The Kents - Dead or Alive?

[Yoda]

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.

I’ve only seen a few of the TAS episodes, so I didn’t know about this one. But it’s not one that gets cited often. So what do we do, excise all human elements for a character who has no attachment to anything or anyone? Or only attachments to “super heroes” cause I guarantee we’d still get these stories regardless. They are tropes. Writers will go to the trope well once and a while for a garbage story? That happens and you move on. These stories would exist regardless of the specific characters they are based on.

Like you said, they used Flash for one too. Does he have no friends so we don’t have a Justice Lords Superman? Ending Battle also exists. So we got one done well where Superman stays true to his principles.

[DochaDocha]

I'm just pointing out that fridging characters that are supposed to anchor Superman to humanity so that he would go mad has indeed happened. I'm not for excising any characters from the lore. I'm also disappointed that the stories where Superman doesn't go haywire don't seem to have the same fanfare as the ones in which he does.

[Yoda]

I'm just pointing out that fridging characters that are supposed to anchor Superman to humanity so that he would go mad has indeed happened. I'm not for excising any characters from the lore. I'm also disappointed that the stories where Superman doesn't go haywire don't seem to have the same fanfare as the ones in which he does.

That's kinda my point though, you're not arguing that those elements shouldn't be there because they occasionally are misused by some lazy writers. That story trope will exist regardless of the setup. You don't even need to fridge a character to make those stories happen. Look at Miracleman - that's a fascist Superman more or less that takes over not because he loses someone who grounds him, but because he essentially has nothing to ground him at all anymore. He's left his humanity behind and is now a god surrounded by other gods and they know what the mortals need better than they do. So they just take over to give us our "Golden Age." Miracleman is essentially a Superman stripped of all the human elements of his existence. No secret identity. No human connections. Lives as a god above humanity.

I guess, my point is you're going to get Tyrant Superman stories regardless of the presence of the Kents or anyone else. Whether it's Injustice, Brave New Metropolis, or Miracleman. Excising the Kents or keeping them dead from his childhood isn't going to make Superman an unimpeachable character into perpetuity. Those stories will get told because the "one bad day" trope is going to be used eventually regardless. What if the best man in the world suddenly turned bad is going to be a alternate take that gets used again and again.

[DochaDocha]

To be fair, I don't think I said that I don't want the Kents around because then they'd be killed off and then Superman would go mad. I think I just said it's a rampant problem in Superman writing, the urge to fridge characters, or the implications of what would happen if they were fridged. In regard to the Kents, there are stories in which I think they add value, but I'd put it this way: the best stories with the Kents are about the same as the best stories without; the worst stories that utilize the Kents are far worse than the worst stories that focused on their absence. You take a rough average of that and I lean for without.

[Yoda]

To be fair, I don't think I said that I don't want the Kents around because then they'd be killed off and then Superman would go mad. I think I just said it's a rampant problem in Superman writing, the urge to fridge characters, or the implications of what would happen if they were fridged. In regard to the Kents, there are stories in which I think they add value, but I'd put it this way: the best stories with the Kents are about the same as the best stories without; the worst stories that utilize the Kents are far worse than the worst stories that focused on their absence. You take a rough average of that and I lean for without.

But are those stories bad because of the Kents? What stories are you thinking of? I have a hard time thinking of any that are actively bad because of the Kent's presence. Generally it seems like "well he goes back to them too much to figure out a problem" or something along those lines. But if he didn't go back to them for that would those stories suddenly be good? Or would they just be stories like how Bendis or Snyder has used them recently, where it's actually kinda up in the air if they are dead or alive? He thinks back to the lessons Ma and Pa told him and you get a flashback scene. Because if the problem is indecisive Superman, that is going to exist regardless of the status of the Kents.

I guess all these arguments - even the Pre-vs-Post Crisis one, all kind of come down to the quality of writing. You can tell bad stories with or without every element that someone on being the one that's dragging him down. We'd probably have gotten Tyrant Superman stories with the Pre-Crisis or Bronze Age Superman. DKR's is arguably the most damaging portrayal of Superman in the last 40 years and that wasn't due to Post Crisis Superman, the Kents, or anything of the sort.

[DochaDocha]

But are those stories bad because of the Kents? What stories are you thinking of? I have a hard time thinking of any that are actively bad because of the Kent's presence. Generally it seems like "well he goes back to them too much to figure out a problem" or something along those lines. But if he didn't go back to them for that would those stories suddenly be good? Or would they just be stories like how Bendis or Snyder has used them recently, where it's actually kinda up in the air if they are dead or alive? He thinks back to the lessons Ma and Pa told him and you get a flashback scene. Because if the problem is indecisive Superman, that is going to exist regardless of the status of the Kents.

I guess all these arguments - even the Pre-vs-Post Crisis one, all kind of come down to the quality of writing. You can tell bad stories with or without every element that someone on being the one that's dragging him down. We'd probably have gotten Tyrant Superman stories with the Pre-Crisis or Bronze Age Superman. DKR's is more damaging to Superman than any of those and that wasn't due to Post Crisis Superman.

Interesting question.

