Jon Kent aka "Superboy": DC's Franklin Richards??

[Cmbmool]

I'm okay with the new Superboy as it's about time we have some Superman tales where he's the dad of a biological kid of his and that it isn't an Elseworld or Imaginary tale.

[Kuwagaton]

On that topic, they should totally bring in krys as his arch enemy.

[The Shredder]

I think Jon as the new Superboy has some real potential to be something special, if DC can do a good job writing the character, and flesh out a likeable personality. Jon teaming up with Damian in Super Sons definitely gives him something of a leg up in becoming enduring, and the simplicity of describing Jon to new readers who might be unfamiliar with him is a plus.

"Who's that? That's Superboy, Superman's son. He has a son? Yup, Batman does too."

Oh, how things change.

[vasir12]

Okay, but I'm not a kid. Most of their readers aren't children. That doesn't mean no books should cater to demographics I'm not a part of, but not *all* the books have to cater to demographics I'm not a part of.

It seems like if they have a perfectly viable iconic character in Captain Marvel/Shazam who has no book right now who fits your "power fantasy for children" concept. Why not just give him a book and forget about Jon Kent as child superhero? Or why not do a new child superhero with his own book? How about they do Jon Kent, but he's off in his own book- it can be even even more of a fantasy for young readers by having him be orphaned but taking care of himself after new Superman returns, trying to hide his identity to keep his independence.

Instead, DC Comics continues to try to shoehorn these Mary Sue type child characters into existing books. Hey, you've read Batman for 20 years and like Batman, a lot of his books are now going to be about his 10 year old crime fighting son (Although at least with Batman, he previously had teenage Robins, so it's not a huge departure). Hey, you've read Superman for 20 years, a lot of his books are now going to be about his 10 year old crime fighting son (That is seriously every Tomasi Superman from Rebirth through at least the end of July per the solicitations). It's almost a bait and switch. They hook us with comics that seem to fit what we want and then majorly overhaul them and shoehorn elements that some of us hate because they can.

If some readers want this, okay, fine, give them books that give them what they want. Some readers may buy and enjoy both types of books- nothing wrong with that. But why does it have to take over series that haven't traditionally done it? Why can't readers with my preferences keep our books?

I seriously have subscribed to Hyperion (Marvel's Superman ripoff- second issue comes out Wednesday), Nighthawk (Marvel's Batman rip-off- the #1 is due out it May I think, Comixology let me put in my sub in advance so I don't forget), and Squadron Supreme (Marvel's Justice League ripoff). That's how annoyed I am right now. And, actually, the latest Squadron Supreme series (It had a #1 issue relatively recently- now up to 5 total issues released) is kind of awesome. Plus I found a cool Image Comics title called Black Science, it's not a rip-off of anything, I just like it.

DC Comics thinks they have this unlimited reserve of goodwill and people will buy anything. If they don't give readers what they want, and Marvel will, people will switch. People have been switching for at least the last decade.

I'm not boycotting DC or anything, but after new52 Superman dies, I'm not sure if I'll be buying the books anymore. I might just look issue by issue and see what I want and don't want instead of subscribing. Maybe when new issues come out, I'll ask around and see what people say about them. I might just wait and see what goes on sale or until they become old enough to be discounted, and buy on a long delay.

Or I might just pick one book like Justice League that I think won't involve the kiddies (And happens to have a great author for the rebirth) and that'll be my token DC subscription. Counting limited run comics, I had like 8 or 9 subs simultaneously with DC before the Rebirth news came and I started canceling things (Lois and Clark and The Coming of the Supermen were unsubbed from immediately, later Justice League, though I may get the last 1 or 2 JLs individually, we'll see. Skipped the Grail special already.). Could be down to 0 after Superman #52 hits May 25.

Now, I'm not usually as high as 8-9, there were a ton of limited run Superman series that all hit at once, but still. I was good for at least 5 (Four Superman series and Justice League). Usually didn't get JLA, but once Hitch took over and made it about the main people with the Rao arc, I did (That's a great arc, by the way).

If they're losing people like me, it's probably a problem. I typically strongly prefer the DC characters and the DC tone and style.

-Not ever book has kid heroes
-the term "mary sue" has no meaning
-DC isn't going to go out of it's way to exclude kids in stories cause you don't like them. You have many options in DC or elsewhere that should fit your taste more and you're completely valid to get those books instead, but isn't some grievance against the entire Superman fanbase.

