Is Teen Jon the most divisive character in the Superman brand?

[rpmaluki]

I like Jon.

I like kid Jon from Super-Sons so I'm looking forward to the new CGI movie.

I like teen Jon, who I thought was a great anchor for the new LSH, even if I thought being a reboot kneecapped it before it even got started.

I like powerless teen Jon on TV's Superman & Lois, who has grown from being a bit of a dick in the pilot to now being one of the most endearing characters on the show.

I like bisexual SJW Jon trying to make a real difference in the world just like his dad tried to do back in the 30s. I think dramatizing that journey in the modern day was one of the smartest decisions Morrison made with the New 52 reboot, so I'm glad it's being carried on by Jon.

Jon Kent is a very different character than Conner Kent for one key reason. Lois Lane is 50% of Jon Kent, whereas Conner is 50% Lex Luthor (and even if you want to ignore that retcon, Conner's still lacking that key Lois element). Both of those characters are great, but Lois Lane being a fundamental part of who he is changes everything. It means that he's going to be on a similar journey as his father, but in a very different way because of who Lois Lane is.

That's the secret sauce of Jonathan Kent for me. Lois.

Now, were the editorial and creative decisions that DC made with Jon during his brief history always the greatest? Hell no. But I think those dumb stories will be papered over and generally ignored in the same way that both of his parents' less than stellar stories have been sidelined. It's always the core of the character that rises to the top. And the concept of Jonathan Kent is one of the strongest to come along in mainstream superhero comics for quite some time.

This post captures everything about Jon so well I like it, I like it a lot. ANOTHER!

(It makes it easier to overlook the stuff I don't like, unlike the actual comics themselves.)

[Vordan]

God no that’s DCEU Superman. Jon’s a minor firecracker compared to that raging inferno

[Blue22]

God no that’s DCEU Superman. Jon’s a minor firecracker compared to that raging inferno

I actually gotta agree with this. For as terrible as I think Jon is now, I'll take him over what Superman has been on the big screen for the past....how many years has this dumpster fire been a thing?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I haven't really clicked with his teen/adult stories yet. I thought he was a fun kid in Supersons but I didn't keep up with it. He's fun in the CW show but he needs more to do.

Teen Jon suffers from a bad first impression. His detractors might've preffered a YJ-style timeskip. It also would've aged up the other teen heroes which I see as a benefit.

So in general Jon is a fun side character but I'm not that into his solo stuff yet.

[Jely4me]

Liked the character, despite the ageism, despise the wokeism for the character. Being honest. Glad DC and I are parting ways soon..

[Sacred Knight]

Comics wise? Trying to make teen Jon Superman is the most divisive thing in the brand. Teen Jon in of itself was not well received, but this latest move even more so.

If we're counting all mediums though, then its Snyderverse Superman like Vordan already said.

[Celgress]

I like Jon no matter if he's a teenager or a kid, I loved the fact that Superman and Lois Lane had a child finally, but I won't deny that I loved little Jon more .but I believe that teen jon has potential

My feelings exactly. It seems they are (finally) moving away from Bland Teen Jon being a carbon copy of his dad which is good (the bisexuality, the protesting, etc.). The more they differentiate Jon from Clark the better, IMO. If they keep this up say for another six months I might *gasp* buy Jon's book.

[StrikeJP]

I think Jon works better as a kid. Viewing Superman through a child's eyes, going on zany adventures with Robin, etc.

I feel like Conner Kent could be doing a lot of what teen Jon Kent is doing right now. Now we have two redundant Superboys.

[Restingvoice]

First he was born, then he was co-star, then he's aged up, then he's Superman, then he comes out.
Yeah. Def.
I know it's Teen Jon, but the whole Jon itself is divisive.

[superduperman]

Far and away the most controversial Superman is the Injustice Superman by a country mile.

[Superlad93]

Jon's "divisiveness" is primarily rooted in the very simple fact that Superman as a concept has become so stuck in its ways as far as the general public, fans, and suits go.

