Would clark walking away from lois have been better than action comics #1004?

[Yoda]

There is no evidence of such change on paper. Furthermore, we have basically wandered of topic. It's about whether clark walking away lois and running of to find help would have been better writing? Jor el has nothing to do with that.

It's central to your whole ridiculous thesis. Just because it falls apart when someone points out that the basis is flawed doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

[Ascended]

Jesus Christ. No.

My thoughts exactly.

[manwhohaseverything]

It's central to your whole ridiculous thesis. Just because it falls apart when someone points out that the basis is flawed doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

What thesis? Jor el? Please,jor el has nothing to do with Clark's reaction to his wife leaving his son in space.Jor el is a unstable jackass on paper, that's a different deal.

My thoughts exactly.

Ok. Then, what would you suggest to make this story and scene bearable atleast?

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

Except it is implied in the comic. Jor El's appearance and Clark's reaction to it. There's no shown transition, sure. But there is an obvious transition in the character. He's not dangerous, untrustworthy or treated like a mass murderer by anyone. In fact, he's shown to be a respected person among the galaxy. He interacts with the Green Lantern Corps. I mean, that is all on the page. This:



Is just not the case at all and is directly refuted by what is actually shown. It's not until after Jon disappears and he goes on the implied tear to get him back that his treatment in the galaxy at large changes.

Sorry but everything you just wrote here, is wrong.
2A33E96F-CEBE-4914-B45C-C2094520BD2D.jpg
This marvel of writing, was Clark’s reaction to seeing Jor-El again.
In the end of the story, Jor-El is declared a monster and executed for war crimes by the United Planets. And the story is presented with the clear narrative that he deserved it.
That interaction with the Green Lantern Corp? Yeah that was a random encounter. Means nothing.

[Yoda]

Sorry but everything you just wrote here, is wrong.
2A33E96F-CEBE-4914-B45C-C2094520BD2D.jpg
This marvel of writing, was Clark’s reaction to seeing Jor-El again.
In the end of the story, Jor-El is declared a monster and executed for war crimes by the United Planets. And the story is presented with the clear narrative that he deserved it.
That interaction with the Green Lantern Corp? Yeah that was a random encounter. Means nothing.

Dude. Come on. That is not the reaction of someone who hasn't seen Jor El since Oz Effect. I get that what's happened to Jon sucks for some fans, but what you are saying doesn't work. Jor El was literally shown working with the Green Lantern Corps. in story. But that's "random" and "doesn't count" for "reasons."

He was shown to be proactively dealing with problems on other planets. He wasn't an outlaw until after Jon disappeared.

[Yoda]

What thesis? Jor el? Please,jor el has nothing to do with Clark's reaction to his wife leaving his son in space.Jor el is a unstable jackass on paper, that's a different deal.

Ok. Then, what would you suggest to make this story and scene bearable atleast?

I disagree with your whole premise. That scene, in Action 1004, really isn't the problem. Lois' voice is off, so I'd want that fixed. But Clark would never react that way because he trusts Lois and Lois' judgment wasn't shown to be wrong. It just wasn't. You're saying they were wrong to trust Jor El with Jon. But Jor El was looking out for Jon. Jon was shown to be safe with him, and Jon could take care of himself. Just like Lois said. What happened to Jon wasn't the result of Jor El not being worthy of trust. It was a random accident.

The only thing I'd change would be stretching Lois coming to the realization that Jon & Jor El were good on their own out a little bit more. It was rushed. It wasn't the cardinal sin you want it to be. The motivations and actions work if they were allowed to breath a little more. I've had issues with how everything was rushed. That's my criticism of how it went down. It all works as a loose outline.

So you saying the only thing that could redeem it is having Clark leave Lois and run off like an overprotective jackass doesn't work because your whole underlying premise is flawed.

[manwhohaseverything]

Dude. Come on. That is not the reaction of someone who hasn't seen Jor El since Oz Effect. I get that what's happened to Jon sucks for some fans, but what you are saying doesn't work. Jor El was literally shown working with the Green Lantern Corps. in story. But that's "random" and "doesn't count" for "reasons."

He was shown to be proactively dealing with problems on other planets. He wasn't an outlaw until after Jon disappeared.

