Jon fans, do you dread him being characterized like his old man?

[Vordan]

What people here don't seem to get is the very fact that someone pointed to those moments in Superman: Son of Kal-El #2, and said "oh, I get how they're different" now is exactly the point.

Doesn't matter if you can adjust your glasses and calling back to issue # one-seventy-whatever-the-f%&k to show people proof that this isn't new. It's new to the general lexicon and understanding of the Superman brand. Jason being the "Batman that kills people and uses guns" isn't actually new or distinct to him either. Bruce did that back in the 40s as more of a pulp hero, but no one cares (and they shouldn't) because it's not part of the general understanding of Batman.

So, yeah, Jon's officially the Superman that's about change and Clark has not been. Jon becomes the personification of that the same way that Jason is the personification of "Batman but with guns and killing". So even if I know of an issue of Clark's Superman that's as recent as 2011 I'm not gonna correct anyone because at the point of pushing up my nerd glasses and battling the ingrained general understanding of Clark's Superman in any given person's mind, and it's not a fight that I'll win. Far smarter than me have failed.

Well they could challenge it if they were willing to put out content where Clark does that, rather than just pumping out endless “evil Superman” projects. Taylor feels like he’s writing the Twitter versions of the characters and it’s a problem because the topics he’s trying to broach require some manner of nuance and, well, intelligence he simply doesn’t display.

[Superlad93]

Well they could challenge it if they were willing to put out content where Clark does that, rather than just pumping out endless “evil Superman” projects. Taylor feels like he’s writing the Twitter versions of the characters and it’s a problem because the topics he’s trying to broach require some manner of nuance and, well, intelligence he simply doesn’t display.

Well, I mean, they tried, right? The tried twice in the same reboot, and even had Grant "All Star Superman" Morrison do it the first time, and while it was a good book people still kept going "Clark wouldn't do this". That's specifically because the "Clark" they're thinking of is an amalgamation of the general media they've taken in of him, and that'll always beat out any singular comic or run.

And when Clark does something to go against that it'll be an outlier or a "oh, I see why he had to do that, heh, but don't let it happen too often, big guy" sort of deal.

I think Taylor's ultimately going to do just fine if not great on this even without the required nuance. And that's because he'll get down the brand and general idea needed for this to have legs as Jon's thing beyond him. Say whatever you want about Taylor, he's able to get ideas and moments to stick with you and get reposted everywhere on the internet.

[Darkspellmaster]

I think People tend to View Clark through the lens of the "Boy scout" thing, when he's really not. He's a reporter, someone who digs for the truth of things, and in a lot of cases that means asking hard questions and getting into the face of people that don't want to tell the truth because his job is fact based. He wants people to know the facts. So as Superman, he should be still bringing that idea with him.

Clark should be -Lower Lawful good to Neutral Good. (Willing to bend the law when needs be, willing to push back at others, etc.)

Jon on the other hand grew up partly in the normal world with the likes of Damian Wayne and then was on a screwed up alt reality where his dad and mom were evil. With that in mind he should be more -Neutral Good to Chaotic good. (Think Monkey King, Robin hood, Zorro, etc).

What should be going on here is the Jon should be more willing to break the rules outright, to be against lawful when possible, Chaotic good is still good, but it's a bit unpredictable. He'll do the right thing but the way he gets to it is different than his father. Like Lois he should be a bit more reckless, he should be more willing to put himself in danger for the greater good, but at the same time he knows not to cross lines. Clark would talk to someone calmly, Jon should be a bit more aggressive but polite about it. He should have been trained by Conner too, have some of that rub off on him.

Deku from MHA or the Yuji Itadori from Jujitsu Kaizen or even Rin from Blue Exorcist, or Allen Walker from D.Gray Man would all be good characters to borrow from. Kind, Clever, but also a bit rash and can make bad choices for good reasons. (Deku's recent actions that lead to some pretty dramatic moments where he chooses to do some things because he thinks that he's doing the right thing for others, Yuji taking on the cursed item in the first chapter of the story even though his friend tells him to run and fights even though he knows he doesn't have much of a chance but he's not about to let anyone get hurt, Rin more recently having to go against his twin brother Yukio to wake him up even though he knows it can put both in danger, and Allen willingly leaving his friends in order to protect them going so far as to cover up if he's alive or dead. Each has this recklessness to them trying to do the right thing and even though they do do good it isn't a perfect good.)

