Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 239
  1. #76
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misslane View Post
    Does it balance out? Because, despite your All Star Superman and other "good" AU stories, the same terrible ideas from awful AU books in the 80s and 90s are still popping up in pop culture hits of today. Bad stories, in my opinion, aren't damaging at all; they are typically forgotten. The most damaging AU's, however, are often the most popular. Even worse, one popular AU story from one author seems to give the same author carte blanche to keep telling terrible stories that just amplify and double down on the damage.
    Well good news then - the writers who use popular AU depictions to inform their storytelling without knowing what made those AUs great are just going to make bad stories which will be forgotten. Your so called "damaging" stories hasn't stopped there being tons of great Superman stories being written since then, even now. I don't think Superman has been damaged by any of these AU stories, I think maybe you're just so focused on the bad stories inspired by these takes and a certain odd segment of the comics/gaming fandom that you're forgetting all the good Superman stuff we also get. If you include all the great stuff in your calculations I really do think it balances out if not outright leans in the favor of good.

    I don't think Nelliebly was referring to one's preference for a status quo change, but moreso whether or not the status quo change was rooted in organic storytelling. Clark and Lois having a son after several years of marriage is not a lightswitch development: it didn't come out of nowhere. Whether or not you like Jonathan or the idea of a canon child for Clark and Lois is really not the point.
    I don't think there's anything organic in fundamentally changing a character that should hopefully survive for at least another hundred years. I mean Superman growing old, retiring, dying and being replaced by his son in canon could be considered organic, but I have no interest in the continuity progressing that far and more in canon.

    Ultimately, even if a status quo shift like Superman and Lois having a child isn't your thing, it's not as damaging to Superman as a character as popularizing him as a leader of dystopian nightmares, a conservative government lackey, or a broken man motivated to acts of great evil from tired women in refrigerator tropes. These are "gimmicks" that turn Superman into something he's not and shouldn't be, but a dad? A dad isn't a bad thing to be. Maybe dad stories suck for you, but Superman as a dad is better than a broken Superman.
    Disagree - a popular AU take can always be nullified by another popular AU take. It is really that simple. But a status quo change that lasts years, maybe even a couple decades in continuity? What nullifies that?
    And a broken Superman doesn't interest me, but most stories and most AUs aren't a broken Superman. You can always ignore the stories that tell about a broken Superman. But if DC goes all in on Superdad to the point where even most AUs have him a daddy, how do you avoid that?

  2. #77
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,335

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by misslane View Post
    Does it balance out? Because, despite your All Star Superman and other "good" AU stories, the same terrible ideas from awful AU books in the 80s and 90s are still popping up in pop culture hits of today. Bad stories, in my opinion, aren't damaging at all; they are typically forgotten. The most damaging AU's, however, are often the most popular. Even worse, one popular AU story from one author seems to give the same author carte blanche to keep telling terrible stories that just amplify and double down on the damage....
    Who are you or how am I to define what is a good story or a bad story? People like different things. I don't believe in gatekeeping. I didn't like an issue of Up in the Sky because Clark fantasies about Lois being brutally murdered by Lex but other people like the story and lots of them have bought the books. If DC okays an AU story or any story let the readers decide by voting with their wallets what they like and what they don't. At the end of the day, this is merely entertainment.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  3. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellacre View Post
    Ah I like how they do Jonathan. Grampa is not going for the usual cute look. I mean, he is cute with those large , luminous eyes etc but there is kind of zen and knowing in them you do not see in toddlers . I imagine it would unsettle many people to see such a child if he were real. An old soul in a child's body looking right through you. Sets up quite an interesting arc even for him as a character. I like how protective Lara look with him too. Also if this verse is linked to Year One, baby Clark himself had extra sensory abilities as well as being intelligent from the get go. What a shame we do not have a Lex Luthor to meet the kid. lol.
    Yeah. Me too. Jon looks both cute and spooky, which I like (and is probably intentional), it will be fascinating to witness his behaviour and what influence Lara will have upon him

  4. #79
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Wait, this Jon kid is not the son of Lois and Clark? Who is the mother? Wonder Woman?? If so, why call him Jon too?? This feels so wrong to me.. why use the same name?

