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

[The Frog Bros]

My whole life, I wished to be what Ma and Pa taught me to be. To have lines. You don’t cross the lines. If you do… what are you?

This is from Up in the Sky, which I just read (and liked… a lot. Why can’t King write more stories like this one? But that’s a whole other thread ).

If you read this quote I really don’t think it matters if Ma and Pa are alive or dead (Pa is alive in the story), it makes the same point either way. Frankly, I think this quote perfectly encapsulates how they should be used when they have passed on. The focus is what effect they had on Clark, what he does with it, and how it shapes who he is. I kind of prefer that they have passed; Clark honors their legacy by doing what he does as Superman.

But if they are alive, I think the best way to utilize them (as already mentioned a few times) is to subvert the overused superhero trope of parents dying thereby causing childhood trauma by simply having a “normal” parent child relationship. i.e. the opposite of Batman.

Just so long as they are well written (a cliche in and of itself, ha ), I don’t necessarily see that it needs to be mandated either way, alive or dead. Each has its merits.

[SuperCrab]

It's true especially for parents on T.V. shows. I like John Wesley Shipp, because he's the Flash. So I watch DAWSON'S CREEK because he plays the dad there--only to see his character killed off a few seasons in. Stopped watching the show. Then J.W.S. is playing the dad on the new FLASH--and he dies again!

I don't want to spoil later seasons of The Flash (Arrowverse version) for you (Unless you want to me to, in which case, I can tell you what the deal is in about three sentences.), but if you stopped watching when Flash's father died because you like JWS' acting, keep (or resume) watching where you left off.

[SuperCrab]

I prefer continuities in which both of Clark's adoptive parents are dead by the time he is in Metropolis, or very early on after his move.

One issue I have with them being alive in "the present" is that I think that it contributes to a characterization of Superman I don't like that crops up a lot. Some authors use it to infantilize him- the old "We're making him act a little like a kid in an adult's body to make him more relatable to kids" routine. Having Clark's parents alive can contribute to that because it can seem like, in some continuities, he seems like he's visiting home more than a homesick college freshman who doesn't fit in on campus and who's parents, with a functional washing machine and apple pie, live less than an hour away. There can also sort of an overdone deference to his parents' folksy wisdom and even commands that seem odd for an adult superhero who strikes fear into the heart of his enemies and has a very adult life without the cape. Even when he disagrees with them, it can come off, as he sometimes is shown feeling like, a kid who's disobeyed his parents and fears being grounded for life. Again, this is an adult man with two somewhat successful lives going.

In the current comic books, there almost isn't a point in having them alive, because Lois and Clark kind of are Jonathan and Martha to Jon. I suppose it makes sense that they be there if Connor is going to exist and be depicted young enough to have need of parental guardianship of some sort, but, last I heard, he had been forced into the Suicide Squad (With the "how" part, give his invulnerability, somewhat a mystery. I would think a bomb with Kryptonite in his skull instead of a standard bomb would do it, but from what I've read people saying about it, that doesn't seem like what they are leading towards.). I'm still not thrilled, though, and there are more interesting things they could do than have Jonathan and Martha adopt him- like have Bruce Wayne adopt him, make him an emancipated minor, or age him up to 18.

In terms of keeping Smallville's copyright alive, even if Superman's parents are dead in a given continuity, he can always fly back in seconds to visit his parents' graves, go to a high school reunion, enjoy a town festival, or say hi to an old friend like Lana Lang (If she still lives there). He also could have ownership of his parents' old farm, and not want to live there full-time, but rent the land around it out to a nearby farmer to use and keep up, and go back to the house occasionally to decompress. Heck, he's actually shown moving back there full-time to raise his teenage sons in the first episode of the Superman and Lois Arrowverse TV show. I'd rather keep Metropolis as Superman's place of residence, but it's not like one can't visit their childhood hometown once in a while.

Superman originally didn't even *have* adoptive parents. He grew up in an orphanage. Page 1 of Action Comics #1 (1938). So them being dead by the time he is an adult is actually closer to that original version of Superman than having one or both of them alive during his adult life.

I find Sam Lane the most interesting figure from that generation who Clark is (sometimes) related to (by marriage). There are all kinds of natural lines of tension there with him having to work with Superman to coordinate some things as a General (Including some things that can't be done without Superman), but being wary of an alien who seems to think he can act on his own without any oversight or formal authority from a government, and the two of them butting heads over tactics and what each other might view as unproductive or rogue actions, with the added complication that this is the father of the woman Clark Kent has a crush on is/is dating/is married to/whatever. I don't worry about that infantilizing Lois, because she stands up to him constantly for very adult reasons.

I don't really see any "hook" to Superman's adoptive parents that makes them nearly as interesting in stories about his adult life. They're kind of boring, really. Their absence seems to almost create more interesting storylines and character developments than when they are present.

