Poll: Do you want Jon to survive the post-Bendis era?

[Morgoth]

I'm curious. Why do heroes having kids bother people so much? Outside of Tomasi's Superman and Batman & Robin (the latter of which would obviously have a heavy focus on Damian) they really don't get in the way of the hero's solo adventures nearly as much as people say they do. Wally was doing just fine with his kids. Animal man and Black Lightning too. Hell, a good chunk of Marvel heroes (including freakin Deadpool) are parents and that still doesn't get in the way of their adventures as heroes.

I understand the push-back with Jon since, again, Superman ended up being more about him than the titular character. But other than that, I just don't really see the problem. These characters are all adults in their late 20s to mid 30s. They're gonna get married. They're gonna hook up or sleep around (especially since being a superhero seems to be like...the horniest profession ever). And,sometimes that means they're gonna have kids. I always just saw it as another reminder that, beneath all the fantasy and grandeur, these people are still...well....people. It's no more different than them having jobs and love interests when they take off the capes and tights.

But then, I've always been that weird guy who's thought that a superhero's personal life is often just as interesting as their adventures as heroes. Hell, in some cases, I find it to be more interesting.

Because marriages and children are a huge change in an already established status quo (unless it's the Fantastic Four). This limits the author's work, it takes away the focus from superhero adventures, it adds the need to pay attention to family life, which can annoy those who are not interested in it. There can be many reasons, in fact.
By the way, this is a much more serious problem for writers. In terms of readers, so far it turns out that most are not particularly against families and children. But for many writers it's really difficult.

[Journey]

I'm curious. Why do heroes having kids bother people so much? Outside of Tomasi's Superman and Batman & Robin (the latter of which would obviously have a heavy focus on Damian) they really don't get in the way of the hero's solo adventures nearly as much as people say they do. Wally was doing just fine with his kids. Animal man and Black Lightning too. Hell, a good chunk of Marvel heroes (including freakin Deadpool) are parents and that still doesn't get in the way of their adventures as heroes.

I understand the push-back with Jon since, again, Superman ended up being more about him than the titular character. But other than that, I just don't really see the problem. These characters are all adults in their late 20s to mid 30s. They're gonna get married. They're gonna hook up or sleep around (especially since being a superhero seems to be like...the horniest profession ever). And,sometimes that means they're gonna have kids. I always just saw it as another reminder that, beneath all the fantasy and grandeur, these people are still...well....people. It's no more different than them having jobs and love interests when they take off the capes and tights.

But then, I've always been that weird guy who's thought that a superhero's personal life is often just as interesting as their adventures as heroes. Hell, in some cases, I find it to be more interesting.

I don't get it either kids bring growth you can't expect comic characters to stay the same forever and legacy is good provides for the next generation and what not. Ultimately i feel some people are just stuck in their ways and like the same old same old it is what it is.

[Vakanai]

I don't get it either kids bring growth you can't expect comixccharacters to stay the same forever and legacy is good provides for the next generation and what not. Ultimately i feel some people are just stuck in their ways and like the same old same old it is what it is.

I can safely say that I don't care about legacy or providing for the next generation. Hercules is still Hercules, Sherlock Holmes is still Sherlock Holmes, Superman will always be Superman - Clark Kent. And growth is alright to an extent, but at some point it becomes too much. There's only so much growth before frankly a character should be aged out and ready to die and retire, and I'm just not interested in that.

Besides, plenty of people, even married couples, never have kids.

[Journey]

I can safely say that I don't care about legacy or providing for the next generation. Hercules is still Hercules, Sherlock Holmes is still Sherlock Holmes, Superman will always be Superman - Clark Kent. And growth is alright to an extent, but at some point it becomes too much. There's only so much growth before frankly a character should be aged out and ready to die and retire, and I'm just not interested in that.

Besides, plenty of people, even married couples, never have kids.

That's cool everyone's different.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't get it either kids bring growth you can't expect comic characters to stay the same forever and legacy is good provides for the next generation and what not. Ultimately i feel some people are just stuck in their ways and like the same old same old it is what it is.

You kind of can expect comics characters to stay the same forever. Superman's been somewhere in his vague 30s age range since before even my parents were born, why suddenly expect legacy to be a concrete thing now?

The characters are bigger than one narrative, having one narrative with multiple generations is sort of unwieldy. Characters like Superman and Batman work better without being tied down to one continuity where various creators can experiment with them and keep them fresh. You can provide endings for them in one version, and another set of creators can do their own "tale" about them that doesn't have to line up with it.

