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

[Crossfist]

I could list the reasons, but then you'd want to respond to those on why it's good or whatever and there'd be a debate, and I am just so over debating it now. I've already had that debate once or twice here. I just don't like it, never have and never will.

Not looking to debate. I haven't been reading comics that long and I'm just curious why you feel that way when legacy seems to be very important to DC. Just looking for perspective

Maybe someone else who feels similar can explain

[manwhohaseverything]

Not looking to debate. I haven't been reading comics that long and I'm just curious why you feel that way when legacy seems to be very important to DC. Just looking for perspective

Maybe someone else who feels similar can explain

Superman has never had any other name and different character being the title hero at the same time. Like say wally west is for flash. Wally is a different character, has different name and yet he is the flash .Superman only ever had different iterations with same name. Essentially, different characters with same name clark kent.Goldenage superman, silverage/bronze age superman, postcrisis superman.. Etc. But, they aren't same characters. It's like this, donner superman and snyder superman both have the name clark kent. But aren't the same character.

[Digifiend]

Yeah, there's basically five main Superman versions, and they're all Clark Kent. Golden Age/Earth-2, Silver Age/Earth-1, post-Crisis, New 52, and the merged Rebirth version.

[manofsteel1979]

I like Jon in concept,and I even enjoyed the Superdad era....but I have always disliked the way we got to him instead of the organic long haul way DC should have done it in the first place. Instead of spending over a decade running away from advancing the Clark and Lois marriage in any way in hopes of reversing it,Jon should have been introduced sometime in the early 2000s organically and actually have him grow into the kid we saw in Rebirth rather than using continuity hijinks to shoehorn him in after the fact. In a way he's a symbol of everything that was wrong with the DiDio era of DC comics in regards to the mess created by DiDio and his editors on Superman's constant meddling ,confusion, indecision and complication did to his continuity and how it diminished the character.

In spite of all that,as I said,I still like the character and what was done with him during the Rebirth era. I enjoyed seeing Superman through the eyes of his son and seeing a glimpse of Superman as a father. It was an interesting new spin. In spite of major problems with that whole Superdad/Nuperman nonsense, I found my self being endeared by Tomasi (and a lesser extent,Jurgens) and what they did in their two years.

I chose "Yes" ,but my answer would be more complicated.

Should the concept of Jon exist and continue past Bendis? Absolutely. As Ascended said,the character and concept are good for the brand.

Should the version of Jon we have had the last few years on main continuity survive? I personally think "no".

What I would settle on if I were God of DC,is spin Jon,the Jon of the Rebirth era,along with Damian Wayne into it's own thing and brand as the Supersons....and I'd treat both as an alternate reality separated from the ongoing continuity.


HOWEVER...if we do indeed get some sort of soft reboot following Death Metal...for Superman, use this as an opportunity to introduce Jon correctly as he should have been in the first place. No slotting him in and then retroactively say he was always there in the background of the last twenty years worth of stories. No aging him up or deaging him at the whim of writers and editorial regimes. Let's actually see Superman and Lois have to adjust to being parents as should have been the case from the start. Lets see Jon being raised as an infant starting now. Of course I'm not saying that should be the primary focus of Superman comics from now on,but a part of his life amid all of the other things Superman is and can be. I've always thought the school of thought having Superman married or showing him as a father somehow automatically stifled the character as mostly bullshit and an excuse to not be creative and think outside of the box.


Of course what i want and what will happen are two separate things. They will likely either just undo the stuff Bendis did with him and revert that particular status quo back to Rebirth era and go from there,or they will go full reboot and eliminate Jon from main continuity altogether and possibly undo the marriage yet again. Who knows at this point.

[Jon Clark]

Yeah, there's basically five main Superman versions, and they're all Clark Kent. Golden Age/Earth-2, Silver Age/Earth-1, post-Crisis, New 52, and the merged Rebirth version.

I'm not as sure about that. I think sometimes that people focus on the window dressing (time period, costume appearance, living/dead Kents) and not on the Superman himself in making those distinctions

On the one hand you have Denny O'Neil's Sand-Superman run, Elliot Maggin's take, and Alan Moore's take all supposedly the exact same "Earth-1" Superman while claiming that this is a distinct character from Roy Thomas' Superman in All-Star Squadron.

On the other you have the guy in the 1930's Action Comics lumped in with Thomas' All-star Squadron, the Mr. & Mrs. Superman stuff and Geoff John's Infinite Crisis but not with Morrison's T-shirt & jeans take which takes it's cues from those early Action issues.

And I'm not arguing about where the divisions should be (1940 vs 1948 for the Golden Age version or if Silver Age needs to be separate from Bronze). I'm saying that in some cases if you got a modern creative team to faithfully adapt the stories to tell them in a modern style without changing the characters' actions or attitudes you'd have more trouble figuring out which stories came from which "version" of Superman. Some of those old books with Three Superman stories in a single issue had more variation in character for Superman than between what people consider two distinct versions today. You can create a single reasonalby consistent Superman as easily using stories from every "era" or dozens of distinct internally consistent versions using combinations of stories from comics, TV and movies. And given a handful of random stories two fans could argue for days about just who Superman is and how many versions are shown based on just those stories.

[NaVi]

Jon is a character who does not contribute anything, he only destroys, Superman fans waiting decades to see how the united planets are created, only so that in the end the phrase of a child turns him into the creator and Superman goes to the background, the legion has had other members of the superverse, but superman has always been the center of everything, now Jon arrives and the legion does not even know who superman is, they even say that Jon is the real superman, without forgetting the excursion with his grandfather, an excursion that became to clark and lois in the worst parents of the comic of recent years. that's why Jon has to disappear.