He/she/other could say the same, you are only defensive because you like clark and lois being a thing. But, that's not the issue.Your interpretation and theories are fine and dandy. You are welcome to that. But, what's shown on paper is what actually matters to people. You can say that's not the reaction but you have nothing to prove that such meetings occurred after oz effect. Anyways, this is still off topic in my view.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

Dude. Come on. That is not the reaction of someone who hasn't seen Jor El since Oz Effect. I get that what's happened to Jon sucks for some fans, but what you are saying doesn't work. Jor El was literally shown working with the Green Lantern Corps. in story. But that's "random" and "doesn't count" for "reasons."

He was shown to be proactively dealing with problems on other planets. He wasn't an outlaw until after Jon disappeared.

You said that Clark’s reaction implied that Jor-El was freed and was trusted again. Nothing about “this is inappropriate dad” validates, hints at or otherwise implies your theory. All that’s there are characters acting out of character. You keep saying that it’s obvious that your head canon is supported by the comic. It’s not, at all. And if you want to throw out some fan theories to explain that ludicrously absurd scene, sure. But don’t act like we’re missing something in the actual comic. Because it’s not there.
And this green Lantern thing......come on that has nothing to do with anything.

[Yoda]

You said it was implied that Clark’s reaction implied that Jor-El was freed and was trusted again. Nothing about “this is inappropriate dad” validates, hints at or otherwise implies your theory. All that’s there are characters acting out of character. You keep saying that it’s obvious that your head canon is supported by the comic. It’s not, at all. And if you want to throw out some fan theories to explain that ludicrously absurd scene, sure. But don’t act like we’re missing something in the actual comic. Because it’s not there.
And this green Lantern thing......come on that has nothing to do with anything.

It implies that the relationship between Clark and Jor El has progressed beyond the initial point where Oz Effect left off. This isn't a controversial head cannon. He didn't say - How are you free? How are you here? Etc. He basically says, hey call before you pop in.

You said Jor El was executed for being a monster and that he was a war criminal. In that scene he stopped the conflict and the Green Lanterns come in and basically say they are being left to clean up again after Jor El and Jon again. If he was some wanted war criminal worth of execution on the level that he was after Jon disappeared you don't think the Green Lanterns, the DCU's intergalactic cops, would react to him like that? They typically just joke around with war criminals and let them go on their way?

[Yoda]

He/she/other could say the same, you are only defensive because you like clark and lois being a thing. But, that's not the issue.Your interpretation and theories are fine and dandy. You are welcome to that. But, what's shown on paper is what actually matters to people. You can say that's not the reaction but you have nothing to prove that such meetings occurred after oz effect. Anyways, this is still off topic in my view.

If what's shown on paper actually matters, show me on paper where Lois was actually proven wrong. Where does Jor El betray Jon, actively harm him, Jon and Jor El are not capable of taking care of themselves like she tells Clark, or Jor El's purported maniac instability causes Jon to come to harm? What single event as shown in the comics that proves her wrong or establishes any of that?

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

It implies that the relationship between Clark and Jor El has progressed beyond the initial point where Oz Effect left off.

With no reason given.

This isn't a controversial head cannon.

Your doomsday clock theory is your headcanon. you are literally trying to fill in the blanks to explain discrepancies. As for controversial, well look at this thread.

He didn't say - How are you free? How are you here? Etc. He basically says, hey call before you pop in.

Clark’s reaction to Jor-El was highly strange and inconsistent with Oz Effect. It is not explained at all why that is. You seem convinced that it was. It wasn’t. And because it’s not, Clark and Lois look really, really stupid. If you ask me? There is no answer. I think Bendis just flubbed it.

You said Jor El was executed for being a monster and that he was a war criminal. In that scene he stopped the conflict and the Green Lanterns come in and basically say they are being left to clean up again after Jor El and Jon again. If he was some wanted war criminal on the level that he was after Jon disappeared you don't think the Green Lanterns, and intergalactic cops, would just joke around with him?

So he did even more war crimes on top of what he did on earth and krypton. Not really helping your case here.