[Agent Z]

Just because your parents die, that doesn't stop them from being involved in your life. They're with you always. That kind of love never dies.

For me, the biggest reason not to have the Kents alive is that it's just too tempting for writers to kill one of them off, for the sake of fake drama. I hate that feeling--knowing that any moment they are going to kill off one of them. Out of all the live screen versions, how many times have both been able to make it? LOIS & CLARK seems like the only one--so maybe it's a good thing that only went four seasons--because then I wasn't traumatized by another parent death scene.

At least if the deaths are in the past--the band-aid is ripped off right at the beginning--and I'm not living in fear of when they're going to get killed off.

This is a pretty good argument to keep them alive not kill them off. If the issue is killing them off for cheap drama then just don't do that.

[Ascended]

It arguably does alter him. Better writers can still write him well even when they are around, but DochaDocha makes the good point that it sometimes feeds into the reluctance of allowing Superman to be more self assured and make decisions on his own if he flies back to Smallville for some platitudes every time he's stumped. So having them being alive has potential drawbacks for the main character, and the positives don't really come out to being more than the occasional cute Thanksgiving scene or something. Doesn't seem worth the trade off

There is also the argument that retconning the Superboy era (where the Kents were the most relevant) after COIE was pretty pointless to begin with, especially as Superman functioned just fine for 50 years with them dead and it was how his creators envisioned him.

This.

Like Sacred I came up with post-Crisis so for a long time, living Kents was, in my mind, the right and proper order of things. I eventually came to my senses and realized they're better dead after the quality of Super comics fell through the floor (and the Kents became part of the problem) and I began to explore pre-Crisis. I find dead Kents to provide much richer narrative soil, and the use of flashbacks means they can still retain a position in the story, but can no longer be used to rob Clark of his agency, backbone, and self-determination.

But for all that, the Kents being alive in the present day isn't strictly a good or bad thing. Both options have their pro's and con's, and good writers can make it work either way.

But as a rule, good writers aren't exactly plentiful at the Super office.

Not every appearance of the Kents in post-Crisis was bad, or stole Clark's agency from him. But a lot did, and I worry that's had a negative impact on both writers and fans. Better to have them dead and gone but fondly remembered, if for no other reason than to keep DC from repeating the same mistakes.

[SiegePerilous02]

But if they are alive, I think the best way to utilize them (as already mentioned a few times) is to subvert the overused superhero trope of parents dying thereby causing childhood trauma by simply having a “normal” parent child relationship. i.e. the opposite of Batman.

There is some merit in this, but I'm sick of Batman dictating how the Super mythos should operate. I believe it was Byrne who said that he didn't want the Kents dead because he couldn't imagine Superman not ending up like Batman otherwise, but that just shows the lack of understanding of the character he was working on and the nuances that people react to death in different ways, and people die from different causes lol.

I get it's become a cliche in the larger superhero genre, but IMO it's not Superman's problem that the genre he mostly kickstarted riffed on his formula and drove it into the ground at certain points. Clark still has a normal relationship with his parents and knew where he stood with them, that doesn't change even after they are gone. They are just far more interesting characters in a posthumous sense than they are as living ones. They are indispensable figures as far as the origin goes, but there still just isn't a lot of meat to them as characters even after all this time. And that's fine, they were just not meant to be stretched out this way beyond their part in the story.

For the record, I think DC doing stuff like what Johns did to Barry's parents is a mistake. Similarly, Wally's parents got a raw deal post-COIE after being a nice stable couple with a good relationship with their son pre-COIE, also hated what they did to Kate Kane and her dad. And the Aquaman movie worked really well with keeping both of his parents alive. But because it can work well with other characters and gets tiresome when they undo it to inject angst, it doesn't mean Superman has to be the one to subvert the cliche.

[manwhohaseverything]

Man!i can't believe superman's parents are this important to the franchise.what is with superheroes and parents anyways?It's not like i consume anything else,i have not only the protagonist but also the readers/audiences be fixated on it.I mean,the amount emphasis on them..is absurd

Parents dead-ohhhhhh!the tragedy
Parents alive-All hail the shining guide post
On top of that,superman has a ghost father whispering things in his ear.what in the hell is that all about..Mr.hamlet.yeesh!!!

A joke..but with a genuine questions..why are superhero parents so important?parkers,kents and waynes i mean.Even in that kents and els seem to be most needed..

[Agent Z]

Man!i can't believe superman's parents are this important to the franchise.what is with superheroes and parents anyways?It's not like i consume anything else,i have not only the protagonist but also the readers/audiences be fixated on it.I mean,the amount emphasis on them..is absurd

Parents dead-ohhhhhh!the tragedy
Parents alive-All hail the shining guide post
On top of that,superman has a ghost father whispering things in his ear.what in the hell is that all about..Mr.hamlet.yeesh!!!