Jon is an idea that challenges the "perpetual now" of Superman by just existing. First it was "hey, what about the triangle for two?" Nope. In order for Jon to exist Lois obviously has to know who Clark is. And by proxy that means Superman must be married to Lois. Then it's "well, Superman can never have a kid." Nope. He's right there. But then came the interesting part because that's when the "perpetual now" tried to reassert itself. Jon could exist-- heck, even be Superboy...but he'd do it over there, and anything else would be in service of Clark as a dad.

Now with him as the new Superman, bi, and more proactive than his father we start to realize what the point was: to move the Superman brand forward past what was "allowed" or expected. People say you could do all of this with Conner but you really couldn't. You can ignore Conner or flat out erase him. Conner is no different than Kenan Kong in that regard. But Jon isn't a character the Superman franchise can ignore, and now it'll be a **** storm if he's ever not Superman again especially after the headlines and even PKJ himself going on an interview and proudly stating "this isn't freakin Geo Force coming out as bi-- this is SUPERMAN".

The divisiveness comes from how far past the comforts of the "perpetual now" (be it the easily ignored cute kid era or the classic era) being challenged with something new. No matter how it's spun I think it all comes from that.

[ZuLuLu]

I like Jon no matter if he's a teenager or a kid, I loved the fact that Superman and Lois Lane had a child finally, but I won't deny that I loved little Jon more .but I believe that teen jon has potential

Same. This is where I am at and once I am enjoying the book he is in, which I am at the moment that good enough for me.

Also before Supersons became a thing wasn't kid Jon also somewhat controversial

[Xheight]

All of this. Preach, my brother in Rao.



As always, your meme game remains on point. lol

I would hazard a guess here that each attempt to win New fans has cost them old fans in larger numbers otherwise there wouldn't be the slippery slope of "updating" the character every other year.

[Robanker]

I would hazard a guess here that each attempt to win New fans has cost them old fans in larger numbers otherwise there wouldn't be the slippery slope of "updating" the character every other year.

Trying to pin the shedding readership on one specific thing is pretty foolish considering there's also the price point, distribution model, rate of delivery for content versus other mediums and a glut of other content to compete with. Anecdotal evidence, but I also know a few prospective fans who got chased out of the industry because the old fans drove them out with rampant hostility, gatekeeping and homophobia/racism permeating a lot of discussion trying to pin every failure on some mix of a character being non-white or queer.

So yeah, I doubt Superman's three decades of declining sales have everything to do with the kid he had five years ago.

[OopsIdiditagain]

Jon's "divisiveness" is primarily rooted in the very simple fact that Superman as a concept has become so stuck in its ways as far as the general public, fans, and suits go.

Jon is an idea that challenges the "perpetual now" of Superman by just existing. First it was "hey, what about the triangle for two?" Nope. In order for Jon to exist Lois obviously has to know who Clark is. And by proxy that means Superman must be married to Lois. Then it's "well, Superman can never have a kid." Nope. He's right there. But then came the interesting part because that's when the "perpetual now" tried to reassert itself. Jon could exist-- heck, even be Superboy...but he'd do it over there, and anything else would be in service of Clark as a dad.

Now with him as the new Superman, bi, and more proactive than his father we start to realize what the point was: to move the Superman brand forward past what was "allowed" or expected. People say you could do all of this with Conner but you really couldn't. You can ignore Conner or flat out erase him. Conner is no different than Kenan Kong in that regard. But Jon isn't a character the Superman franchise can ignore, and now it'll be a **** storm if he's ever not Superman again especially after the headlines and even PKJ himself going on an interview and proudly stating "this isn't freakin Geo Force coming out as bi-- this is SUPERMAN".

The divisiveness comes from how far past the comforts of the "perpetual now" (be it the easily ignored cute kid era or the classic era) being challenged with something new. No matter how it's spun I think it all comes from that.

Your analyses on Jon are always interesting.