[Frontier]

Except it is implied in the comic. Jor El's appearance and Clark's reaction to it. There's no shown transition, sure. But there is an obvious transition in the character. He's not dangerous, untrustworthy or treated like a mass murderer by anyone. In fact, he's shown to be a respected person among the galaxy. He interacts with the Green Lantern Corps. I mean, that is all on the page. This:

I think Clark still viewed him with some hostility. Maybe not to the extent one would expect straight after the Mr. Oz stuff, but I think there were some trust issues and concerns Jor-El might still be dangerous.

People seemed wary or afraid of him more then they respected him (and Kilowog was written out-of-character in that moment in my opinion). Clark and his symbol was what they respected.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

If what's shown on paper actually matters, show me on paper where Lois was actually proven wrong. Where does Jor El betray Jon, actively harm him, Jon and Jor El are not capable of taking care of themselves like she tells Clark, or Jor El's purported maniac instability causes Jon to come to harm? What single event as shown in the comics that proves her wrong or establishes any of that?

This is is becoming a strawman argument, you don’t seem to understand what people’s real problem with this is despite it being constantly clarified to you.

[manwhohaseverything]

I disagree with your whole premise. That scene, in Action 1004, really isn't the problem. Lois' voice is off, so I'd want that fixed. But Clark would never react that way because he trusts Lois and Lois' judgment wasn't shown to be wrong. It just wasn't. You're saying they were wrong to trust Jor El with Jon. But Jor El was looking out for Jon. Jon was shown to be safe with him, and Jon could take care of himself. Just like Lois said. What happened to Jon wasn't the result of Jor El not being worthy of trust. It was a random accident.

The only thing I'd change would be stretching Lois coming to the realization that Jon & Jor El were good on their own out a little bit more. It was rushed. It wasn't the cardinal sin you want it to be. The motivations and actions work if they were allowed to breath a little more. I've had issues with how everything was rushed. That's my criticism of how it went down. It all works as a loose outline.

So you saying the only thing that could redeem it is having Clark leave Lois and run off like an overprotective jackass doesn't work because your whole underlying premise is flawed.

It doesn't matter if he trusts lois or whatever, Clark is responsible for jon kent. He is a 10 year old boy. Jon kent being able to take care of himself is a joke. The kid lost his childhood and was being abused and tortured. This notion superman will bang lois while his son is out there somewhere probably in danger, is appalling idea. He would have leapt and went on a search the first minute he gets to know. Ok, this is a bit personal as well, as a guy that had went through abuse and worse as a child This is sickening to me. Trust doesn't mean blind faith. You are basically saying clark has blind faith on lois. Btw, were'nt you calling out king and miller for portrayal of lana and lois in their book?This is just as bad.

As for jor el, i might think that and i might be right. But, this thread isn't about that.

If what's shown on paper actually matters, show me on paper where Lois was actually proven wrong. Where does Jor El betray Jon, actively harm him, Jon and Jor El are not capable of taking care of themselves like she tells Clark, or Jor El's purported maniac instability causes Jon to come to harm? What single event as shown in the comics that proves her wrong or establishes any of that?

The fact that, jon got stuck in a volcano and had to get tortured by for years. That doesn't look like him handling himself. The fact that he was 10 year old kid and the fact that he lost his childhood . He feels more like a kid upto mischief getting in big trouble. Kids get into mischeif,but parents are there to make sure their safety. Jor el was responsible for jon. Yet, he made him feel unsafe. Which lead to the kid running off. Furthermore, he was responsible. His negligence caused jon's misery as the adult.


He Neglected the kid for an entire summer and didn't talk to him. That's basically, making a kid feeling unsafe. he was in that ship alone. A kid being left alone like that is paramount to abuse. It isn't responsible at all. My biological parent used to do that as form of their sick mentality. Ofcourse, i was taken away from that, thank god. Furthermore, his ill feelings were not placated by the jackass of a grandfather. So much for jor el taking care of jon.

As i said, jor el is irrelevant to the discussion. You basically bring back to that when the question is not that. Anything that makes this garbage better, will do. Because action comics #1004 is nothing short of pure garbage. I don't bloody care about lois's voice when the characterisation is offensively bad. With my suggestion i atleast would have something that says consequences. Clark atleast getting pissed would have made him more redeemable.

