"Superman" is a Mantle

[Sacred Knight]

To me, it solves what I find as the ultimate issue as the child idea the first time around not being about Superman and Lois. While many disagree I'll always maintain it was a completely botched initiative from the word go. While everyone mostly focuses on the teen age up, to me the original age up was just as bad. Yes it gets you a new Superboy to play with. but all of it bypasses what should have always been the major motivation behind it: building the Kents as new parents. It was too big a development to gloss over like they did in just a miniseries. Hell even the origin of the birth changed within a year or two of it happening. It was all a major cluster, well before Bendis. Is a baby inherently interesting as a character? No, it can't be, its just a baby. But that's not really the point. Building your married couple and your freaking star into something new is way more interesting to me than a brand new out of nowhere 10 year old kid. Because when all is said and done I'm in this for Superman. Him and Lois are still more important than he'll ever be.

[Superboy-Prime]

To me, it solves what I find as the ultimate issue as the child idea the first time around not being about Superman and Lois. While many disagree I'll always maintain it was a completely botched initiative from the word go. While everyone mostly focuses on the teen age up, to me the original age up was just as bad. Yes it gets you a new Superboy to play with. but all of it bypasses what should have always been the major motivation behind it: building the Kents as new parents. It was too big a development to gloss over like they did in just a miniseries. Hell even the origin of the birth changed within a year or two of it happening. It was all a major cluster, well before Bendis. Is a baby inherently interesting as a character? No, it can't be, its just a baby. But that's not really the point. Building your married couple and your freaking star into something new is way more interesting to me than a brand new out of nowhere 10 year old kid. Because when all is said and done I'm in this for Superman. Him and Lois are still more important than he'll ever be.

I disagree.

[Alpha]

To me, it solves what I find as the ultimate issue as the child idea the first time around not being about Superman and Lois. While many disagree I'll always maintain it was a completely botched initiative from the word go. While everyone mostly focuses on the teen age up, to me the original age up was just as bad. Yes it gets you a new Superboy to play with. but all of it bypasses what should have always been the major motivation behind it: building the Kents as new parents. It was too big a development to gloss over like they did in just a miniseries. Hell even the origin of the birth changed within a year or two of it happening. It was all a major cluster, well before Bendis. Is a baby inherently interesting as a character? No, it can't be, its just a baby. But that's not really the point. Building your married couple and your freaking star into something new is way more interesting to me than a brand new out of nowhere 10 year old kid. Because when all is said and done I'm in this for Superman. Him and Lois are still more important than he'll ever be.

The thing is, you can tell flashback stories about Jon as a baby any time you want. But you can't tell a story about 14 year old Jon talking with his dad about going to the gym and muscles, or learning how to drive, or any of the things people go through at those ages, because Bendis made sure it never happened.

[Vordan]

The thing is, you can tell flashback stories about Jon as a baby any time you want. But you can't tell a story about 14 year old Jon talking with his dad about going to the gym and muscles, or learning how to drive, or any of the things people go through at those ages, because Bendis made sure it never happened.

To me all those stories sound incredibly boring. Why would I pay $4-5 to read about Jon going to the gym? Outside of Tomasi’s fairground issue, the slice of life Rebirth stuff was tremendously dull and the worst part of the run.

[Frontier]

To me all those stories sound incredibly boring. Why would I pay $4-5 to read about Jon going to the gym? Outside of Tomasi’s fairground issue, the slice of life Rebirth stuff was tremendously dull and the worst part of the run.

I feel like any Superhero comic should have a good balance between normal stuff and the Superhero stuff instead of being Superhero stuff 24/7 (although I guess the genre gearing more towards the latter mean people care less about the former), but I guess it comes down to execution.

[Vordan]

I feel like any Superhero comic should have a good balance between normal stuff and the Superhero stuff instead of being Superhero stuff 24/7 (although I guess the genre gearing more towards the latter mean people care less about the former), but I guess it comes down to execution.

It works best when you mix the mundane and the superhero. For example I like stuff such as the recent Truth & Justice Superman story that uses Clark’s journalism and Superman’s action. But something like “Clark goes to the laundry room to wash his clothes! But OH NO he forgot his change! Can he find a spare quarter using his x-ray vision?!?!” isn’t something that really grabs me. Straightforward soap opera or slice of life in superhero comics isn’t really my thing.

[magha_regulus]

To me, it solves what I find as the ultimate issue as the child idea the first time around not being about Superman and Lois. While many disagree I'll always maintain it was a completely botched initiative from the word go. While everyone mostly focuses on the teen age up, to me the original age up was just as bad. Yes it gets you a new Superboy to play with. but all of it bypasses what should have always been the major motivation behind it: building the Kents as new parents. It was too big a development to gloss over like they did in just a miniseries. Hell even the origin of the birth changed within a year or two of it happening. It was all a major cluster, well before Bendis. Is a baby inherently interesting as a character? No, it can't be, its just a baby. But that's not really the point. Building your married couple and your freaking star into something new is way more interesting to me than a brand new out of nowhere 10 year old kid. Because when all is said and done I'm in this for Superman. Him and Lois are still more important than he'll ever be.

I absolutely agree with you. The way they rushed this was terrible. They should've let us experience this development. I think Franklin Richards fromt he Fantastic Four is a great model of what should've been attempted development wise.

[Celgress]

The thing is, you can tell flashback stories about Jon as a baby any time you want. But you can't tell a story about 14 year old Jon talking with his dad about going to the gym and muscles, or learning how to drive, or any of the things people go through at those ages, because Bendis made sure it never happened.

Well put, Bendis took all that away for those of us who are interested in reading such stories, and worse yet he took it away from future writers who wanted to tell such stories. Although, in all fairness, I'm sure DC Editorial okayed his ideas.