[SuperCrab]

-Not ever book has kid heroes

Not literally every book, no. But they within the last decade or so have now shoe-horned two kid heroes who weren't previously there into the books of their two most popular characters. That's not insignificant.

I guess I could read Green Arrow or Green Lantern- they don't have 10 year old crimefighting sons... yet.

-the term "mary sue" has no meaning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

-DC isn't going to go out of it's way to exclude kids in stories cause you don't like them. You have many options in DC or elsewhere that should fit your taste more and you're completely valid to get those books instead, but isn't some grievance against the entire Superman fanbase.

I'm not saying that they are trying to stick it to the entire Superman fan base just for the heck of it. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Obviously, some elements of the fan base like this sort of thing and others are indifferent to it, not everyone will actively dislike it. However, it is a case of them I think changing the books significantly to advance a new character that they created and consider their own legacy, at the expense of turning off some fans of the way the line has been in the past. They even killed off the current Superman to replace him with a Superman that could facilitate introducing the character they want to introduce, even though the replacement Superman doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the story, the universe, and the audience. I think sometimes comic book writers and editors like to spotlight their own creations excessively at the expense of the quality of the product, piggybacking on the hard work of other people who created the comics they're writing, because they at some level don't like the idea of spending their careers building on what others have done. It's not a bad thing to want to do your own thing, but that's where you can request your own book or even write an independent comic. If you're writing Superman, it should be about Superman, and the point should be to write a good Superman, not make your own created character look good at Superman's expense.

In this case, within the storyline, they are literally killing the current Superman of record, and then having the replacement Superman act really out of character by letting his 10 year put himself at risk regularly and seek out danger.

Then also, within the first three books of the new Superman title (i.e. Not Action Comics, the other one):

spoilers:

The solicitations say that Superman will lose to the Eradicator, but that his son Jon will beat him afterwards.

end of spoilers

So, that's three big ways (and counting) that they are undermining Superman in his own book to make their character Jon more popular. I kind of resent it.

[Sacred Knight]

I don't care if Jon is stronger than Superdad. That's not the Superman I care about. Earth-0 Superman though, when everything gets settled with him and he's back and no more power losses and no more dying crap, should be able to swat him aside like a gnat. Not that he would, just that he could.

[vasir12]

Not literally every book, no. But they within the last decade or so have now shoe-horned two kid heroes who weren't previously there into the books of their two most popular characters. That's not insignificant.

I guess I could read Green Arrow or Green Lantern- they don't have 10 year old crimefighting sons... yet.

2 characters introduced in such a long period of time is not a shoe-horn. You only consider it so because you don't like him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

I meant in the way that you used it. You do not know this kid. You have no way of knowing if he's one or not. People just use the term on the internet whenever a character they don't like overcomes tough odds.

I'm not saying that they are trying to stick it to the entire Superman fan base just for the heck of it. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Obviously, some elements of the fan base like this sort of thing and others are indifferent to it, not everyone will actively dislike it. However, it is a case of them I think changing the books significantly to advance a new character that they created and consider their own legacy, at the expense of turning off some fans of the way the line has been in the past. They even killed off the current Superman to replace him with a Superman that could facilitate introducing the character they want to introduce, even though the replacement Superman doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the story, the universe, and the audience. I think sometimes comic book writers and editors like to spotlight their own creations excessively at the expense of the quality of the product, piggybacking on the hard work of other people who created the comics they're writing, because they at some level don't like the idea of spending their careers building on what others have done. It's not a bad thing to want to do your own thing, but that's where you can request your own book or even write an independent comic. If you're writing Superman, it should be about Superman, and the point should be to write a good Superman, not make your own created character look good at Superman's expense.

In this case, within the storyline, they are literally killing the current Superman of record, and then having the replacement Superman act really out of character by letting his 10 year put himself at risk regularly and seek out danger.

Then also, within the first three books of the new Superman title (i.e. Not Action Comics, the other one):

spoilers:

The solicitations say that Superman will lose to the Eradicator, but that his son Jon will beat him afterwards.

end of spoilers

So, that's three big ways (and counting) that they are undermining Superman in his own book to make their character Jon more popular. I kind of resent it.