Jon needs to have that. Clark is an adult, an older adult who has lived most of his life and knows how to adult if you will. Jon is learning so there needs to be mistakes. Example: Have him think he's doing the right thing with some criminal but then learns quickly it's more nuanced and have him make a mistake. Let people see he can screw up and learn from those screw ups. (Deku nearly killing himself to protect others, Yuji letting out the curse to fight a larger one and learning it was a bad move, Rin learning fast that unleashing his sword can screw things up for him, and Allen finding out that trust has to be a two way thing when he nearly loses his friends.) Let Jon have those moments, because Clark can't as an adult.

[manwhohaseverything]

Doesn't matter if you can adjust your glasses and calling back to issue # one-seventy-whatever-the-f%&k to show people proof that this isn't new. It's new to the general lexicon and understanding of the Superman brand. Jason being the "Batman that kills people and uses guns" isn't actually new or distinct to him either. Bruce did that back in the 40s as more of a pulp hero, but no one cares (and they shouldn't) because it's not part of the general understanding of Batman.

So that's why i like jason todd...You learn new stuff about yourself everyday.I am not talking about batman killing.I am talking about general pulp western hero tone batman..

[The World]

Honestly Clark's real problem is that the general opinion of him is just so low. Never really seen anything like it, from the media, to his fans, to his haters... it's just so bad. Like the Superman and the Authority thread is filled with half the post being about people feeling Superman changing the world is out of character for him.

"Superman...changing the world...doesn't sound right to me. Sure you don't mean Wonder Woman, or Batman, or the X-Men or something. Supes doesn't like taking risk, a farm boy like him wouldn't know anything about that."

Modern Superman is just such a downer character.

[Vordan]

Well, I mean, they tried, right? The tried twice in the same reboot, and even had Grant "All Star Superman" Morrison do it the first time, and while it was a good book people still kept going "Clark wouldn't do this". That's specifically because the "Clark" they're thinking of is an amalgamation of the general media they've taken in of him, and that'll always beat out any singular comic or run.

And when Clark does something to go against that it'll be an outlier or a "oh, I see why he had to do that, heh, but don't let it happen too often, big guy" sort of deal.

I think Taylor's ultimately going to do just fine if not great on this even without the required nuance. And that's because he'll get down the brand and general idea needed for this to have legs as Jon's thing beyond him. Say whatever you want about Taylor, he's able to get ideas and moments to stick with you and get reposted everywhere on the internet.

If we had gotten an animated movie, or TV show, or film, or cartoon, or video game, or anything that had adapted Morrison’s Action run I think the response would’ve been different. People used to mock Batman for being camp because of Adam West, but DC made a commitment to change that. With Superman there’s this push and pull between the people who love him and are willing to update him like Morrison and Waid, the people who love him but want to put him in a bottle like Rebirth, and the people who despise or don’t care about him and just want to dump on him like Ed Boon and NRS.

And the people who either don’t care about or just want to dump on him have been running the outside media divisions which is why he keeps getting screwed. You can’t affect the perception of characters through the comics anymore, not enough people read them. It has to be through outside media.

I will say that Taylor making it a foundation that Jon is out to change things is good, but again it’s up to the outside media projects to carry that torch.

Honestly Clark's real problem is that the general opinion of him is just so low. Never really seen anything like it, from the media, to his fans, to his haters... it's just so bad. Like the Superman and the Authority thread is filled with half the post being about people feeling Superman changing the world is out of character for him.

"Superman...changing the world...doesn't sound right to me. Sure you don't mean Wonder Woman, or Batman, or the X-Men or something. Supes doesn't like taking risk, a farm boy like him wouldn't know anything about that."

Modern Superman is just such a downer character.

