The Kents - Dead or Alive?

[Ascended]

I think the idea is so persistent because most superhero stories in some way are about no man being an island. But I can imagine that the stories where regular people hold out for just that one second longer (Like Morrison's zero issue or the Meltzer story from #1000) are more captivating than literally helping the hero.

I think it can work either way, if done correctly. I'm with Jon in that I don't want to see the hero saved by other people 99% of the time. But once in a while? The hero being saved by the people is a nice way to show that the hero's mission is gaining traction and that they're inspiring others. Consider the scene in Spider-Man (the first one from 2000 or 2002 or whenever) where regular people start throwing bricks and cans at the Goblin, saving Parker's life. "You mess with one of us you mess with all of us." That was a fantastic scene and really carried some strong emotional resonance.

But it is a fine line. The hero is the hero, and they're the ones we root for and the ones we want to save the day, not the ones being saved. Now and again though? I like seeing the positive impact the hero has, and how the community can rally around them, putting their differences aside to, for a change, save the day.

[mikelmcknight72]

For all the suggestions I see about compromising with Ma, it doesn’t seem listed that there is a character attribute that validates her staying power. Thus far it almost all seems to be about the novelty of having a mom as the surviving parent for a change. Maybe it prevents story distractions, except they typically just occupied the same pages anyway. Keeping them in flashbacks... I think them showing up for an appearance every six months feels less tedious than a flashback every ten. With flashbacks you have finite story relevance, where live characters react to what's going on.

I agree with you on that last part. Having them alive in the present day has far more story potential than flashbacks. I'd very much like to see them functioning as grandparents for Jon and honorary grandparents for Damien. There's a great deal of story potential there.

Of course, I'm biased. I'd like to not see Clark's family situation reflect my own in any way.

[Jon Clark]

I think it can work either way, if done correctly. I'm with Jon in that I don't want to see the hero saved by other people 99% of the time. But once in a while? The hero being saved by the people is a nice way to show that the hero's mission is gaining traction and that they're inspiring others. Consider the scene in Spider-Man (the first one from 2000 or 2002 or whenever) where regular people start throwing bricks and cans at the Goblin, saving Parker's life. "You mess with one of us you mess with all of us." That was a fantastic scene and really carried some strong emotional resonance.

I'm more of a cynical bastard. I see scenes like the one in Spider-man and I want the villain to just open fire on those people. To me there is a reason we need a Spider-man or Superman or Batman handling these villains. They are simply out of the wright class of the average Joe.

There are places where average people can turn the tide in a story, but staring down a super-powered sociopath isn't one I can buy.

[unvilievablypastry]

I really like the idea of Ma Kent being the one dead (of natural causes) and Pa being the one alive. It sure is an interesting concept I haven’t thought about before. Maybe if they still want Ma Kent’s advice along with Pa’s they can just have Pa assemble a “Best of:” for Martha Kent’s best golden nuggets lol.

[exile001]

Both alive for me.

I think it's good to have the Kents alive as a cornerstone to Clark's good upbringing, a key component in making him the hero he is, and it is nice to have one hero with a healthy relationship with their parents. Post-Crisis, I found them to be interesting characters, who rarely needed the spotlight but could be used well enough when needed. It doesn't infantilise a strong, adult character to have a respectful relationship with their living parents.

The Kents also work as a parallel to the unending barrage of crap Krypton keeps throwing Clark's way. Seriously, for such a great, noble and advanced race, Krypton's post-destruction legacy is 99% horror!

In fact, since the New 52 it looks as though Lara is the only person who actually died on Krypton, so why not bring her back as well and Superman can have a sit-com style spin off with the two respective parental units sniping at each other over Christmas dinner, trying to one-up each others' presents for John and bickering over which planet is greater Earth or Krypton. I'd buy it.

[DochaDocha]

As much as I'd prefer the Kents not to be alive, it's far worse to insist that Jor-El is still alive. If the Kents' staying alive meant the Kryptonians stayed dead, then I'll take it.

[Jon Clark]

As much as I'd prefer the Kents not to be alive, it's far worse to insist that Jor-El is still alive. If the Kents' staying alive meant the Kryptonians stayed dead, then I'll take it.

I don't object to Jor-El being live as much as I object to this characterization of Jor-El. But, if one set of parents has to survive I'd prefer it to be the Kents.

[oldschoolfan]

Looks like I'm going to die alone on this "both Kents alive" hill. I'm ready for all of you. When y'all come at the king, don't miss.