These are all assumptions, though. There is no solid evidence of any of this. Also, it didn't say that Superman lost. If anything, it suggested a stalemate. And also, Superman doesn't have a problem with working with Robins so I don't think he has a strong stance on the sidekick thing. Again, this is all fiction.

[Superlad93]

Just for some context though: Superdad is historically stronger than New 52 Superman if we're going by both characters high feats.

The point that I'm trying to make with the Franklin comparison is that Jon is a physical manifestation of tomorrow for Clark (the man of tomorrow). So being the more powerful than any Superman before him isn't out of the question.

Take Franklin and Reed for instance. Reed is known as a cosmic builder. Galactus himself recognizes Reed's capability. Norman Osborn told the Sentry that if he ever got too out of control, Reed (and other smart people) would snuff him out for sure.

But to Franklin all of those accomplishments and acknowledges seem pretty small. Galactus respects Reed? Well Galactus is Franklin herald. There's this one moment in FF where adult Franklin is fixing a sun with kid Franklin. Reed has literally done surgery on a cosmic scale yet Franklin can do that and SO MUCH more.

I think the same idea should be apt for Jon in relation to Clark (any Clark). He's the walking talking personification of "the next step". Just as Clark can do what Jonathan Kent and Jor-el can't, then so too can Jon do what Clark can't, In my opinion.

[Superlad93]

Franklin Richards spends about 1 percent of his time at full power...and serves no useful purpose that wouldn't be better serve by a cosmic cube. I just wish he'd be given a better power set, grown up and developed, and had kids, etc. You know that the story moved forward, rather than was stuck in Groundhog Day mode.

I'd recommend Hickman's run, but I if I remember right your issues with characters like Franklin are more rooted in how big company comics are made, so there's that.

As a character and as a enhancer to Reed I think he's fantastic. Again Hickman's run as all about the sins of the father and the good son who must correct them because they'd like to keep their father. It was an awful cycle that Nathaniel and Reed had been apart of, so Franklin breaks it and gives Reed the emotional tools needed to save us all in Secret Wars

I think exploring how a child is both it's own person, and an enhancer for their parent would be fantastic for Superman the man of tomorrow.

Put it this way, Flash fans don't accept other heroes being faster...so Superman fans should expect him to be all round most effective fighter in an all out scrap....it shouldn't be in doubt who wins unless magic or Kryptonite is involved.

I like it when Superman is "top dog" but in no way do I think it's an absolute.

[SuperCrab]

While we're on the subject of comparing Jon Kent to Franklin Richards, didn't Marvel break up the Fantastic Four a while back? Is Franklin still a child with an on-going series somewhere in the Marvelverse right now? If Marvel's historic child character isn't working for modern audiences, and DC Comics' historic child superhero character, Shazam, isn't working for modern audiences, why do they think tossing in a 10 year old crime fighter will help the Superman line? I mean, they crammed Damian down the throats of Batman fans for long enough that they eventually started to like him (I don't work that way, others do, perhaps), but has it really helped his sales overall? Would Batman be selling less if he had Tim Drake playing the Robin role? Or even if he was a solo hero with help from Alfred and Nightwing (Now an adult) and such from time to time?

I mean, I see that DC has an urge to shake up their books, and they might get a short-term spark sales wise from doing that, but is this the right way to shake up the Superman ones, and will it hurt sales in the long run? What's the proof adding a child to an existing series helps it sales wise? If child superheroes are all the rage, why can't someone who's been around as long as Shazam (Still Captain Marvel to me) support his own book?

I mean, sure, this change of shoehorning more kid superheroes onto existing titles runs counter to my tastes and my preferences, but, beyond that, I'm not sure it's their best move for the long-term health of the line, unless they just view comics as a way to sell merchandize and costumes to children and such.

Wrestling did kind of a similar thing a while back. In the last 90s, you had 7 million people watching WWF on Monday nights and 7 million people watching WCW on Monday Nights- for a total of 14 million people a week. Now there's only WWE (Formerly WWF) and they get 2 million people a week. What changed? Well, in the mid to late 90s, they made a move to go after an adult audience, and it worked well for them. Then they decided to be a G-rated children's show. Oh, there are some adults who still like it, so if you go to a forum or something, you'll find people defending it, but that's because they are part of the 2 million people left watching. The other 12 million people have moved on with their lives. The idea was the WWE wanted to be family friendly and sell merchandise to children and let their CFO run for Senate- and they didn't get her elected, but it's possible the rest of it is working out for them, but, you know, as an entertainment company, they are creatively at a low and the vast majority of their audiences has wandered away.

