So I was told that the Kent's absolutely needed to be in Superman's adult life.

[DABellWrites]

Lois Lane is the only absolute need for Superman. I'm okay with her not appearing all the time, not in every adaptation or elseworld. Superman still needs to be a character that can function on his own. But Lois needs to be there, at least in spirit. Onto the Kents.

We know they can function alive or dead. They aren't an absolute necessity in Superman, but they are welcome. The people who like the Kents (or one) around in Clark's adult life usually do so because of outside adaptations, as you can see in many comments here. The anti-New52 crowd points and go: "See! See! This is why he need the Kents!". Lastly, you have comic book readers who grew up with post-crisis Superman. There are pros and cons to all arguments about the Kents presence in Clark's adult life.

As for me, I'm—sorta—the adaptation crowd. I didn't get into comics until about four or five years ago, JL/U was my entry point. I did re-watch the most of STAS when it was on DCUni. However, I'm very pro-creator when it comes to these characters. So, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster had the Kents dead, then they should be dead. The Kents are only needed to raise up Clark.

So, should they be around in Clark's adult life, does it matter? Superman is still Superman with or without them. You can write stories with them dead, never being in his life, or anything else. Prior to 1939 and Superboy, Clark was an orphan who decided to us his strength to benefit mankind on his own, he didn't need the kents.

[witchboy]

Lois Lane is the only absolute need for Superman. I'm okay with her not appearing all the time, not in every adaptation or elseworld. Superman still needs to be a character that can function on his own. But Lois needs to be there, at least in spirit. Onto the Kents.

We know they can function alive or dead. They aren't an absolute necessity in Superman, but they are welcome. The people who like the Kents (or one) around in Clark's adult life usually do so because of outside adaptations, as you can see in many comments here. The anti-New52 crowd points and go: "See! See! This is why he need the Kents!". Lastly, you have comic book readers who grew up with post-crisis Superman. There are pros and cons to all arguments about the Kents presence in Clark's adult life.

As for me, I'm—sorta—the adaptation crowd. I didn't get into comics until about four or five years ago, JL/U was my entry point. I did re-watch the most of STAS when it was on DCUni. However, I'm very pro-creator when it comes to these characters. So, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster had the Kents dead, then they should be dead. The Kents are only needed to raise up Clark.

So, should they be around in Clark's adult life, does it matter? Superman is still Superman with or without them. You can write stories with them dead, never being in his life, or anything else. Prior to 1939 and Superboy, Clark was an orphan who decided to us his strength to benefit mankind on his own, he didn't need the kents.

I just want to say I like the Kents in Superman's adult life, and it's Byrne's Superman run that showed why that could work well. I'd say most outside adaptations that use the Kents in the modern day are either directly or indirectly influenced by that.

[DABellWrites]

I just want to say I like the Kents in Superman's adult life, and it's Byrne's Superman run that showed why that could work well. I'd say most outside adaptations that use the Kents in the modern day are either directly or indirectly influenced by that.

I agree with this, if the Kents hadn't worked under Byrne run, DC would've nixed the idea after he left. Byrne's Superman didn't last long, the vast majority of fans wanted their Superman back. But, the Kents did work and DC kept them around. We know Superman doesn't need them. My point is, I hope I got it across the first time: They aren't an absolute necessity in Superman, but they are welcome. I'm not against the Kents being alive, not at all. I'm just not one of those who believe the Kents are crucial to the character. As I stated in the top of my comment: Lois Lane is the only crucial character to Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

In the 1948 SUPERMAN serial, Father and Mother Kent are alive when Clark has become an adult, but they both die (off screen) just before Clark embarks for Metropolis to begin his career as Superman.

In the first episode of the 1952 T.V. series, THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, Eben Kent dies but Sarah Kent remains alive when Clark sets out for Metropolis.

It seems to me the 1978 SUPERMAN movie is using the 1952 story as a basis for Pa Kent dying but Ma Kent remaining alive. So I would blame that T.V. show for promoting the idea.

[witchboy]

I agree with this, if the Kents hadn't worked under Byrne run, DC would've nixed the idea after he left. Byrne's Superman didn't last long, the vast majority of fans wanted their Superman back. But, the Kents did work and DC kept them around. We know Superman doesn't need them. My point is, I hope I got it across the first time: They aren't an absolute necessity in Superman, but they are welcome. I'm not against the Kents being alive, not at all. I'm just not one of those who believe the Kents are crucial to the character. As I stated in the top of my comment: Lois Lane is the only crucial character to Superman.

I agree. I like the Kents but they don't have to be around. There's plenty of great stories where they weren't around.

[Jon Clark]

In the 1948 SUPERMAN serial, Father and Mother Kent are alive when Clark has become an adult, but they both die (off screen) just before Clark embarks for Metropolis to begin his career as Superman.

In the first episode of the 1952 T.V. series, THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, Eben Kent dies but Sarah Kent remains alive when Clark sets out for Metropolis.

It seems to me the 1978 SUPERMAN movie is using the 1952 story as a basis for Pa Kent dying but Ma Kent remaining alive. So I would blame that T.V. show for promoting the idea.

And in both the 1950's TV series and the movies once Clark leaves for Metropolis we never see Clark's mother again. She may have been alive but she never has any effect on Superman's life. Foe all intents and purposes outside of like two lines in the Chris Reeve movies Ma Kent could have died at any point after her husband and nothing changes.

[Jim Kelly]

It's one of those things I've noticed about T.V. shows and movies. They seem to be more influenced by other T.V. shows and movies that came before. It's as if the producers and writers have a bias toward their own medium and would rather get their ideas from that than to actually pick up a comic book and read it. Even when they do use comic book ideas, they usually come from comics that were published decades ago and they rely on intermediaries who tell them what the story was about so they don't have to endure the pain of reading a comic book.

[godisawesome]

It's one of those things I've noticed about T.V. shows and movies. They seem to be more influenced by other T.V. shows and movies that came before. It's as if the producers and writers have a bias toward their own medium and would rather get their ideas from that than to actually pick up a comic book and read it. Even when they do use comic book ideas, they usually come from comics that were published decades ago and they rely on intermediaries who tell them what the story was about so they don't have to endure the pain of reading a comic book.

One possible reason for that applying, at least with the Kent’s, is because usually TV shows have a greater emphasis on an ensemble with a finite amount of time, and actors can make otherwise bland characters entertaining.

That’s one reason why Jimmy arguably has a greater career in Tv shows and cartoons than he does in modern comics.

[manwhohaseverything]

It's one of those things I've noticed about T.V. shows and movies. They seem to be more influenced by other T.V. shows and movies that came before. It's as if the producers and writers have a bias toward their own medium and would rather get their ideas from that than to actually pick up a comic book and read it. Even when they do use comic book ideas, they usually come from comics that were published decades ago and they rely on intermediaries who tell them what the story was about so they don't have to endure the pain of reading a comic book.

Actually snyder did take comics(not just one) influences and i am certain he read them as well...people can say "he didn't get them"..i always felt that's nonsense..It's subjective..i could read all star superman and find this incredibly paternalistic,high mighty figure..etc.so does lois and clark take influences..