The Kents - Dead or Alive?

[Sacred Knight]

I agree, they didn't start retconning things right away. What I will say though is that very early on, they started having to manufacture ways to bring in reasonable facsimiles of classic concepts. These were not retcons, they were new versions of old ideas, but to me it was the sign that there were mistakes made in the wholesale changes originally. The need to find a new way to bring in a Supergirl. To find a new way to bring in a General Zod. To find a way for the Legion to have a Superboy on the team. Stuff like that were clear signs to me that they knew early on they screwed up by mandating so much of his classic lore removed, in that very early they created new ways to bring them back while still trying to stay true to said mandates. And virtually all of them paled in comparison to the original concepts.

[oldschoolfan]

That's part of a more general problem. Call it the "Injustice Effect" (though my first encounter with it was probably the cartoon episode "Brave New Metropolis") where if Superman doesn't have some loved one's presence keeping him in check, he's at risk of going mad.

I'm totally in the dead Kents camp, but I could at least acknowledge that if Superman were surrounded by people who knew him intimately, he'd probably be better socially adjusted than if he had to hide being Superman from every living soul. It just seems that if stories about secret identities almost demand for someone to be in on the secret. Of course, Lois has been in on the secret for about 28 years, New 52 notwithstanding, so she fills that role.

I see your point, and I can see how the situation would work if they were deceased. But there is another thing going on, for me, one of the most dramatic moments in Superman (vol2) #75 was the page where the Kents were hugging each other after seeing their son die on television. It adds a personal dimension to the proceedings, like the parent of the athlete that is making his professional debut.

[DochaDocha]

I see your point, and I can see how the situation would work if they were deceased. But there is another thing going on, for me, one of the most dramatic moments in Superman (vol2) #75 was the page where the Kents were hugging each other after seeing their son die on television. It adds a personal dimension to the proceedings, like the parent of the athlete that is making his professional debut.

I agree. The Death of Superman story is more emotional if you see his parents mourning him.

[oldschoolfan]

I agree, they didn't start retconning things right away. What I will say though is that very early on, they started having to manufacture ways to bring in reasonable facsimiles of classic concepts. These were not retcons, they were new versions of old ideas, but to me it was the sign that there were mistakes made in the wholesale changes originally. The need to find a new way to bring in a Supergirl. To find a new way to bring in a General Zod. To find a way for the Legion to have a Superboy on the team. Stuff like that were clear signs to me that they knew early on they screwed up by mandating so much of his classic lore removed, in that very early they created new ways to bring them back while still trying to stay true to said mandates. And virtually all of them paled in comparison to the original concepts.

I don't think that because they updated characters it was an admission that they screwed up. I actually think it was part of the plan all along. Go back and read the last Supergirl story in Superman. Do you really want her married? They brought Supergirl back as Matrix because they thought it was an interesting way to tell a story.

The fact that some believe that the newer versions "paled in comparison" is a matter of opinion. It's why we post here at CBR! ;-)

You really want to propagate the Abominible Snowman/Dr. Phonenix continuity? I loved that story, but its wonky. Or how is Vartox going to go over in the #metoo generation?

[Sacred Knight]

Oh I'm not suggesting every pre-Crisis idea should've been brought back. There were indeed some things just too silly or counter-productive that they weren't really needed anymore. We certainly didn't need the sheer amount of Superman analogues that eventually were around by the end, for example. I just think they went too far in the other direction, the mandates were way too strong, and that they fundamentally hurt a lot of the charm of his past vast lore.

[Vordan]

Yeah I much prefer the Post-Crisis Lois to the Pre-Crisis one aside from some of the early Golden Age Siegel and Shuster Lois & Clark stories. She got butchered pretty badly during the Silver Age, and I never liked Superman gaslighting her for giggles. Obviously the Pre-Crisis stories aren’t meant to be taken seriously but it’s still a characterization best left behind. So I do think Post-Crisis did a lot of things well or better than Pre-Crisis, except for parts of Superman himself honestly.

That's part of a more general problem. Call it the "Injustice Effect" (though my first encounter with it was probably the cartoon episode "Brave New Metropolis") where if Superman doesn't have some loved one's presence keeping him in check, he's at risk of going mad.

