Superman: son of Kal-El

[Ra-El]

I'm certainly interested to see how Superman: Son of Kal-El sells. If it maintains current levels is that an indication of Jon's popularity, that X-number of people will buy any book with Superman on the title or a mix of both? It'd be really interesting to see detailed tpb and digital sales figures as those platforms seem to sell better to younger and newer fans.

On the other hand, I remember the last time DC tried this and sent Superman to New Krypton, replacing him in the main books with Mon-El in one and Nightwing and Flamebird in the other.

Probably will sell better than Action Comics. Tom Taylor is a bigger name than PKJ, his Nightwing have got nothing but critical praise and DC will most likely put a lot of efforts to promote it. As someone that loves Invincible, I'm excited to see Jon going in the same direction, but I also know that what made Invincible so good was the fact the story and characters actually progressed, years passed in story, Mark changed as a person and character in ways that Jon just can't.
Another plus to Jon getting his own book, is that hopefuly it will free Clark to have other characterizations beyond just his kid, because I'm getting really tired of how every time we go in his head he is thinking about Jon.

[Vordan]

Not to be conspiracy theorist or anything...but I do wonder of this isn't just the next in the line of Warner Bros wanting to secure a version of Superman that they can own lock stock and barrel without having to deal in the future with the Siegel and Shuster estate. Granted, things are supposed to be fine with all parties now,but will that change in the future?

I also wonder if this is somehow related to the fact that if the laws don't change in regards to public domain,that Superman,the Superman from Action #1...aka Clark Kent, will eventually fall into the public domain. Meaning anyone could conceivably publish Superman stories. Maybe Warners wants their own "official" Superman in case that day does come.

Its funny how many times since the later 90s Warners/DC have tried to reinvent the wheel in ways that retain the things they indisputably own (the trademarked "S" emblem,Metropolis, most of the villains and supporting cast etc) while deemphasizing and in some instances removing aspects that their ownership of is in question (the Clark Kent secret id,the original trunked costume, Lois Lane as Superman's love interest etc). It may just come down to creators being bored with certain things and wanting to change for change sake,but it all feels too coincidental if you look at it in a larger meta view outside of the stories themselves.

As for this....I don't know. I'm ok with Clark and Jon sharing the role for awhile,but if DC decides to make Jon the only Superman going forward, I'll probably just bow out for good. To me,Superman is and will always be Kal-El/Clark Kent. Anyone else is a mere pretender. I like Jon as a character and concept,but he will never be Superman no matter how much DC wants it to be. If Clark Kent/Kal-El ever gets pushed out completely, I'm done.

I don’t really buy that because guess who is entering public domain a year after Clark? Bruce, and there’s no way WB/DC will ever be replacing Bruce in a long term capacity. If they did want to replace Clark with a Superman they own wholeheartedly, why Jon? Given the emphasis on creative synergy that’s said to be a much stronger factor at DC, Jon seems a weird choice. He (likely) won’t be the Superman of the reboot, he’s the one who doesn’t have powers on the show, and everywhere else Clark is still Superman (animation, video games, etc). I guess maybe they’re waiting for Taylor to build Jon up first and then they’ll start using what he establishes but I doubt that, WB isn’t that coordinated

No I think the answer is much simpler: Jon is their attempt at a New 52 reboot of the Superman franchise without taking away from those who love Superdad. You want your old, boring married Superman who can’t screw up because he’s “the best of us” and has to always remain wholesome and make you feel good? Fine you can have that loser, he’ll be over in Action being boring for you boomers. Meanwhile we’ll take Jon, who isn’t locked into one love interest as the endgame like Clark is, who can screw up and still be relatable because who can’t relate to wanting to live up to your dad but occasionally making a mess of it? Who isn’t locked into a job in a dying industry, who doesn’t have a silly secret identity just like all the cool Marvel characters don’t, who still has the all important tie to Batman through Damian, and so on and so forth. I’m pretty sure that’s how DC sees it and why they’re doing this. It’s crazy how we keep going in circles with Superman (origins, deaths, replacements) but it is what they seem committed to doing.

How do you know Jon will be Clark 2.0 if the book hasn't come out? Is it something Tom Taylor does a lot?

It’s how he wrote a Jon Superman in DCeased. Will he hopefully do something more with him here in a solo capacity? I’d like to believe so but Taylor’s take on Superman is pretty basic, and I outlined in an earlier post why I don’t have too much faith in him. As a Superman fan who is sick of nothing being done with his traditional Rogues and is tired of Batman showing up in his books, Taylor doesn’t arouse much enthusiasm because he loves to shove Batman into everything he does and I have no doubt he’ll be bringing in Damian as often as he can (or God help us, Harley). His take on Superman Rogues has frequently been poor as well so nothing about his prior work really excites me.

