The Return of Pa and Ma

[JBatmanFan05]

Better Off Dead...no, not the 1985 film, I mean the Kents are better off dead.

[Jim Kelly]

I haven't read that many Superman comics in the aftermath of Doomsday Clock and I never read any of the DOOMSDAY CLOCK title itself, but might have crossed paths with it in other books. So I don't have an informed opinion. For all I know the treatment of Ma and Pa in these new comics is genius.

However, my default position is that Martha and Jonathan should be taking a dirt nap. That's how it was in the beginning (even if they didn't have those exact names) and how it was for four plus decades.

Weisinger Era science maintained that Clark always became a phantom when he travelled through time within his lifetime (except for those instances when some metaphysical wonder allowed him to team-up with his younger self). This mean that he couldn't normally go back and talk to his parents--but he could be like a ghost haunting the past. This was only shown a few times in the comics, but I'd like to think it's something he did often--with time travel he could spend as much time as he wanted revisiting those moments in Smallville with them. And that's poignant.

The advantage of science fiction is it allows you to tell stories that have profound meaning, that could never be written about grounded reality.

That his parents are still alive just seems mundane and not that interesting for his character. To have that kind of loss in his life adds more to who Clark is as a person. Even if they can't do the phantom thing, there's always flashbacks.

If you really need them to be alive but still have that loss, I would say that Clark could never accept their being dead. He moved heaven and earth to bring them back from the dead. And that's why they're still alive. But they only exist because he wills them to exist. It's a tragedy in his life that he can't deal with, so he is constantly trying to erase it from his reality.

[Kirk Brent]

I was glad to see them return in Doomsday Clock, but once Johns and his post-DC plans were kicked to the curb by DiDio and Bendis...I don't care what happens at all.

[ironman2978]

Yeah, I'm indifferent but honestly better off dead.

[Koriand'r]

I like them alive and feel it ages Clark too much when his parents are dead.

[ironman2978]

I like them alive and feel it ages Clark too much when his parents are dead.

I don't think it ages Clark anymore than it would Bruce, Peter, etc. He still acts like a man in his early twenties-thirties trying to figure his life out or self sufficient.

[DABellWrites]

I've stated this on Reddit: the Kents alive is a nice addition to Superman.

[SiegePerilous02]

Absolutely a fair point, but I'll add that every other character has been expected to adapt to the clock moving forward for 80 years and I'd argue Clark needs to do the same as well. If I don't get what I want and the Kents die, so be it, but we drag our feet far too much about a lot here that really does boil down to "but that's what it was when I started reading" which needs to be ignored entirely..

But wanting the Kents alive does boil down to "that's what it was when I started reading" (80s/90s) in most cases.

[DochaDocha]

But wanting the Kents alive does boil down to "that's what it was when I started reading" (80s/90s) in most cases.

I'd also add that whether or not the Kents are dead doesn't push the narrative forward or backward. I would love to go back to the days when Superman had no kid, but Jon (whether I like or not) moves the story forward. The Kents don't. It's basically you want them there or you don't.

[Robanker]

But wanting the Kents alive does boil down to "that's what it was when I started reading" (80s/90s) in most cases.

Sure, that's certainly a part of it, but I still think having them around to be used is more useful than it isn't. Their deaths are largely ceremonial and don't contribute a ton to his development that can't be done elsewhere to the same effect. He absolutely needs to fail someone with his powers providing no change to the outcome, but there's no reason it should or shouldn't be the Kents, which is why it feels largely about preference.

[JAK]

Sure, that's certainly a part of it, but I still think having them around to be used is more useful than it isn't. Their deaths are largely ceremonial and don't contribute a ton to his development that can't be done elsewhere to the same effect. He absolutely needs to fail someone with his powers providing no change to the outcome, but there's no reason it should or shouldn't be the Kents, which is why it feels largely about preference.

This. I'm good either way, but my preference is them alive. Is it a "that's my first status quo" thing? Yeah. But I still think those are two pieces you can't use if they aren't there, and the more pieces the better.

Doomsday Clock was... fine... and I like some of the ideas for it. But I still think that Jor-El giving Kal his adopted parents back as a final present would have been the best way to go.

[Tendrin]

I've always preferred alive Kents, probably because I grew up with Man of Steel era Superman too, but I just don't see the allure of them being dead.

[DABellWrites]

I've always preferred alive Kents, probably because I grew up with Man of Steel era Superman too, but I just don't see the allure of them being dead.

There is no allure. It something that happens in life to us. It's just apart of Supes history.

[DABellWrites]

Sure, that's certainly a part of it, but I still think having them around to be used is more useful than it isn't. Their deaths are largely ceremonial and don't contribute a ton to his development that can't be done elsewhere to the same effect. He absolutely needs to fail someone with his powers providing no change to the outcome, but there's no reason it should or shouldn't be the Kents, which is why it feels largely about preference.

Why does Superman needs to fail? Why does Clark need death to make him realize he can't do everything? Reading the Jerry Siegel stories. Clark started a campaign to raise awareness for Metropolis slums. He doesn't convince nobody despite his best efforts, but he doesn't stop. He pushes on to the Federal government (why not State, no idea). You probably know the story I am talking about. Clark didn't use his powers, he didn't put on his costume for none of it (except to fight some gangsters). So, why make that development central to his character? Clark should already know he can't solve or do everything with his powers. No need for death or to fail.

ETA: Someone will bring up Clark became a reporter because he failed to save someone. I agree, but it's not the same as Clark learning he can''t always save someone. It was Clark seeing his methodology didn't work. Unless I've misinterpreted, again.

[Tendrin]

There is no allure. It something that happens in life to us. It's just apart of Supes history.

Sure, it's something that happens. It's just that I've only ever seen *one* explanation for what their deaths bring to the story that I ever thought was good, and even that was a total stretch. On the other hand, the human connections and connection to his human past they bring feel more important to me than what we get out of them just being flashback material.