We also probably shouldn't be religiously following these characters as if it's one ongoing story, as much as we do anyway. Part of the problem, comics wise, is the older generation of readers aren't moving on and then younger kids (for whom this is all new to them, no matter that Supes has been around since 1938) start reading. DC characters in particular were not designed to be heavily serialized. That's more of a Marvel thing and even they can't manage it. Plus, the inability for brand new characters to take off, so the only viable way to provide diversity is through legacy despite the potential drawbacks of it.

[Journey]

You kind of can expect comics characters to stay the same forever. Superman's been somewhere in his vague 30s age range since before even my parents were born, why suddenly expect legacy to be a concrete thing now?

The characters are bigger than one narrative, having one narrative with multiple generations is sort of unwieldy. Characters like Superman and Batman work better without being tied down to one continuity where various creators can experiment with them and keep them fresh. You can provide endings for them in one version, and another set of creators can do their own "tale" about them that doesn't have to line up with it.

We also probably shouldn't be religiously following these characters as if it's one ongoing story, as much as we do anyway. Part of the problem, comics wise, is the older generation of readers aren't moving on and then younger kids (for whom this is all new to them, no matter that Supes has been around since 1938) start reading. DC characters in particular were not designed to be heavily serialized. That's more of a Marvel thing and even they can't manage it. Plus, the inability for brand new characters to take off, so the only viable way to provide diversity is through legacy despite the potential drawbacks of it.

Well speaking from the experience of someone who only knows about Superman through the Big Screen, Justice League cartoon and New 52/Rebirth. I never found the character that interesting, honestly I thought all his tropes were played out having Jon gave him some spark for me it was new and not the same Superman goes in gets whooped, makes a comback puts glasses on, and repeat the next day. I enjoy legacy and growth but that's just me admittedly I'm not like some huge longtime fan frankly I'm relatively indifferent to Clark.

[Ascended]

Because marriages and children are a huge change in an already established status quo (unless it's the Fantastic Four). This limits the author's work, it takes away the focus from superhero adventures, it adds the need to pay attention to family life, which can annoy those who are not interested in it. There can be many reasons, in fact.
By the way, this is a much more serious problem for writers. In terms of readers, so far it turns out that most are not particularly against families and children. But for many writers it's really difficult.

Y'all know I don't like the idea of Clark being a father. I take great issue with it on a conceptual level. But this here just isn't true.

It *is* a change in the status quo, but it doesn't take away from the "superhero" focus, it doesn't add the *need* to pay attention to family life, or any of it. They're just another part of the supporting cast, and don't *demand* any more page time than the usual cast member.

Since Jon has been introduced, has Clark stopped being Superman? Has he stopped traveling time and space, fighting evil, and saving lives? Sure, Tomasi turned Jon into the main character of the book but that's *one* writer going overboard. Hell, weren't people *bitching* at the start of Bendis' run because the wife and kid were completely gone? Aren't there plenty of comics where Batman works solo, even when he and Damian are getting along and working together in other books? Doesn't sound like having kids requires a book to be all about them.

People said this same thing back when Clark and Lois got married too. They feared the books would become nothing but the marriage. And there were plenty of stories where that did take center stage, just like there were stories where the Planet, Lex, Legion, Krypton, whatever, took center stage.

Kids *add* options to the narrative, they don't really take options away. You can do a story about Clark and Lois on a date, about Clark in the Vega System, about Superman lost in time, or investigating a string of arsons in Metropolis....there is not a Superman story out there that you cannot tell by adding Jon, unless it's a story about Clark feeling bad he doesn't have a family. At most you have to add a line or two of dialogue; "I'm glad we have a babysitter" or "I hope I escape this space prison and return home soon, because my stuff and the things I care about are there, including now a kid."

I'd rather Jon not exist because I don't think it's the right move for this character. But kids don't break the superhero narrative and that has been proven many times. Some writers suck at it, yes. Some writers go way too overboard with it. Whatever, some writers suck at their jobs, and generally I find the writers who suck at handling family dynamics and kids and also the writers who aren't terribly good at writing, so it's not the kid ruining the book it's the talent.

[Morgoth]

I agree, I just listed the reasons that I often heard in such conversations about it. On the contrary, I think that there is nothing wrong with this and that this is a good development.