[Drako]

As a Superman fan who is sick of nothing being done with his traditional Rogues and is tired of Batman showing up in his books, Taylor doesn’t arouse much enthusiasm because he loves to shove Batman into everything he does and I have no doubt he’ll be bringing in Damian as often as he can (or God help us, Harley).

Can you give some examples of this?

[exile001]

I agree Jon will not have the luxury or ability to really change. Son of Kal-El is right there in the title, I imagine his character is already locked down.

A lot of people are making the Invincible parallels and I think they'll be disappointed. That's a heck of a book to live up to in the first place, and this will be constrained at every turn by editorial demands on content, direction, character and marketability (inside and outside comics).

As I've said, it's not for me but I don't begrudge the book existing. Heck, if I hear it's really good I'll give the first tpb a go. In the meantime it gets Jon away from Clark, the character I do care about, and Bendis will be using Lois in Checkmate so she's pretty safe, too.

P.S. Taylor's Nightwing has been solid enough so far, but the bar was set incredibly low by the last few runs (first time I've ever quit reading Nightwing).

[Vordan]

Can you give some examples of this?

Part of it I suppose is the franchises he chooses to work with but everything he’s done at DC has featured Batman showing up in some capacity. Injustice, DCeased, Suicide Squad, Batman/Superman, various stories in Batman Annuals and one-shots, about the only thing of his where Batman didn’t show up was his brief (and terrible) GL run. He’s already said he’s bringing in Damian, a Bat character, and I expect to see more of that.

[OopsIdiditagain]

Part of it I suppose is the franchises he chooses to work with but everything he’s done at DC has featured Batman showing up in some capacity. Injustice, DCeased, Suicide Squad, Batman/Superman, various stories in Batman Annuals and one-shots, about the only thing of his where Batman didn’t show up was his brief (and terrible) GL run. He’s already said he’s bringing in Damian, a Bat character, and I expect to see more of that.

Most of those are batman related books. I haven't read DCeased but Injustice (at least the games) always felt pro-Batman.

[exile001]

everything he’s done at DC has featured Batman showing up in some capacity. Injustice, DCeased, Suicide Squad, Batman/Superman, various stories in Batman Annuals and one-shots, about the only thing of his where Batman didn’t show up was his brief (and terrible) GL run.

So with the exception of Suicide Squad, which HAD to have Batman as this was his big Deadshot arc (and Batman has always shown up in SS), your other examples are company-wide things that would obviously involve Batman, and various Batman books?

[sifighter]

Also Batman was pretty much taken out in the first and second issue of the original DCeased series, the majority of Batman in the DCeased comics is actually Damian.

[kilderkin]

This isn't going to bring me back after BMB run

[Vordan]

So with the exception of Suicide Squad, which HAD to have Batman as this was his big Deadshot arc (and Batman has always shown up in SS), your other examples are company-wide things that would obviously involve Batman, and various Batman books?

You’re missing the point that he’s never chosen to work on anything that wasn’t Batman related. Similar to Scott Snyder he’s rarely if ever tried to do stuff that didn’t tie back to Gotham in some way. GL was the only big one I can think of and he whiffed it big there.

Also Batman was pretty much taken out in the first and second issue of the original DCeased series, the majority of Batman in the DCeased comics is actually Damian.

I don’t really care who is under the Cowl, that feels like nitpicking to me. Batman is Batman and Damian wasn’t written all that different from how he writes Bruce.

[NaVi]

I think it is very clear that at the end of the year, clark will stop being superman, so instead of giving Jon his own comic they give him the superman comic.
goodbye superman, unfortunately you will not be able to reach 90 years.

[Nelliebly]

I don’t really buy that because guess who is entering public domain a year after Clark? Bruce, and there’s no way WB/DC will ever be replacing Bruce in a long term capacity. If they did want to replace Clark with a Superman they own wholeheartedly, why Jon? Given the emphasis on creative synergy that’s said to be a much stronger factor at DC, Jon seems a weird choice. He (likely) won’t be the Superman of the reboot, he’s the one who doesn’t have powers on the show, and everywhere else Clark is still Superman (animation, video games, etc). I guess maybe they’re waiting for Taylor to build Jon up first and then they’ll start using what he establishes but I doubt that, WB isn’t that coordinated

No I think the answer is much simpler: Jon is their attempt at a New 52 reboot of the Superman franchise without taking away from those who love Superdad. You want your old, boring married Superman who can’t screw up because he’s “the best of us” and has to always remain wholesome and make you feel good? Fine you can have that loser, he’ll be over in Action being boring for you boomers. Meanwhile we’ll take Jon, who isn’t locked into one love interest as the endgame like Clark is, who can screw up and still be relatable because who can’t relate to wanting to live up to your dad but occasionally making a mess of it? Who isn’t locked into a job in a dying industry, who doesn’t have a silly secret identity just like all the cool Marvel characters don’t, who still has the all important tie to Batman through Damian, and so on and so forth. I’m pretty sure that’s how DC sees it and why they’re doing this. It’s crazy how we keep going in circles with Superman (origins, deaths, replacements) but it is what they seem committed to doing.