  5. #80
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    Wait, this Jon kid is not the son of Lois and Clark? Who is the mother? Wonder Woman?? If so, why call him Jon too?? This feels so wrong to me.. why use the same name?
    The concept of Jon is that of "the son of superman". It doesn't matter who the mother is. It can be lana, lori, lois or diana..etc . since, Jonathan is Clark's fathers name. Clark can name his and his partners child Jonathan (with consent of his partner ) regardless of who the mother is.

  6. #81
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    The concept of Jon is that of "the son of superman". It doesn't matter who the mother is. It can be lana, lori, lois or diana..etc . since, Jonathan is Clark's fathers name. Clark can name his and his partners child Jonathan (with consent of his partner ) regardless of who the mother is.
    The son of Superman and Lois Lane. That should be special, imo. It doesn't make sense to use it for Wonder Woman too. It's not cool at all. They should have used a new name. This just feel very wrong, ugh.

  7. #82
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    The son of Superman and Lois Lane. That should be special, imo. It doesn't make sense to use it for Wonder Woman too. It's not cool at all. They should have used a new name. This just feel very wrong, ugh.
    We don't know if moore intended jon to be " son of superman and lois lane". Sure, you can argue that lois was the one in the original story. But, moore could have chosen lana too for the same result . So, by that logic jon is "son of superman" concept. Mother can be anyone. This is an elseword version of jon. There are many versions of clark/superman too. There is one where jor el isn't the father of kal but zod is.

  8. #83
    Ultimate Member Sacred Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,548

    Default

    There's nothing wrong with it. Its not the first time Jonathan has been used for an alternate version of Superman's son whose mother wasn't Lois. Earth-22 Superman and Wonder Woman had a son named Jonathan decades ago, for example. Its never been any sort of exclusive thing. I could see maybe considering avoiding the name and choosing something else if the character was being created right now (but even then I don't think its a big deal), but he was already established with the name Jonathan in DKIII. Too late to change it now even if they wanted to.
    Last edited by Sacred Knight; 09-15-2019 at 12:52 AM.
    "They can be a great people Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you. My only son." - Jor-El

    "Now why don't we step up here and everybody get stepped up, and let's get some stepped up personal space up in this place." - Phillip Jacobs

  9. #84
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    The concept of Jon is that of "the son of superman". It doesn't matter who the mother is. It can be lana, lori, lois or diana..etc . since, Jonathan is Clark's fathers name. Clark can name his and his partners child Jonathan (with consent of his partner ) regardless of who the mother is.
    So women are interchangeable entities then as opposed to people? Because that’s what you are saying here. Women are interchangeable in stories and switching them out like a deck of cards is irrelevant because I guess they don’t matter much anyway. That’s what this says to me.

    Personally, I think it’s weird that Wonder Woman seemingly had no input on naming her children.

    Lois agreeing to name a child “Jonathan” makes sense given his middle name is usually Lane or Samuel but, more importantly, because Lois famously has a difficult upbringing and views the Kents as the family she chose. Media properties like LnC and Smallville have long, organic arcs showing Jonathan fathering Lois when her own father was nowhere to be found or hurting her. Lois often chooses the Kents distinctly because it’s the first time someone has given her a stable home. So it’s not just about Superman —it becomes about her too in choosing that name. Lana isn’t really part of this but she grew up in Smallville and also had a relationship with Jonathan.

    Wonder Woman is an Amazon—literally created with the idea of inverting patriarchal norms and yet Miller keeps portraying her with kids who are not only named after the man in some respect but carry his last name—a patriarchal tradition. It’s lazy and weird and feels to pretty much completely miss the point of Wonder Woman which is nothing new for Miller as he basically views her and treats her as just some godly prize and accessory to men. It’s not like I expect Miller of all people to remotely comprehend patriarchal norms but it’s disrespectful that DC keeps selling her out like this nonetheless.

    Either way, it’s dumb and confusing to use the same name when there already is a Jon Kent who not only exists in canon but who is a super popular character.

  10. #85
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    We don't know if moore intended jon to be " son of superman and lois lane". Sure, you can argue that lois was the one in the original story. But, moore could have chosen lana too for the same result . So, by that logic jon is "son of superman" concept. Mother can be anyone. This is an elseword version of jon. There are many versions of clark/superman too. There is one where jor el isn't the father of kal but zod is.
    What are you talking about? We absolutely do know.