[Celgress]

To me, it solves what I find as the ultimate issue as the child idea the first time around not being about Superman and Lois. While many disagree I'll always maintain it was a completely botched initiative from the word go. While everyone mostly focuses on the teen age up, to me the original age up was just as bad. Yes it gets you a new Superboy to play with. but all of it bypasses what should have always been the major motivation behind it: building the Kents as new parents. It was too big a development to gloss over like they did in just a miniseries. Hell even the origin of the birth changed within a year or two of it happening. It was all a major cluster, well before Bendis. Is a baby inherently interesting as a character? No, it can't be, its just a baby. But that's not really the point. Building your married couple and your freaking star into something new is way more interesting to me than a brand new out of nowhere 10 year old kid. Because when all is said and done I'm in this for Superman. Him and Lois are still more important than he'll ever be.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Sacred Knight]

And look I'm not trying to be hypocritical and back off my preferences that I've been talking about for what, 4 years now or so. I still would prefer Superman not be a dad at all. But there's a lot of things I would prefer with the character that don't all come together and happen at the same time. I pushed back on that at the beginning, and in general its still how I feel. At the same time, I'm operating on the pretty hard to dismiss idea that Dad Superman is just what they want to do in general. And understanding that, and that it generally is a new concept to work with...do it well and do it worthy of the title character and Lois. And I don't feel they did that, not at all.

[manwhohaseverything]

I am not really interested in clark as a dad or lois as a mother,Unless it's something like incredibles where there is this spy and fantastical quotient.It doesn't matter if it's 14 year old or baby version.And chances of that is slim.The focus of comics would be some unholy drama.There wouldn't any humor or action or adventure.Clark would be stuck with the wierd "I am a normal dad.Look how tough my life is"(Being a dad is tough.But,it's not the end of the world or something).Even then the kid or the baby jon should be a character and not plot point.It would be about clark kent(with glasses),Not superman having family.To be fair,i am more interested in jon kent.Clark kent superman isn't for me anymore.(with some exception like future state world of war)

[Alpha]

.To be fair,i am more interested in jon

It doesn't feel like you are interested in Jon Kent. There were 3 comics in future State where Jon Kent appeared. You only liked Superman of Metropolis #1. You are interested in a specific set of characteristics and you will accept whatever character conforms to that role. What I'm puzzled by is why you think Jon Kent makes more sense as Golden Age Superman than Conner Kent.

[Frontier]

It works best when you mix the mundane and the superhero. For example I like stuff such as the recent Truth & Justice Superman story that uses Clark’s journalism and Superman’s action. But something like “Clark goes to the laundry room to wash his clothes! But OH NO he forgot his change! Can he find a spare quarter using his x-ray vision?!?!” isn’t something that really grabs me. Straightforward soap opera or slice of life in superhero comics isn’t really my thing.

It's all in the execution .

[Robanker]

It works best when you mix the mundane and the superhero. For example I like stuff such as the recent Truth & Justice Superman story that uses Clark’s journalism and Superman’s action. But something like “Clark goes to the laundry room to wash his clothes! But OH NO he forgot his change! Can he find a spare quarter using his x-ray vision?!?!” isn’t something that really grabs me. Straightforward soap opera or slice of life in superhero comics isn’t really my thing.

I think those slice of life issues make for excellent palette cleansers following more dramatic arcs. Issue #7 of the Tomasi run where they go to the Hamilton County Fair, for example.

It all works in moderation. Execution is what matters, at least to this reader.

[manwhohaseverything]

It doesn't feel like you are interested in Jon Kent. There were 3 comics in future State where Jon Kent appeared. You only liked Superman of Metropolis #1. You are interested in a specific set of characteristics and you will accept whatever character conforms to that role. What I'm puzzled by is why you think Jon Kent makes more sense as Golden Age Superman than Conner Kent.

I like jon kent when he doesn't feel like clark kent 2.0.Everything else was jon being clark.I don't see jon growing up into clark.Jon lived a fantastic life of adventure,from the minute he came to know his dad was superman when he was 7.It's like the jarring transformation of conner from kesel version to that johns.Yeah! i like certain characteristics in my characters.Charateristics make up character.It's called preference.Why do you think some like batman or spiderman...etc.I liked jon cause he had cool adventures and under his parents nose.He got into trouble.He helped people.He goofed off.He didn't let his counter part bully him.Overall,these kids were a riot.Not boring to say the least.Look,all i want from jon is to keep the old energy up.Bring back tomasi's and jurgens stuff with the character.Go from there.Bendis ideas were ok.But,his execution was botched.I would love it to have jon meet green lanterns,lobo..etc.Getting stuck and facing earth-3 ultraman was fantastic idea.But,these things were all rushed.Moreover,I prefer jon being in damian's generation.Jon going to legion college was great idea too.(even if it was something everyone of these characters have done).Jon felt naturally fit to be the silverage superman kinda deal.But,the other books is about him being "an example" to people and same moral authority figure.Last thing i want is that.The character is better of falling on his face and accidentally going nuclear on titans tower,Getting rejected and hunted for it.Moreover,Jon and damian as whole were brothers that have grown enough together to take on the world for each other.That's the kinda relationships the kid should have.


I didn't say anything about goldenage superman or conner.Comics Conner is nothing like goldenage superman.Maybe the young justice tv version.Overall,jon is more modern version of silverage superman (if anything) without being a sun god.With his power being a wacky,than stable.Silverage/bronze age superman had some great fantasy adventures and explorations.But overall,i want jon to be champion and a never a savior.Regardless of which version of the character he feels similar too