I'm totally in the dead Kents camp, but I could at least acknowledge that if Superman were surrounded by people who knew him intimately, he'd probably be better socially adjusted than if he had to hide being Superman from every living soul. It just seems that if stories about secret identities almost demand for someone to be in on the secret. Of course, Lois has been in on the secret for about 28 years, New 52 notwithstanding, so she fills that role.

Superman has become one his many “deconstructions”. And it’s infuriating to me because heroes like Spider-Man or even freaking Aquaman have had dead loved ones, dead children, dead girlfriends, and yet not gone insane. Spider-Man even got tricked into killing Gwen just like Supes in Injustice yet didn’t go insane. If we’re saying that Superman is reliant on other people to be a good person, and a lot of people in this very thread seem to think Supes has to rely on his parents to know righ from wrong, then 1. The Kents’ are crap parents, 2. Superman is a total hypocrite because he’s only about “hope” as long as he gets a perfect life with a 10/10 wife, amazing kid, and parents who treat him like the Second Coming of Christ, and 3. Superman is weak. I don’t like that the superhero genre is full of dead loved ones but it is. To have so many examples of heroes who don’t break over the death of a loved one (like y’know BATMAN) and here’s Superman routinely going fascist, Supes becomes something altogether different and downright unlikeable. If Jim Gordon can have “one bad day” and not break but Superman can’t, Gordon is the true “greatest hero ever” and Superman is a complete fair weather fake.

That’s why he needs at least one big tragedy. It can’t be Krypton because frankly they’ve ingrained it into people’s heads that Clark is Clark Kent first and foremost. Also since people want the Kents back it’s kind of hard to empathize with Superman crying over Krypton when he barely remembers it and has an awesome life here. That’s why the Kents are better off dead imo, Clark goes through his “make it or break it” moment where we see if his “hope” spiel is just a load of bull crap or if he can actually hold on when he’s the one who suffered. But he needs something he can point to to show that he has felt that despair, he’s reached that low point, and he’s picked himself up and kept walking. THAT’S how he’s a symbol of hope at least for me, to have tragedy and not let it define you is the true difference between Superman and Batman.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I definitely prefer the Kents Dead but I am sure that is a function of what I am use to in the past. I also associate the Kents with Super-boy. For me keeping the Kents around was too much like Parker with two Aunt Mays. I like the idea that Superman is on his own and leaves behind Krypton, Smallville, and maybe eventually Metropolis and Earth. I like the idea that Superman is a self contained unit.

[mikelmcknight72]

I think the Byrne set up was close to perfect regarding the Kents , everything involving Smallville, Lex Luthor (as a starting point), and thinking of himself as Clark instead of Kal-El. The big misteps to me were...

1. Batman being an antagonist instead of his closest friend was a poor choice.
2. The total elimination of Silver Age elements involving Krypton was a poor choice, though scaling them back some was definitely wise. The most foolish part of this was the loss of his career as Superboy. This was closely followed by the elimination of Supergirl and the retcon to Power Girl's origin. Thankfully, both were eventually undone. After that, elements like Kandor, Krypto, and the Phantom Zone and its prisoners should have been kept.

Of course, I'm guessing there was a good deal of editorial meddling involved. It seems there always is, not that it is always a bad thing.

[BBally]

I'm neutral regarding this topic, on one hand the death of at least one of the Kents really hit home for Clark that despite all his powers he can't perform miracles ala. Jonathan's death in Superman The Movie, on the other hand the concept of a hero who to most people in his universe is viewed as the closest to an actual "God On Earth" still makes time to visit his old folks back on the farm sitting chatting with Jonathan while eating Martha's homemade apple pie sounds appealing.

Of course both sides have their positives and negatives depending on the execution.

[oldschoolfan]

I'm neutral regarding this topic, on one hand the death of at least one of the Kents really hit home for Clark that despite all his powers he can't perform miracles ala. Jonathan's death in Superman The Movie, on the other hand the concept of a hero who to most people in his universe is viewed as the closest to an actual "God On Earth" still makes time to visit his old folks back on the farm sitting chatting with Jonathan while eating Martha's homemade apple pie sounds appealing.