[SiegePerilous02]

Well speaking from the experience of someone who only knows about Superman through the Big Screen, Justice League cartoon and New 52/Rebirth. I never found the character that interesting, honestly I thought all his tropes were played out having Jon gave him some spark for me it was new and not the same Superman goes in gets whooped, makes a comback puts glasses on, and repeat the next day. I enjoy legacy and growth but that's just me admittedly I'm not like some huge longtime fan frankly I'm relatively indifferent to Clark.

Well there's your problem I wouldn't look to most of those for interesting takes on Clark (even most of the New 52 isn't that great outside of Morrison).

I find that's the stance most legacy fans have; they don't really care for the older characters, so the legacy thing ages them out and replaces them with newer characters. But for this who prioritize the older characters, the legacy can be (not always) an unwanted nuisance. Story progression and character arcs tend to work better in finite narratives with one author in charge who has a consistent vision. It's why it works great with manga series and basically any form of entertainment beyond mainstream superhero comics.

[Sacred Knight]

That's definitely DC's problem with Superman. They can't make him resonate with younger readers. They'd given up trying in the comics hence the creation of Jon, and hence him dominating so much plot for the past 4 years. Although it would have been a pathetic solution either way, at the very least if it boosted Superman's book status for any decent amount of time I could at least understand it a little bit. Still fighting the idea kicking and screaming but understanding it from a financial point of view. But it hasn't even done that much.

[Coal Tiger]

That's definitely DC's problem with Superman. They can't make him resonate with younger readers. They'd given up trying in the comics hence the creation of Jon, and hence him dominating so much plot for the past 4 years. Although it would have been a pathetic solution either way, at the very least if it boosted Superman's book status for any decent amount of time I could at least understand it a little bit. Still fighting the idea kicking and screaming but understanding it from a financial point of view. But it hasn't even done that much.

Are there any "younger readers"? Seriously, who are these minors who are reading american superhero comics on a monthly basis in 2020?

[Sacred Knight]

Apparently some, I sure don't know how many, but I've certainly seen a few. Obviously though its still a medium dominated by middle-aged men. But to get the children of today into it, and this is something that has been a topic of discussion here for ages, first step probably lies in a much stronger digital distribution and advertising method. That step we might actually see come to fruition here soon if the words of the new regime are to be believed.

[Journey]

Are there any "younger readers"? Seriously, who are these minors who are reading american superhero comics on a monthly basis in 2020?

My little cousin loves his monthly comics usually Marvel though.

[Robanker]

Apparently some, I sure don't know how many, but I've certainly seen a few. Obviously though its still a medium dominated by middle-aged men. But to get the children of today into it, and this is something that has been a topic of discussion here for ages, first step probably lies in a much stronger digital distribution and advertising method. That step we might actually see come to fruition here soon if the words of the new regime are to be believed.

Not targeting this at you, Sacred Knight, but a point I see missed often that is pertinent to the conversation:

When comics are cheap enough parents can impulse buy them for their kids, we'll see younger readers coming along more frequently. Stuff like DC Universe is also a good way to get kids in. I feel like a lot of people forget parents are the ones you actually have to sell to in order to get younger readers with no income to buy in monthly. The ones that exist now probably did what I did when I was young and save their lunch money and buy what they could by walking to the store after school.

If they're really trying to get new younger readers, they need to lower the barrier to entry. DCU going global and matching Marvel's release pattern is a step in that direction.

After that, you also need books that would appeal to them. The old Young Justice by Peter David was pretty good at this and Super Sons recently was successful as well. Shame the latter got nixed.

[JAK]

Honestly, there was a LOT of potential in Jon. Not a "teen Superman," but an actual SuperBOY - even younger than the traditional Pre-Crisis SuperBoy. That kind of character in comics is uncommon, if not outright rare. So:

1: A very young hero character to grab younger readers (not a necessity, as a lot of us were young when we started reading Superman, but good to have) into the main books: AKA Superman "gateway drug" lol
2: A Super-character with good potential in younger-format books (as in his own stories, not just in the Super-titles).
3: A good filter for Superman - while i don't think it's necessary, Superman's self-held example nature *can* be hard for some people to grasp, and Jon could potentially help increase the number of people who "get" him.
4: More story potential: having a son can be enriching for the character - IF in the hands of a capable writer.

Superman being married and being a father always struck me as a good idea. I know others here disagree, including some here that I have a lot of respect for - and they make their points well! But DC needs to handle this well if they're going to make it stick.. and we all know how I feel about DC's ability to make good decisions...lol