    Jonathan Kent was established as their son at the end of “Whatever Happened to the man of tomorrow?” —the official closing of the silver age era. It was an important story and established legit decades ago. The story actually goes into great detail as to why Clark rejects Lana as his partner and chooses to be with Lois. It’s extremely deliberate as it’s Superman coming to terms with the reality that though he loved Lana as a young boy that once Lois came into the picture that she was the one he wanted to spend his life with—-he just didn’t know what to do about it and struggled to find the guts to just tell her how he felt. It was deliberately Lois as the mother and not Lana for extremely specific reasons as the conclusion of an organic character arc coming to a close before the Crisis reset everything to start again.

    Either way, this is all superfluous. Jurgens’ Jon Kent was already in the books and important when Frank Miller decided to do this. In fact, I know from my own source that it was a point of contention when Miller chose the name distinctly because there were those in the office who felt it could be confusing and was a slight to Jurgens and, years later, we see why.

    DC shouldn’t have allowed him to use the same name and he should have had enough consideration for Jurgens and Tomasi (who absolutely were already knee deep in this when he did this) to choose a different name. It’s confusing at best to potential readers and downright insulting at worst. Women are not interchangeable entities but simply using the same name as the child who is already Lois’s son definitely suggests that DC and Miller thinks they are. And I blame DC for allowing it to happen. I expect nothing from Frank Miller. Miller is a misogynist who routinely treats female characters like garbage. Expecting him to change at this point is a wasted exercise. His treatment of women is well known and openly criticized. But DC Editorial is who keeps letting him do all this insulting stuff and, at this point, that’s the greater offense. Because they definitely know better at this point. They just don’t care. Which is nothing new. This is the same office who protected a literal sexual predator for like 20 years. Expecting them to have integrity is something I’ve long given up on.
    Last edited by Nelliebly; 09-15-2019 at 04:12 AM.

  11. #86
    Amazing Member Lasil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    What are you talking about? We absolutely do know.

    Jonathan Kent was established as their son at the end of “Whatever Happened to the man of tomorrow?” —the official closing of the silver age era. It was an important story and established legit decades ago. The story actually goes into great detail as to why Clark rejects Lana as his partner and chooses to be with Lois. It’s extremely deliberate as it’s Superman coming to terms with the reality that though he loved Lana as a young boy that once Lois came into the picture that she was the one he wanted to spend his life with—-he just didn’t know what to do about it and struggled to find the guts to just tell her how he felt. It was deliberately Lois as the mother and not Lana for extremely specific reasons as the conclusion of an organic character arc coming to a close before the Crisis reset everything to start again.
    1. Their child from Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow was Jonathan Elliot.
    2. It was the closing of the bronze age.
    3. The 1st son of Superman that had the name Jonathan Kent was the son of Superman & Wonder Woman from The Kingdome. The first son of Superman & Lois with that name came later that year in Son of Superman.
    Should Superman marry Lois Lane? That's almost like asking if we should ignore pollution, and power shortages... if we should deliberately bankrupt our nation... if the Republicans and Democrats should merge into one party. I think the answer should be: no! - Jerry Siegel

  12. #87
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lasil View Post
    1. Their child from Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow was Jonathan Elliot.
    2. It was the closing of the bronze age.
    3. The 1st son of Superman that had the name Jonathan Kent was the son of Superman & Wonder Woman from The Kingdome. The first son of Superman & Lois with that name came later that year in Son of Superman.
    Elliott thing, i don't think that matters. Since, that would make jurgens Jon-Jonathan smith. It's a disguise. Clark will always be a kent. Therefore, that kid is also jon kent.