If they're going to be used solely for Clark to doubt himself and put a quarter into the Pa Kent Cornfed Wisdom vending machine, however, they can both stay dead. I just want someone in the JLA to have a healthy relationship with their living parents and Clark is as good as any option for that. I'd argue Diana is too, but DC needs to decide on what is going on with the Amazons and stick to it for a few years.

The poll looks like its swinging in your favor. I am with you, so at least you are not alone on that "hill".

My reason? The dynamic you suggest is the reason, plus, it keeps Kal El human, and concerned for humanity. There are these two people on this planet that loved me unconditionally when I was a complete stranger. It's a powerful story.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good story, so if a writer wants to tell a story with some other background, go for it. This is comics and you should be able to try ideas out. Mark Waid's Irredeemable is an excellent example of how Superman would have turned out without the Kent's. That story needed to be told. The current continuity is working for me too, but I miss the Kent's.

BUT, if we are talking about setting up a consistent backdrop from which to tell Superman stories, I genuinely believe that the post Crisis Superteam (circa 1986-87) probably got closest to perfection.

I am only talking about the comics, not other media.

[Vordan]

Interesting that you think the Byrne set up was close to perfect given that it wasn’t long before they started retconning his stuff out and trying to bring Pre-Crisis stuff back. I feel like that says the opposite: Byrne’s set up was too weak to sustain Superman for long before they started abandoning it. But to be fair to Byrne he was giving DC editorial what they wanted at the time, and we all know that editorial is a fickle beast.

[Jon Clark]

The poll looks like its swinging in your favor. I am with you, so at least you are not alone on that "hill".

My reason? The dynamic you suggest is the reason, plus, it keeps Kal El human, and concerned for humanity. There are these two people on this planet that loved me unconditionally when I was a complete stranger. It's a powerful story.

Why do so many people treat the idea of the Kents being alive as if their deaths negate their influence on him? If I remove Kandor or the Fortress from the current Superman, I'm not arguing for removing Krypton from the origin. So why does losing the Kents from stories set in the present, somehow translate to Superman losing his humanity?

[DochaDocha]

Why do so many people treat the idea of the Kents being alive as if their deaths negate their influence on him? If I remove Kandor or the Fortress from the current Superman, I'm not arguing for removing Krypton from the origin. So why does losing the Kents from stories set in the present, somehow translate to Superman losing his humanity?

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.

[Sacred Knight]

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.

Nailed it. Its permeated into public consciousness now and that is so depressing.

That's not to say there's not fans out there who hate this trope just as much as anyone and still prefers the Kents alive, I'm more than sure there are plenty of fans just like that, but its a trope that's I feel that this molded mindset is still a strong factor that goes into this by and large.

[oldschoolfan]

Interesting that you think the Byrne set up was close to perfect given that it wasn’t long before they started retconning his stuff out and trying to bring Pre-Crisis stuff back. I feel like that says the opposite: Byrne’s set up was too weak to sustain Superman for long before they started abandoning it. But to be fair to Byrne he was giving DC editorial what they wanted at the time, and we all know that editorial is a fickle beast.

First, the continuity was set up by a post Crisis team, yes team of which John Byrne was one of the important contributors, but not the only one, to be honest, my research suggests Dick Giordano had as much to do with Post Crisis Superman as anyone.

Second, I don't see anything changing in Superman's continuity until Mark Waid's Superman:Birthright miniseries in 2003. If you read the books, the continuity was CONSISTENT FOR 17 YEARS. No change or tweak after 03 can stand up to that length of time.

People need to stop vilifying John Byrne. His work speaks for itself. People need to respect Louise Simonson, John Bogdonove, Dan Jurgens, Roger Stern, Tom Grummet, Doug Hazelwood and especially Mike Carlin. They accomplished something that few have been able to do tell consistently good, great even, Superman stories over an extended period of time.

[Sacred Knight]

While I agree that things were largely consistent for that long, things did change in his continuity. Zero Hour made some changes. Nothing that strongly hurt said consistency of course, but some things were certainly altered between '86 and '03

[oldschoolfan]

I accept that, but I was objecting to the phrase "it wasn't long before" when in reality.....it was quite 17 years of consistency with some minor changes along the way. It just wasn't the way the Poster characterized it.

To be fair and to make sure I am not misquoting, here is what he said,

Interesting that you think the Byrne set up was close to perfect given that it wasn’t long before they started retconning his stuff out and trying to bring Pre-Crisis stuff back. I feel like that says the opposite: Byrne’s set up was too weak to sustain Superman for long before they started abandoning it. But to be fair to Byrne he was giving DC editorial what they wanted at the time, and we all know that editorial is a fickle beast.