[Yoda]

It doesn't matter if he trusts lois or whatever, Clark is responsible for jon kent. He is a 10 year old boy. Jon kent being able to take care of himself is a joke. The kid lost his childhood and was being abused and tortured. This notion superman will bang lois while his son is out there somewhere probably in danger, is appalling idea. He would have leapt and went on a search the first minute he gets to know. Ok, this is a bit personal as well, as a guy that had went through abuse and worse as a child This is sickening to me. Furthermore, weren't you one of the people making a fuss about Frank miller and his handling of lana and tom kings lois issue? Trust doesn't mean blind faith. You are basically saying clark has blind faith on lois. Btw, were'nt you calling out king and miller for portrayal of lana and lois in their book. This is just as bad.

Completely different issues. My issues with Miller was that YO was sexist and the women in YO weren't characters just props for Clark to use. It's not relevant to this at all. King writes a pretty decent Lois & Clark actually. But my issue with that story is the gratuitous and gross violence shown. I actually have said you can do the same story King did without the shock factor violence and it would actually be pretty good. I've also seen you defend Super Sons and Jon and Damian going off on their own. Should Clark have run off to stop that every single time? Damian's 13. They ended up across the galaxy lost too.

Clark doesn't have blind faith in Lois. He trusts her judgment. Like partners do. I trust my wife's judgment with our kids. I don't run off after them when she lets them play at a friends house I don't know. Because I trust her judgment. Doesn't mean she'd never make a mistake. And if she did let them go with a friend and they got hurt with that friend, I wouldn't leave her.

The fact that, jon got stuck in a volcano and had to get tortured by for years. That doesn't look like him handling himself.

That didn't happen because of anything Jor El did. It's the equivalent of a car accident. If Clark and Lois were with Jon at that moment, the outcome would have been exactly the same. Nothing Jor El did, other than have Jon on a space ship with him, caused them to go into that wormhole. It was an accident. You can't seem to distinguish between actively harming someone and a random accident. Jor El didn't harm Jon. The wormhole did.

And he got himself free of that. So he kinda can handle himself.

The fact that he was 10 year old kid and the fact that he lost his childhood . He feels more like a kid upto mischief getting in big trouble. Kids get into mischeif,but parents are there to make sure their safety. Jor el was responsible for jon. Yet, he made him feel unsafe. Which lead to the kid running off. Furthermore, he was responsible. His negligence caused jon's misery as the adult.

Same as above. Jon didn't run off into a wormhole because he felt unsafe with Jor El. Their ship hit a random rip in space time. It was an accident. If my kid is driving in a car with their grandparent and another driver loses control and hits their car, it's not the grandparents fault. I wouldn't blame them for it. And I wouldn't blame my wife if she let them get in the car.

He Neglected the kid for an entire summer and didn't talk to him. That's basically, making a kid feeling unsafe. he was in that ship alone. A kid being left alone like that is paramount to abuse. It isn't responsible at all. My biological parents used to do that as form of their sick mentality. Ofcourse, i was taken away from them, thank god. Furthermore, his ill feelings were not placated by the jackass of a grandfather. So much for jor el taking care of jon.

It wasn't an entire summer, because Jor El tells Jon when he gets him back that Jon had only been gone for three weeks. Jon was exaggerating there. Nothing Jor El did with Jon amounts to abuse.

As i said, jor el is irrelevant to the discussion. You basically bring back to that when the question is not that. Anything that makes this garbage better, will do. Because action comics #1004 is nothing short of pure garbage. I don't bloody care about lois's voice when the characterisation is offensively bad. With my suggestion i atleast would have something that says consequences. Clark atleast getting pissed would have made him more redeemable

He's not irrelevant. You're central question is should Clark have left Lois because she left Jon with Jor El. The answer to that is no, because Lois leaving Jon with Jor El isn't something that anyone would react like that too. Should Lois leave Clark because he lets Jon go adventuring with Damian? Or because he brought a 10 year old to see an entire planet commit suicide? Or because they let him play with an inter dimensional portal into the Bizzaro Verse? Or because he allowed Jon to get sucked into a portal to Apocalypse?