It is rather wild to see people take issue with Clark going “you know maybe just punching supervillains and sending them to jail so they can break out again was a bad idea”. Injustice had a big part in shaping the reaction I believe, that’s trained the general audience to view it as an either/or situation. So many idiots on Twitter were citing Injustice as the comic that proves why Superman can’t do more, because then he’d be EVILLLLL. It’s either big wholesome chungus man who does nothing except to talk vaguely about HOPE or SuperHitler starting the Fourth Reich, no inbetween.

[marhawkman]

It is rather wild to see people take issue with Clark going “you know maybe just punching supervillains and sending them to jail so they can break out again was a bad idea”. Injustice had a big part in shaping the reaction I believe, that’s trained the general audience to view it as an either/or situation. So many idiots on Twitter were citing Injustice as the comic that proves why Superman can’t do more, because then he’d be EVILLLLL. It’s either big wholesome chungus man who does nothing except to talk vaguely about HOPE or SuperHitler starting the Fourth Reich, no inbetween.

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Action_Comics_Vol_1_783 (by Joe Kelly)

That was one of the best Superman comics ever written. Why? because Superman doesn't stand around and talk about truth, justice and making the world a better place.... He irrevocably changes the world for the better. How? By giving four supervillains an offer that they never expected him to make: To join the JLA. but he doesn't just TALK, if he was all talk and no action, what reason would they have to accept his offer? Sure, you can argue that he was only partially successful, however... while only 1 of the 4 became a full-time hero(Major Disaster, yes he kept the codename after joining the JLA), only one of the four returned to being a full-time VILLAIN(Ocean Master). Soo... +1 hero, -3 villains. That's a big deal. (Scorch became a part time JL ally, but never a full-time hero. Stone Emperor... straight up retired from super--anything)

Now seeing Jon do something like that? yes plz!!!

[manwhohaseverything]

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Action_Comics_Vol_1_783 (by Joe Kelly)

That was one of the best Superman comics ever written. Why? because Superman doesn't stand around and talk about truth, justice and making the world a better place.... He irrevocably changes the world for the better. How? By giving four supervillains an offer that they never expected him to make: To join the JLA. but he doesn't just TALK, if he was all talk and no action, what reason would they have to accept his offer? Sure, you can argue that he was only partially successful, however... while only 1 of the 4 became a full-time hero(Major Disaster, yes he kept the codename after joining the JLA), only one of the four returned to being a full-time VILLAIN(Ocean Master). Soo... +1 hero, -3 villains. That's a big deal. (Scorch became a part time JL ally, but never a full-time hero. Stone Emperor... straight up retired from super--anything)

Now seeing Jon do something like that? yes plz!!!

you do understand that's standard hero stuff.Right?Also,jon has already done stuff like that..There is fine line btw second chances and failing to protect people from maniacs that's hell bent on killing.It's not even a line.That issue has Clark running around saving things as the normal savior bit.Very admirable.But, it's not something special.There is nothing special about superman.People need to be more irrevarant towards the character.Heck!batman does that and more.when he ain't a god and had scares to show for it.The character is written with reverance in the book.Which is major downgrade.

With all due respect to the writer,he is conflating execution with vengeance in mind, with using force that can be lethal in dire straits.Frankly the redemption of the 'evil' character was not earned and their change was abrupt.Their development wasn't focused.So clark wasn't inspirational to me.Because i didn't see the guy rolling up his sleve to act and work for that change.There was nothing to see how he went through hell to change and re ablitate these guys to upstanding citizens of the society.A man of action needing mountains and mountains of exposition dialogues.That's pathetic.Even goku does a better job.His doesn't have a kill code.in fact,he is more of "on a whim" with "i saw potential in the villains" kinda guy.Dragon ball is nowhere near sophisticated or complex as joe kelly's book here.I read guys loose life and limb to give second chances without coming off as incompetent at protecting people.So it's not special for me to see clark playing jesus.but,he's not carrying the cross.Which means he doesn't have any impact.Btw,that book has the savior shtick..So it's not me pulling that here

Also,clark made them submit using force.It's only because that he was able to give them a second chance.So what are you arguing against?no lethal force ever.fine.I don't care as long as he does competently protect people that need it.
i can't believe,i fell into this trap again.