It’s how he wrote a Jon Superman in DCeased. Will he hopefully do something more with him here in a solo capacity? I’d like to believe so but Taylor’s take on Superman is pretty basic, and I outlined in an earlier post why I don’t have too much faith in him. As a Superman fan who is sick of nothing being done with his traditional Rogues and is tired of Batman showing up in his books, Taylor doesn’t arouse much enthusiasm because he loves to shove Batman into everything he does and I have no doubt he’ll be bringing in Damian as often as he can (or God help us, Harley). His take on Superman Rogues has frequently been poor as well so nothing about his prior work really excites me.

There is a LOT of aggressive and offensive ageism in this post and none of it is appropriate or fair. I’m not here to debate the idea for the 1000th time that marriage and parenthood doesn’t automatically make someone “boring” and/or without conflict because that’s not something that should ::need:: to be debated. Anyone with maturity understands that that is NOT true.

However, I do take issue with the implication that the only people who like or appreciate a married Superman with a child is “boring” and/or a “boomer” and I definitely take issue with the generalization of age in this way in any capacity. That’s completely unfair, untrue and not appropriate. I am nowhere CLOSE to being a “boomer” nor am I a man btw and you shouldn’t be generalizing about people like this. It’s ageism.

Further, there is just as much an argument that it’s actually the “boring boomers” as you categorize them who actually prefer for Superman to never change. Historically, it’s been older white men of a certain age who insisted for years that Superman should not be allowed to be married and shouldn’t be a father both because they idealized the Superman of their youth ::cough Mark Waid::: cough::which was often the Silver or Bronze Age) and/or that they were influenced very much by the toxic masculinity that often plagued pop culture that wouldn’t let men be “tied down and painted marriage to a woman as a “ball and chain.” (Sexist) There is just as much an argument that allowing Clark to stay married and be a father is actually PROGRESS breaking free of that toxic (and sexist btw) Mindset. The idealization of the straight alpha male forever bachelor moving from woman to woman because he doesn’t want to be “tied down” is not progressive. Like that’s not considered cool anymore in most circles. If anything what’s considered more progressive now with straight men is the guy who actually stands by his wife if he’s sexually attracted to women. It’s the Barack Obama praising Michelle form of masculinity. That’s what is valued now with straight men who want to be with women. Leonardo DiCaprio with his constant string of 25 year old love interests is a punchline now. It’s George Clooney married to Amal—not the Clooney from last decade that had become a joke at award shows. An eternally bachelor Superman with a revolving door of love interests who can’t commit to Lois Lane even though he clearly loves her isn’t the 2021 masculine ideal—he’s a punchline.

Either way, the ageism is wrong. I’m not a boomer by any means and I like the married Superman and have zero desire to see a Superman who is eternally young and single. So stop implying that fans like me don’t exist bc we do.

Jon Kent is an opportunity to market Superman in a new way, yes. It’s not hard to understand why a legacy character who is the son of one of the most famous couples in pop culture history is both marketable and desirable if you are trying to refresh your brand. He is an extension of decades of investment in Lois and Clark AND a chance to create a legacy for new fans to see themselves in. You can believe that’s true without all the ageism—thanks.

[exile001]

I think it is very clear that at the end of the year, clark will stop being superman, so instead of giving Jon his own comic they give him the superman comic.
goodbye superman, unfortunately you will not be able to reach 90 years.

Possibly for the current stories, but there is no way Clark will ever be gone and/or not be Superman for good (or over a year). This is the company that resurrected Barry Allen after 20 years being dead and Clark as Superman is a far more profitable IP.

[exile001]

You’re missing the point that he’s never chosen to work on anything that wasn’t Batman related. Similar to Scott Snyder he’s rarely if ever tried to do stuff that didn’t tie back to Gotham in some way. GL was the only big one I can think of and he whiffed it big there.

You assume he has the pull to choose, these may just have been the gigs he was offered and that interested him creatively. As you say, he worked on GL. Maybe you're seeing a pattern that doesn't really exist (or maybe I'm wrong, who knows?).

[Marvel Man]

I think it is very clear that at the end of the year, clark will stop being superman, so instead of giving Jon his own comic they give him the superman comic.
goodbye superman, unfortunately you will not be able to reach 90 years.

Because there will be no more comics with Clark Kent as Superman, nor films, videogames, books or toys. Nothing. They will even change the classical comics and films in order to make Clark dissappeared. "Who is Clark, anyway? He is Jon's dad. A Kryptonian. It's said that he was a hero but if I read my digital copy of Action Comics #1 it clearly says that Superman is Jon Kent, not Clark". It's the end of the world as we know it.