If the whole point of having the Kents there is so that he can go back to them and ask them life advice that I think he doesn't need, then the answer is yes, their presence makes the story worse. If it's something else like Christmas and it's time to celebrate the holiday, then the answer is they are a logical addition to the story and it's a positive detail. On the flip side, if they were dead and weren't at the Christmas celebration, I wouldn't necessarily be missing much. I think other than the Death of Superman, I never really felt that they added a lot for me, but I feel like there were a handful of times I was rolling my eyes when Superman had to go back to them. Like I said, I'm not really that against their being around.

It's true that you can't blame characters for bad stories, but at least a writer would have to think twice about who is Superman going to ask for advice.

[Yoda]

Interesting question.

If the whole point of having the Kents there is so that he can go back to them and ask them life advice that I think he doesn't need, then the answer is yes, their presence makes the story worse. If it's something else like Christmas and it's time to celebrate the holiday, then the answer is they are a logical addition to the story and it's a positive detail. On the flip side, if they were dead and weren't at the Christmas celebration, I wouldn't necessarily be missing much. I think other than the Death of Superman, I never really felt that they added a lot for me, but I feel like there were a handful of times I was rolling my eyes when Superman had to go back to them. Like I said, I'm not really that against their being around.

It's true that you can't blame characters for bad stories, but at least a writer would have to think twice about who is Superman going to ask for advice.

Ok, I agree with you there too. But what about stories like the recent 6th Dimension one, where he's looking back on his memories of his father as guidance and strength. Or I think it was Superman 4, where he does the same thing in the Phantom Zone with Ma and Pa. I supposed, yes, he worked it out for himself in that instance, but he's relying on experiences that he had with the Kents as opposed to some innate sense of right and wrong. So, going back to that well repeatedly is going to get old eventually just the same - "Every time he's in a jam there's some cornspun wisdom from the saintly dead Kent's to get him through it." So really, it's the frequency that the trope is used that's the issue. Lazy writing.

Then there's something like Hitman #34, where he's having a bad moment because he couldn't save someone? Or even the Metzler story in Action 1000 which highlight how he takes inspiration or strength from the people he helps.

This all was likely a reaction to the belief that he was perfect, good and wise on his own. The ineffable Boy Scout who never has a doubt or question in his mind.

All this said, I actually like Pa dead and Ma alive the best I think. I like the scenes like the 6th Dimension a lot, but if that happened every other arc, it'd get just as bad. I also like Martha getting to see him become the hero he is. I think having her as a backstop and initially the only one knowing his identity gives him an outlet for that. I don't necessarily mind them both being dead either as long as it's not deaths connected to him being Superman ala Morrison or now Johns.

[DochaDocha]

Ok, so what about stories like the recent 6th Dimension one, where he's looking back on his memories of his father as guidance and strength. Or I think it was Superman 4, where he does the same thing in the Phantom Zone with Ma and Pa. I supposed, yes, he worked it out for himself in that instance, but he's relying on experiences that he had with the Kents as opposed to some innate sense of right and wrong. So, going back to that well repeatedly is going to get old eventually just the same - "Every time he's in a jam there's some cornspun wisdom from the saintly dead Kent's to get him through it." But what about something like Hitman #34, where he's having a bad moment because he couldn't save someone? Or even the Metzler story in Action 1000 which highlight how he takes inspiration or strength from the people he helps. So really, it's the frequency that the trope is used that's the issue. Lazy writing.

This all was likely a reaction to the belief that he was perfect, good and wise on his own. The ineffable Boy Scout who never has a doubt or question in his mind.

All this said, I actually like Pa dead and Ma alive the best I think. I like the scenes like the 6th Dimension a lot, but if that happened every other arc, it'd get just as bad. I also like Martha getting to see him become the hero he is. I think having her as a backstop and initially the only one knowing his identity gives him an outlet for that. I don't necessarily mind them both being dead either as long as it's not deaths connected to him being Superman ala Morrison or now Johns.

Fair points. I am largely ok with harkening back to lessons learned. On average, it is a little better than having to be told the lesson rather recently; both scenarios make the Kents look good, but one clearly makes Superman seem more capable and confident. But you're right, you likewise don't want to see too many stories where Superman has a soliloquy about what his Pa used to say in certain circumstances. That stuff gets old, too.

So in short, I agree it's the trope, not the characters. I just wonder if manipulating the available characters can have a positive (if not small) influence on how stories are written. Reminds me of Pak's run, when there was an embargo on which characters he could use, and we ended up getting a pretty good Lana. Who knows?

[Yoda]

I don't really disagree with you there. I really don't want to see him have to go back to people for advice all the time or find some oddly appropriate vague wisdom laid down decades past. I don't even mind him having doubts about his actions or moments where he questions himself of if he's doing anything. I do really like scenes like the Action 1000 where he is inspired by normal humans and the capacity for bravery and good. That is the stuff I eat up.

I just wonder if manipulating the available characters can have a positive (if not small) influence on how stories are written. Reminds me of Pak's run, when there was an embargo on which characters he could use, and we ended up getting a pretty good Lana. Who knows?

See, I see that as we got a fill in character that was written well, but a huge missed opportunity for what would probably have been a fantastic New 52 Lois. Instead we got a Lana that was kind of a "Lois-lite." That storyline with Lois would have actually shown the Lois & Clark relationship that the New 52 purported to establish from the get go, but paid nothing but lip service to for five years. Best friends, supportive, and unrealized sexual tension. We got plenty of captions of that or "you're my best friend" declarations, but never a story that actually showed it like Pak was able to do with Lana there. It was a terrible missed opportunity IMHO.