[Adekis]

I'm not really a Jon S! Kent fan, quite the opposite, in fact - I don't really care for him.

But upon reading the first issue of "Son of Kal-El" I did think that he was characterized pretty much exactly the same as his dad often is. And you know... it was frustrating. Mostly because I feel like Superman - Kal, that is - is disrespected by the dishonest way they make the comparison between the two of them.

I also recently read "I am Not Starfire". It was pretty solid. I enjoyed how Mandy felt the socially-and-self-imposed weight of her mother's legacy, and had to figure out a way not to compare herself unfavorably to Starfire before she started to self-actualize. I think something like that, probably with a little less 2009 emo aesthetic, would serve Jon better. Maybe I'd like him more.

I don't want to be so apprehensive toward Jon. Maybe making him a little more unique, and making his relationship to Superman's Legacy a little more strained, would help with that.

[manwhohaseverything]

I'm not really a Jon S! Kent fan, quite the opposite, in fact - I don't really care for him.

But upon reading the first issue of "Son of Kal-El" I did think that he was characterized pretty much exactly the same as his dad often is. And you know... it was frustrating. Mostly because I feel like Superman - Kal, that is - is disrespected by the dishonest way they make the comparison between the two of them.

I also recently read "I am Not Starfire". It was pretty solid. I enjoyed how Mandy felt the socially-and-self-imposed weight of her mother's legacy, and had to figure out a way not to compare herself unfavorably to Starfire before she started to self-actualize. I think something like that, probably with a little less 2009 emo aesthetic, would serve Jon better. Maybe I'd like him more.

I don't want to be so apprehensive toward Jon. Maybe making him a little more unique, and making his relationship to Superman's Legacy a little more strained, would help with that.

I love the way you write jon S! Kent....it feels like shazam.But, different.Honestly,it feels kinda like going around with a Big S on your chest with a " i solemnly swear that i am upto no good"

[marhawkman]

I'm not really a Jon S! Kent fan, quite the opposite, in fact - I don't really care for him.

But upon reading the first issue of "Son of Kal-El" I did think that he was characterized pretty much exactly the same as his dad often is. And you know... it was frustrating. Mostly because I feel like Superman - Kal, that is - is disrespected by the dishonest way they make the comparison between the two of them.

I also recently read "I am Not Starfire". It was pretty solid. I enjoyed how Mandy felt the socially-and-self-imposed weight of her mother's legacy, and had to figure out a way not to compare herself unfavorably to Starfire before she started to self-actualize. I think something like that, probably with a little less 2009 emo aesthetic, would serve Jon better. Maybe I'd like him more.

I don't want to be so apprehensive toward Jon. Maybe making him a little more unique, and making his relationship to Superman's Legacy a little more strained, would help with that.

honestly? I thought the strained relationship was the WEAK point of I am not Starfire.

It's just not well enough explained, and many aspects of the way the writer tries to explain it don't make sense. It's critical to the main plot... but.... it's the weakest part of the plot.

Oh also if you pay close attention the story re-writes the way Tamaranean biology works just to setup a moment where she suddenly goes from no power to full power. Yeah.... no thanks.

Anyways, That's the sort of story I'd rather not see them use Jon in.

[Project#13]

I think Jon is more "Neutral Good with Chaotic Tendencies". He is the type of guy who would work with the police, soldiers, etc but not for them. He would respect authority but is not afraid to defy it for the greater good. He would sometimes have a rebellious streak.

[marhawkman]

I think Jon is more "Neutral Good with Chaotic Tendencies". He is the type of guy who would work with the police, soldiers, etc but not for them. He would respect authority but is not afraid to defy it for the greater good. He would sometimes have a rebellious streak.

Hmmm yes, this describes Kal-El perfectly.

One of the interesting quirks with Lex Luthor is that Lex is the epitome of Lawful Evil. He uses his wealth to re-write the rules to benefit him. Thus making what are in effect evil LAWS, to act as barriers to the heroes.

Which... requires there to be some level of "chaotic" tendency.