Of course both sides have their positives and negatives depending on the execution.

The execution of any idea is huge! Good point. I have seen authors like Alan Moore take ideas that I originally thought were "dopey" and made them cool. I have seen what started as a great idea turn into a lame story. So ultimately, I think that the creators involved and how they approach storytelling make a huge difference, no matter what continuity norms have been established.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I was trying to think what characters Superman reminds me of, and I immediately landed on Tarzan. After the childhood story, I don't care about the constant interaction of Tarzan and his parents, adoptive or otherwise. I definitely prefer Superman the "Myth" vs. Superman the "Character". I like character moments but I just don't need those moments. I think they included the Kents because they took away Superboy but still wanted that dynamic. It made Clark seem younger and less rusty. I think I like the character of Superman fine but I prefer a pulp novel to a soap opera.

I was watching the trailer for the next season of Supergirl and it looks amazing. I am excited about seeing Lex again. Then I remember the last time I watched Supergirl and I just can't make it through all the feelings and talking about feelings and the music telling me feelings are happening. Anyways, feelings. It's still a great show and she is amazing but the time spent on couches or drinking coffee is too much.

[stargazer01]

I also despise the idea some have that Superman still needs the Kents (or Lois) to keep him under control from becoming a tyrant. That's not Superman to me. His story is about how absolute power doesn't corrupt. The Kents taught him so well as a child and young man that he doesn't need them around forever. He is Superman because he feel he has a responsibility to use his powers for good, and he also knows humans are fragile and they die. He's not a little boy inside constantly needing others to take care of him and his emotions. Yes, he needs love and friends, but not a nanny.

[Yoda]

I also despise the idea some have that Superman still needs the Kents (or Lois) to keep him under control from becoming a tyrant. That's not Superman to me. His story is about how absolute power doesn't corrupt. The Kents taught him so well as a child and young man that he doesn't need them around forever. He is Superman because he feel he has a responsibility to use his powers for good, and he also knows humans are fragile and they die. He's not a little boy inside constantly needing others to take care of him and his emotions. Yes, he needs love and friends, but not a nanny.

The only people who seem to make the argument that they are necessary to keep him from being a tyrant are those arguing for the Kents (or Lois) to be dropped from the lore. It takes an active misreading of Kingdom Come and Injustice to arrive at that point in the first place. That's not even Injustice Superman or Kingdom Come Superman. Even Snyder's proposal wasn't that. Grief makes him vulnerable - not evil. I don't think I've seen anyone actually argue that the Kents or Lois need to be there to prevent his character from becoming Injustice Superman.

Saying he needs human interaction to keep some of his stories somewhat grounded a bit isn't the same thing as saying without the Kents or Lois he's a tyrant. For me that means that without those elements, you get a more and more generic Super-Man that ultimately just becomes a really strong guy punching CGI monsters. Superman has human elements to his story and character and I agree his story is one of what if someone with real power was actually good. But those that argue that Lois or the Kents are used to keep him from being a tyrant are typically really arguing for the exclusion of those elements on other grounds.

[DochaDocha]

The only people who seem to make this argument are those arguing for the Kents (or Lois) to be dropped from the lore. It takes an active misreading of Kingdom Come and Injustice to arrive at that point in the first place. That's not even Injustice Superman or Kingdom Come Superman. Even Snyder's proposal wasn't that. Grief makes him vulnerable - not evil. I don't think I've seen anyone actually argue that the Kents or Lois need to be there to prevent his character from becoming Injustice Superman.

That's literally the plot of "Brave New Metropolis." Of course, I never felt the STAS guys really had the best grasp of Superman.



Edit: As an aside, there's also a season-long arc in JLU about how if Flash got killed, Superman would turn into Justice Lord/Evil Superman. I swear there are writers who want to fridge characters around Superman just to give an excuse for him to be evil.

Edit 2: I take that back. The point of the season finale was that Superman wouldn't become Justice Lord Superman, but there still was a Superman out there that couldn't handle one bad day.

[kingaliencracker]

I say alive.

We don't need to impose more and more tragedy onto the character. He already lost his birth parents and homeworld. Let the Kents live and be a beacon for him to find when he's lost his way.