For me, those aren't strong points in favor of that position but rather just indicating the preference of the poster. Which is totally fine, mind you. But it doesn't change the fact that the Kents have been useful to Clark as Superman despite statements otherwise. Again, it just depends on the writer and how they're used. I'm not asking for a Kents ongoing. It's strange enough we have a Lois and Jimmy series now.

That's awfully personal when discussing the status of afictional set of superhero parents, isn't it? None of us should be examining what each others childhoods were like over silly stuff like this. It's just comic books.

And by the logic of thinking parents are useless when we turn 18 years old, some of us would be clamoring for Hippolyta to bite the dust. You don't see that, do you? No, because Wonder Woman (for example) has a different classic set up than Superman.

And a parental figure like Hippolyta has more potential to add to an ongoing narrative than the Kents do past the origin stories, IMO, so it's a case by case basis for each narrative.

Relax friend, it was a joke. I just find humor in fans arguing how unnecessary parents are.

[kingaliencracker]

I mean that was exactly why the New 52 reboot happened as well. Post-Crisis Superman in particular was in the toilet around the time they rebooted, and the New 52, initially, was a huge boost to his and DC as a wholes sales. And the Kents were dead again there.

Jonathan was already dead when The New 52 occurred. And Superman sales dropped to below their pre-52 numbers as soon as Morrison left.