[Sacred Knight]

If someone came to me hypothetically and said, look, we're not getting rid of the concept, but we are open to go about it another way I'd say "Okay then, deage him to before birth, and actually give us Lois being pregnant, the couple dealing with that, the birth, and then have him a baby and actually giving us characterization of them learning to be parents." Give us the stuff that actually contributes to the characterizations of Clark and Lois, instead of a filler event and a miniseries neither of which are even his actual origin anymore, then just dropping him into the mythos haphazardly. Maybe then, at that point just a question of execution, would I find the concept worth a damn to Superman's world. As it stands now his only worth is to Damian, a Batman character. As is he might as well just be permanently shunted off there for all he contributes to Superman's mythos beyond consistently just stealing his history and achievements.

[Blue22]

And you know...That's fair. if I hadn't already become so attached to Tomasi's version of him I'd actually agree that it would be a good idea to start ALL the way over. Hell part of the problem I had with Bendis' version is that he did seven years worth of growing up and developing (if we're really gonna call it that) off screen.

That said, I think the age Jon was originally at is still kinda perfect when it came to showing Lois and Clark as still relatively inexperienced parents while also keeping Jon at an age where he can be his own character. He's not a baby, no. But he's still a little kid (and one who's developing super powers) and that's still new enough territory for Lois and Clark since this is their first child. I could appreciate some one shots and short stories here and there that dive into their earlier days as parents and the struggles that would come with that. But I think having Jon going back to being ten is a nice in between of two extremes (the first extreme being an infant and the other being...whatever the **** Bendis turned him into)

IDK. Maybe that's just me. I've always looked at both Jon and Conner as characters who can exist as part of the Superman mythos but can also stand on their own so as not to interfere with the majority of Superman's stories. Kinda like what the Robins are now. I like it that way.

[Celgress]

I misread the poll question as saying "Do You Think Jon Will Survive Rather Than Do You Want Him To Survive", thus I voted incorrectly. I hope Jon does survive, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bendis kills him for a cheap WTH moment.

[Journey]

Jon is a character who does not contribute anything, he only destroys, Superman fans waiting decades to see how the united planets are created, only so that in the end the phrase of a child turns him into the creator and Superman goes to the background, the legion has had other members of the superverse, but superman has always been the center of everything, now Jon arrives and the legion does not even know who superman is, they even say that Jon is the real superman, without forgetting the excursion with his grandfather, an excursion that became to clark and lois in the worst parents of the comic of recent years. that's why Jon has to disappear.

That's more Bendis's fault than Jon those were all his ideas.

[Vakanai]

Not looking to debate. I haven't been reading comics that long and I'm just curious why you feel that way when legacy seems to be very important to DC. Just looking for perspective

Maybe someone else who feels similar can explain

Well, if you promise not to debate it.
1. Not all of us are in DC for the "legacy", in fact legacy is one of my most hated aspects of fiction in general
2. I'm one of the "illusion of change" guys, I don't want these stories progressing too far. That kind of thinking that gives us "the logical next step after marriage is kids" is the same that gives us aging, retiring, dying, and legacy stuff. Superman should be eternal, not aging (however slowly) like the rest of us. Time isn't something I want in my comics.
3. He's an orphan from another world, the adopted son of earth. If he's got to be given a family it shouldn't be by birth.
4. Superdad. God no. This characterization has got to go. And being a family man unfortunately helps it to stick. Superman shouldn't be such a "dad"

So for those reasons, I don't want Jon existing. Not as Superman's son. Just no.

[SiegePerilous02]

Well, if you promise not to debate it.
1. Not all of us are in DC for the "legacy", in fact legacy is one of my most hated aspects of fiction in general
2. I'm one of the "illusion of change" guys, I don't want these stories progressing too far. That kind of thinking that gives us "the logical next step after marriage is kids" is the same that gives us aging, retiring, dying, and legacy stuff. Superman should be eternal, not aging (however slowly) like the rest of us. Time isn't something I want in my comics.
3. He's an orphan from another world, the adopted son of earth. If he's got to be given a family it shouldn't be by birth.
4. Superdad. God no. This characterization has got to go. And being a family man unfortunately helps it to stick. Superman shouldn't be such a "dad"

So for those reasons, I don't want Jon existing. Not as Superman's son. Just no.

Mostly agree with this. I'm not against legacy in fiction in general though, but I agree in that it really isn't as much of a backbone to the DCU as people hype it up as. Geoff Johns had some flashy pull quotes spoken by characters in the JSA or Flash about legacy, but we don't really have to take their word for it all the time. Honestly, with the original Earth-1/2 division, maybe alternate continuities/reboots are DC's actual legacy

I'm not sure I agree with the stance of some that alienation is so key to Clark's character that he should never have a child or even get married to Lois. But I tend to agree with thinking it's something that should be reserved for his far off endgame future as a possible ending to his story. Like Lois and Clark marrying in secret and having Jon in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?. That's a perfect ending. Superdad on a regular ongoing basis? Eh, not interested.

[Agent Z]

As far as fans of Superman goes, my answer is unfortunately no. I always thought that giving Clark's child is a bit too cruel to him, considering one of the premises of his character now is an alien in the world that is not his. Having a happy functioning family is just too cruel for him because he will always be different from the others and if the child is not a Kryptonian and instead of a human, it would be even crueler.

How is any of this cruel? Clark has at least one cousin who is alive.

[Prime]

I don't like Jon. Mostly cause he killed Superbro in one way or another.

[Agent Z]

No way, Batman and Green Arrow are still the worst in that regard. Every single one of Bruce’s kids have died and Ollie’s screw up with Roy is legendary.

Oliver apologized to Roy and they reconciled over that decades ago. That's about the one mistake he's made as a parent and while flawed he is nowhere near as bad as Bruce.