A joke..but with a genuine questions..why are superhero parents so important?parkers,kents and waynes i mean.Even in that kents and els seem to be most needed..

You do know you can just read comics where the Kents aren't around, right?

[manwhohaseverything]

You do know you can just read comics where the Kents aren't around, right?

I do know.but,the thing is i want superman's morality..not a mouth piece and that's just how i roll.I value the individual..Anyways, besides the point and the question still stands.Why are parents of these guys so emphasised?is it a genre thing?i mean,i can watch the entire cap movies and the new series.I didn't once wonder who steve's father is cause it was irrelevant.Also,does anybody know who guy Gardner's dad is?

[Agent Z]

I do know.but,the thing is i want superman's morality..not a mouth piece and that's just how i roll.I value the individual..Anyways, besides the point and the question still stands.Why are parents of these guys so emphasised?is it a genre thing?i mean,i can watch the entire cap movies and the new series.I didn't once wonder who steve's father is cause it was irrelevant.Also,does anybody know who guy Gardner's dad is?

Parents are barely emphasized in superhero stories. They're either dead or completely irrelevant. That you listed two characters whose parents are non-entities easily proves this.

Really, every time this conversation comes up I just feel like it's people scapegoating the Kents for what they perceive to be issues with Superman. The Kents were dead for the entirety of the New 52 and the Superman comic was awful for the most part. Arguably worse than most anything that came out of post-crisis and yes I'm including Grounded in that category.

[JAK]

It's true especially for parents on T.V. shows. I like John Wesley Shipp, because he's the Flash. So I watch DAWSON'S CREEK because he plays the dad there--only to see his character killed off a few seasons in. Stopped watching the show. Then J.W.S. is playing the dad on the new FLASH--and he dies again!

Yeah... don't get attached to any character named "The Flash" - history tells us it's not healthy. lol

[manwhohaseverything]

Parents are barely emphasized in superhero stories. They're either dead or completely irrelevant. That you listed two characters whose parents are non-entities easily proves this.

Really, every time this conversation comes up I just feel like it's people scapegoating the Kents for what they perceive to be issues with Superman. The Kents were dead for the entirety of the New 52 and the Superman comic was awful for the most part. Arguably worse than most anything that came out of post-crisis and yes I'm including Grounded in that category.

Maybe there is a reason for that.parents being irrelevant that is.As for dead ones,those aren't dead.those become ghosts that haunt.Really,ben parker is always around.so is thomas wayne.It's a different deal that Peter is a reluctant hero who grapple with self interest and responsibilities.bruce is a struggler who "eff! This dad.I am vengeance. I am the night...yata!yata!yata!"(Nietzschean shtick)..But,they stick around. Dead doesn't mean gone.

the main ones do have the parents.ww,superman, Thor,batman, Spiderman,flash..etc. you name it.It's the odd balls that don't..Tony stark's and his issues with his father is legendary..

Which ones?just because you hate new52,doesn't make new52 awful.for me, a guy who fights for the little guys wearing a jeans and tshirt or strongman suit pissing off the corrupt is superman.i find the donners heavenly father in the sky and "human" byrne left behind unappealing.That's that.we aren't going to agree on what's quality.. Because we value different things and different interpretations as a whole.

And i want a man of action. A pulp flavor hero more than a superhero..So there is no use in us talking about that.My superman will forever be "not superman" and will likely not get intpreted.why?cause superman fans they cater to are different demographic and get a kick out of superman doing different things. So,that topic is irrelevant to the question being asked

SuperDiscov6.jpg

[Adekis]

I don't think they need to be alive. I don't think they necessarily need to be dead. There are certainly good stories with each take.

I do think they get more emphasis than they should. You know who should be a big part of Superman's adult life? Jimmy.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I think good stories have certainly been told with them both dead and alive. That said, the thematic and dramatic hook of Clark losing Pa Kent when he's on the cusp of adulthood vastly outweighs the handful of cute moments with the living Kents that have been published during the decades following the decision to bring them back.

The current creative team is back to ignoring them, so they might as well be dead again.

If there were a single story with a living Pa Kent that was even close to what Seigel accomplished by killing him off, I'd probably feel differently, but no one has really managed to make a compelling reason for Jonathan Kent being alive yet in the comics.

[Adekis]

The current creative team is back to ignoring them, so they might as well be dead again.

I had this thought too. There's been very few Kent stories since Reborn that justify their inclusion in my book. Then again I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea that writers should leave toys in the toy box and avoid retcons wherever possible. But, well... it's just weird to have them alive but absent. Makes more sense for them to be dead, from a narrative perspective, if they don't have a role in Clark's life.