  13. #88
    Amazing Member Lasil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    Lois agreeing to name a child “Jonathan” makes sense given his middle name is usually Lane or Samuel but, more importantly, because Lois famously has a difficult upbringing and views the Kents as the family she chose. Media properties like LnC and Smallville have long, organic arcs showing Jonathan fathering Lois when her own father was nowhere to be found or hurting her. Lois often chooses the Kents distinctly because it’s the first time someone has given her a stable home. So it’s not just about Superman —it becomes about her too in choosing that name. Lana isn’t really part of this but she grew up in Smallville and also had a relationship with Jonathan.
    Lois's family problems is an invention of post-crisis canon. Pre-crisis she didn't know the Kents.
    Should Superman marry Lois Lane? That's almost like asking if we should ignore pollution, and power shortages... if we should deliberately bankrupt our nation... if the Republicans and Democrats should merge into one party. I think the answer should be: no! - Jerry Siegel

  14. #89
    Amazing Member Lasil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Elliott thing, i don't think that matters. Since, that would make jurgens Jon-Jonathan smith. It's a disguise. Clark will always be a kent. Therefore, that kid is also jon kent.
    Clark died when his identity was outed. Superman died in the Fortress.

    Jordan Elliot isn't a disguise. It was who he had become.

    Jon Smith became Jon Kent. Jonathan Elliot never did.
    Jon Smith had Superman as a father. Jonathan Elliot didn't.
    Should Superman marry Lois Lane? That's almost like asking if we should ignore pollution, and power shortages... if we should deliberately bankrupt our nation... if the Republicans and Democrats should merge into one party. I think the answer should be: no! - Jerry Siegel

  15. #90
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelliebly View Post
    What are you talking about? We absolutely do know.

    Jonathan Kent was established as their son at the end of “Whatever Happened to the man of tomorrow?” —the official closing of the silver age era. It was an important story and established legit decades ago. The story actually goes into great detail as to why Clark rejects Lana as his partner and chooses to be with Lois. It’s extremely deliberate as it’s Superman coming to terms with the reality that though he loved Lana as a young boy that once Lois came into the picture that she was the one he wanted to spend his life with—-he just didn’t know what to do about it and struggled to find the guts to just tell her how he felt. It was deliberately Lois as the mother and not Lana for extremely specific reasons as the conclusion of an organic character arc coming to a close before the Crisis reset everything to start again.

    Either way, this is all superfluous. Jurgens’ Jon Kent was already in the books and important when Frank Miller decided to do this. In fact, I know from my own source that it was a point of contention when Miller chose the name distinctly because there were those in the office who felt it could be confusing and was a slight to Jurgens and, years later, we see why.

    DC shouldn’t have allowed him to use the same name and he should have had enough consideration for Jurgens and Tomasi (who absolutely were already knee deep in this when he did this) to choose a different name. It’s confusing at best to potential readers and downright insulting at worst. Women are not interchangeable entities but simply using the same name as the child who is already Lois’s son definitely suggests that DC and Miller thinks they are. And I blame DC for allowing it to happen. I expect nothing from Frank Miller. Miller is a misogynist who routinely treats female characters like garbage. Expecting him to change at this point is a wasted exercise. His treatment of women is well known and openly criticized. But DC Editorial is who keeps letting him do all this insulting stuff and, at this point, that’s the greater offense. Because they definitely know better at this point. They just don’t care. Which is nothing new. This is the same office who protected a literal sexual predator for like 20 years. Expecting them to have integrity is something I’ve long given up on.
    Look, i don't know why moore chose lois over lana in that story. It could have been random choice for all intents and purposes. Cause, frankly i don't see much difference in both ships pre-crisis. I never felt the intricacies you say they when reading those stories.i coukd be wrong. But, i don't know whether he adamant about lois being Clark's "the one".

    Jon is a name given to superman's son. It wouldn't matter if it was wonder woman or lana lang. It is only natural that Clark would ask the partner to name their son that. For all we know this is Jonathan prince kent or something.As for being confusing,i don't think so. This is the third or fourth version of jon. People get the idea that there different versions of a character.

    For example, if get married and have a daughter. I would most likely name my child after my aunt who adopted me. All i would need is partner's permission whomever they maybe. Here, the only contant is me pushing for naming my daughter like my aunt. Partner is a variable .Clark's case is similar. He would push for his child to be named jon regardless of the partner. That doesn't make woman interchangeable. It only make Clark's choices in life partners different. but, with a set of similar choices including "naming choices" that make clark, well clark.
    I am no expert on the misdeeds of the management or miller. So, i refuse to make comment on that.
    Clark even wears the same costume as other main earth superman. So ofcourse there are going to be choices that are similar in nature.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •