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

[Blue22]

I thought he had plenty to do back when he was doing his thing with Damian. And, as much as I don't like it, he's front and center in Legion. To the point where it almost feels like they're building him up to be an even more annoying Christ figure than Zack Snyder's Superman.

The only time I can think of where Jon's a central(ish) character but doesn't do anything is in Jurgens' Action run. Which makes sense. That series is about his Dad. Not him.

Sure I'd love to see him in more stuff. But aside from being a supporting character for Clark and having his own series (be it Super Sons or Legion) what more does he need to do? He's already been doing quite a bit.

[Sacred Knight]

Him having too much to do is part of the problem, not part of the solution, imo. Put aside Bendis, the reason I couldn't stand him in Rebirth was because he was the star of one of the titles. He needs substantially less to do in the Superman titles if they deage him. Pair him back up with Damian or whatever and give him a lot to do there. Make him a part of one of the kid teams. But what I fear the most in a deaging scenario is just going back to a Rebirth status quo where he dominates one Superman's titles.

[Blue22]

Yeah I can understand that. I may have started reading for Jon and stayed for Superman (well...not really stayed since I jumped ship after Bendis came along...but I started reading pre-Tomasi Superman stuff). But most of y'all read Superman for Superman. So I totally get why he might have rubbed a lot of readers the wrong way lol

It seemed like Tomasi was trying to recreate his Batman and Robin run with Superman. And I think that could have gone a lot better if, say...He and Jurgens switched. So Superman was the main focus of the Superman book. And Action was more about the family. Kinda like what Rebirth did with Batman and Tec.

[Sacred Knight]

Well again as I've always known and as the poll clearly shows, I'm in a clear minority in regards to thoughts on him in the first place. So I think far less had a problem with the set-up as it was. I mean maybe the percentage evens out at least somewhat more if you ask the question "Do you like Jon but still felt he had too center a focus in Rebirth's Superman title?" But maybe not, I dunno. But I do stand by the fact that the set-up didn't net the mythos any gains sales wise anyway so I don't see any reason in terms of revenue and marketability on why you can't take a more fair approach and leave Superman's titles to Superman (speaking in terms of the major and main focus of course, I'm not talking no supporting roles) and build the kid mostly in the pages of something else.

[manwhohaseverything]

People see Clark as an authority figure, and being a father can be seen as an extension of that, yes. But so can a lot of things. And not all paternal figures are actual parents, especially in fiction. Hell, it could be said that Superman is a father figure to the entire world, so giving him a kid is redundant and limiting.

The idea that Jon gives context to this, while partially true, is roughly as wrong-headed as saying that Batman abusing his sidekicks gives context to his mental trauma. Just because it *can* be spun that way doesn't mean it *should* be, nor is it the only way to achieve said context.

Yes, but not everyone of prospective audience would be on board with superjesus and supersermons.Many would be turned off and find it condescending at worst, boring at best. Since the character would need audience for anything really . You need to mitigate that. You see either you have supersavior or you don't. There is no middle ground with that. But, this is their middle ground. People who want a paragon of virtues giving them wisdom and shining them a light would get that. Those that don't like it like myself would think clark is just talking to the kid with his "wisdom" . So, context.

Sure it's wrong headed, but hey! Nobody in their right mind would want superbooks to be turned into superbible.But, that's what is happened. Speaking for myself, i find the notion of treating the world as children condescending and bad. Its either this or i am stuck with nothing but a twit talking down to grown people like children with his nonsensical two bit wisdom. (Yeah! I would pack my bag in that case) . I pick this poison because the kid is actually entertaining. Especially, when he is with damian . Supersavior is just pa kent. So everybody wins. It isn't redundant. It's just accommodating audiences.

[Vakanai]

Well again as I've always known and as the poll clearly shows, I'm in a clear minority in regards to thoughts on him in the first place.

Not necessarily, this forum isn't exactly an accurate representation of the comics fandom or world at large. If this place did, Harley Quinn's appearance on a book would be the kiss of death and Batman would have the lowest sells of anyone in the Batfamily. So the character and concept of Jon could be far more popular here than he would be if you could poll everyone who actually reads a Superman book.

[Ascended]

Him having too much to do is part of the problem, not part of the solution, imo. Put aside Bendis, the reason I couldn't stand him in Rebirth was because he was the star of one of the titles. He needs substantially less to do in the Superman titles if they deage him. Pair him back up with Damian or whatever and give him a lot to do there. Make him a part of one of the kid teams. But what I fear the most in a deaging scenario is just going back to a Rebirth status quo where he dominates one Superman's titles.

Agreed. As much as I'm personally against the concept of Jon what really bothered me was how Jon took over the entire book. For the first arc or two, that's understandable; you're trying to introduce a new and important element into the mythos so of course you focus on it at first. But I don't read Superman for Jon, I read it for Superman, and through Tomasi's *entire* f*cking run, it was almost always about Jon.

Yes, but not everyone of prospective audience would be on board with superjesus and supersermons.Many would be turned off and find it condescending at worst, boring at best. Since the character would need audience for anything really . You need to mitigate that. You see either you have supersavior or you don't. There is no middle ground with that. But, this is their middle ground. People who want a paragon of virtues giving them wisdom and shining them a light would get that. Those that don't like it like myself would think clark is just talking to the kid with his "wisdom" . So, context.

But it's not a binary choice between "pompous windbag" and "doting father." Superman can be seen as an authority figure without being either of those things, and spent the majority of his history doing exactly that.

This *is* the middle ground DC decided on but....it's DC. The fact that this was their choice is a sign that it was the wrong one.

[JAK]

Yes, but turn him back to his 10-11 years old, he was a much more unique and marketable character.

This.

Funny enough, I do see the point of Sacred and others wishing they'd just re-introduce Jon so we get the backstory and the enrichment of Lois and Clark as characters going through all of the process. I think that's why ageing Jon up was such a horrible thing... they kinda did it twice. Once to get him to 10, and then again. That's just too much of a character's time robbed from readers. Once is not good, but I can roll with it. Twice? Especially since we have Conner already filling the "Superman-as-teen" role quite nicely in ways they'd never let happen with Jon, so it's just such a waste of character potential. Jon seeing Conner as a big brother, maybe wanting to hang out with him more than Conner would care to, that kinda stuff could be great.


A compromise would be to have a series that covers all of this - think "52" but for telling the pregnancy-to-birth story. DC will never do it, especially now, but that would be a way to show that progression while still having Jon be in the main books. At age 10(ish).

[manwhohaseverything]

But it's not a binary choice between "pompous windbag" and "doting father." Superman can be seen as an authority figure without being either of those things, and spent the majority of his history doing exactly that.

This *is* the middle ground DC decided on but....it's DC. The fact that this was their choice is a sign that it was the wrong one.

Does he? I doubt it. Sure, you can do that. But, there would be always people that believe there shouldn't be moral authority in the first place like myself. There would be people who have different world from Clark's pre-enlightenment European/Middle Eastern religious worldview which tells that "seeking power=bad".By that measuring stick, bushido would be totally bad.So believing a self made man of pure will and can exist and that he would always play fairly would be blashempy.For instance, goku would be bad in superman's world(not batman, the guy cheats and focuses on bringing people down. Not getting up himself). That's another problem. Morality is an individual choice. It should never be made collective dogma. People need to pick themselves up when they fall trying to rise. They don't need a skyfather for that purpose. People could try to be their own best selves,not try to be someone else. It would have serious consequences.Superman being safe is such a problem. Superman the character has to do what the collective desides a moral paragon would do. Its not doing the right thing. It's about doing the good. Not individual good(a content creator) , but the collective good(fans decide) . Moreover, i seriously am doubting whether the character is truly good, loves people.. Etc or acting out a certain role so that character escapes controversy . Anyways for people that think like above, superman would never be good. He would always be someone who represses progress. A dead end, Never the man of tomorrow.People need aspirations. People love working. Hence, people like goku.

So jon is fresh air for them. Those people can enjoy superman without feeling simply put yuck!. Superman can be the authority figure every one has made him into. Jon would take the edge of that. Moreover, jon could be like the phantom legacy I talked about.
"I swear to devote my life to the destruction of corruption, oppression using power, greed, lies and injustice!in all their forms And my sons, and their sons, shall follow me!"

A real gladiator for truth and justice. Embody the values of true superman one day(i doubt it because most writers don't get it) and build a different fanbase without destroying the old one's expectations . As said, jon could bully, be a dick, actually try new things... Etc. He is more of an adventurer seeking progress(within himself) with his pal. He does fall flat on his face by trying to push boundaries of his limitations and getting into trouble. He can be reckless, be emotional... Etc. It wouldn't be seen as weaknesses. He is Not a knight seeking conformity. He wasn't much of space prince in that way until bendis tried to forcefully shove him and make him "superhero" like his dad. He is a kid who lived with a bunch of alien refugees hiding out in a farm in nowhere'sville. Even then he isn't naive, just innocent . Ofcourse, this is all just potential.What the character actually turns out is up in the air. I am not gonna burden the character being the real superman. I just want to read about the kid paling around causing mischeif, getting into trouble, breaking rules and exploring.

[Vordan]

I myself enjoyed the duo team up of Clark and Jon throughout Rebirth, although I was less wild about Lois’ status as the stay at home mom “baking pies for her boys” in Tomasi’s run as Rucka put it. That’s not Lois for me, not saying there’s anything wrong with that or that Lois is a bad mom or wife in any way, but “stay at home” is not a moniker I can ever see her holding. Since I didn’t really enjoy Jurgen’s Action outside of one or two arcs though, that meant Superman basically took on a supporting cast role in his main book, with Jon becoming the main protagonist. Some of you like that, I even enjoyed it at times myself, but it’s not what I want from the books in the long run.

All that said, Tomasi’s run would’ve been waaaaay worse without Jon. His talent is in writing duo protagonists that can play against each other (Kyle & Guy in GLC, Bruce & Damian in B&R, and Clark & Jon in Superman). When he writes a solo hero it’s typically tepid and boring. See Multiplicity in Superman and his current Tec run for what I’m talking about. Just bland storytelling that’s very reliant on cliches and doesn’t bring much in the way of new ideas to the table. I mean he wrote a multiversal team up of Supermen and it sucked to the point barely anyone even remembers it happened. I doubt any of you could name the OC he used for that arc without looking it up.

[HsssH]

Agreed on that, remove Jon from Tomasi's run and there is nothing there.

[rpmaluki]

I want Jon to survive, whatever age at this stage, it don't matter all that much to me. However, I will say his best outing was under Tomasi but like some have said, Tomasi's Superman book left a somewhat sour taste in my mouth. I read Superman books for Superman, at the most and looking back, that was frustrating when everything was always Jon, Jon, Jon and I was even more unimpressed with his use for Lois. The less said about that the better. I don't want to go back to that period ever again. If Jon ever gets de-aged, bring back Super Sons so he can shine in an appropriate setting instead of gobbling up much panel time that should go to his father who's the title character of his book.

[Robanker]

I myself enjoyed the duo team up of Clark and Jon throughout Rebirth, although I was less wild about Lois’ status as the stay at home mom “baking pies for her boys” in Tomasi’s run as Rucka put it. That’s not Lois for me, not saying there’s anything wrong with that or that Lois is a bad mom or wife in any way, but “stay at home” is not a moniker I can ever see her holding. Since I didn’t really enjoy Jurgen’s Action outside of one or two arcs though, that meant Superman basically took on a supporting cast role in his main book, with Jon becoming the main protagonist. Some of you like that, I even enjoyed it at times myself, but it’s not what I want from the books in the long run.

All that said, Tomasi’s run would’ve been waaaaay worse without Jon. His talent is in writing duo protagonists that can play against each other (Kyle & Guy in GLC, Bruce & Damian in B&R, and Clark & Jon in Superman). When he writes a solo hero it’s typically tepid and boring. See Multiplicity in Superman and his current Tec run for what I’m talking about. Just bland storytelling that’s very reliant on cliches and doesn’t bring much in the way of new ideas to the table. I mean he wrote a multiversal team up of Supermen and it sucked to the point barely anyone even remembers it happened. I doubt any of you could name the OC he used for that arc without looking it up.

Cosigned. I liked Superman and son, but goddammit Lois was done a great disservice in that status quo.

[Digifiend]

And given that Snyder directly referenced and used the DC One Million toys in his JL run, for the moment it’s still the canon future. Of course that could always change lol.

John Fox also just showed up in The Flash.

[Laufeyson]

I myself enjoyed the duo team up of Clark and Jon throughout Rebirth, although I was less wild about Lois’ status as the stay at home mom “baking pies for her boys” in Tomasi’s run as Rucka put it. That’s not Lois for me, not saying there’s anything wrong with that or that Lois is a bad mom or wife in any way, but “stay at home” is not a moniker I can ever see her holding. Since I didn’t really enjoy Jurgen’s Action outside of one or two arcs though, that meant Superman basically took on a supporting cast role in his main book, with Jon becoming the main protagonist. Some of you like that, I even enjoyed it at times myself, but it’s not what I want from the books in the long run.

All that said, Tomasi’s run would’ve been waaaaay worse without Jon. His talent is in writing duo protagonists that can play against each other (Kyle & Guy in GLC, Bruce & Damian in B&R, and Clark & Jon in Superman). When he writes a solo hero it’s typically tepid and boring. See Multiplicity in Superman and his current Tec run for what I’m talking about. Just bland storytelling that’s very reliant on cliches and doesn’t bring much in the way of new ideas to the table. I mean he wrote a multiversal team up of Supermen and it sucked to the point barely anyone even remembers it happened. I doubt any of you could name the OC he used for that arc without looking it up.

100% agree with this post.