I kind of see comics going a similar direction. Eventually, I'll probably quit reading them the way I quit watching wrestling. I got engaged with both at points where they wanted to go after adult audiences, and I'm not sure that's what they want to do anymore. At least, in the case of DC Comics anyway.

I mean, I was just catching up on an old Green Arrow comic from the first year of new52, and he has a three-way sexual encounter with triplets. I wonder if that's the sort of thing DC Comics editorial will allow anymore. It's not that I'm aiming for that level of sexuality in Superman comics, I'm just saying, you know, we don't don't need to dumb it down to be a G-rated kid-centric set of titles.

[Superlad93]

While we're on the subject of comparing Jon Kent to Franklin Richards, didn't Marvel break up the Fantastic Four a while back? Is Franklin still a child with an on-going series somewhere in the Marvelverse right now? If Marvel's historic child character isn't working for modern audiences,

The book has been cancelled because Fox retains the rights to FF movies and Marvel doesn't want to give them free advertisement for their movies. This has literally nothing to do with liking Franklin as a kid or not. Franklin, Sue, Reed, Val, and the future foundation are off literally creating the Marvel Multiverse from scratch (Mostly Franklin and Reed). Again, nothing to do with him being a kid. Most people like that.

I mean, sure, this change of shoehorning more kid superheroes onto existing titles runs counter to my tastes and my preferences, but, beyond that, I'm not sure it's their best move for the long-term health of the line, unless they just view comics as a way to sell merchandize and costumes to children and such.

There's nothing to suggest that child characters are inherently bad to comics.

I mean, I was just catching up on an old Green Arrow comic from the first year of new52, and he has a three-way sexual encounter with triplets. I wonder if that's the sort of thing DC Comics editorial will allow anymore. It's not that I'm aiming for that level of sexuality in Superman comics, I'm just saying, you know, we don't don't need to dumb it down to be a G-rated kid-centric set of titles.

You don't need to dumb down comics to "G-rated" just because there are kids in the book. AGAIN, Damian aka Robin literally kills people in the Batman books. He's brought home human heads to show Batman. He has engaged in pretty graphic physical fights to the death with a child faced giant clone of himself. Damian is killed on page by being impaled by a sword.

Oh and lets not even get started on the wildly popular Hit Girl who's a 10 year old girl who murders people in the most graphic ways possible.

.......yup basically a Dora The Explorer, right? No.

You're just making assumptions. You personally don't like child superheroes and that's fine, but that's basically where it stops. There's nothing inherently wrong with them. Great, imaginative, and thoughtful stories can be told with them, and about them. Put again, no, YOU, don't have to like them.

[Superlad93]

......yup, "need to dumb it down to be a G-rated kid-centric set of titles".

That's a child's severed head, to be clear.

It all depends on the writer and their ability.

Will Super-Sons be more light? Yeah I'd imagine so. But does that book in anyway shape or form mean Superman or Action Comics has to be more light? No. Why? Because Batman and Detective Comics haven't been and still don't have to be light because there is a kid.

[The Shredder]

Just for some context though: Superdad is historically stronger than New 52 Superman if we're going by both characters high feats.

The point that I'm trying to make with the Franklin comparison is that Jon is a physical manifestation of tomorrow for Clark (the man of tomorrow). So being the more powerful than any Superman before him isn't out of the question.

Take Franklin and Reed for instance. Reed is known as a cosmic builder. Galactus himself recognizes Reed's capability. Norman Osborn told the Sentry that if he ever got too out of control, Reed (and other smart people) would snuff him out for sure.

But to Franklin all of those accomplishments and acknowledges seem pretty small. Galactus respects Reed? Well Galactus is Franklin herald. There's this one moment in FF where adult Franklin is fixing a sun with kid Franklin. Reed has literally done surgery on a cosmic scale yet Franklin can do that and SO MUCH more.

I think the same idea should be apt for Jon in relation to Clark (any Clark). He's the walking talking personification of "the next step". Just as Clark can do what Jonathan Kent and Jor-el can't, then so too can Jon do what Clark can't, In my opinion.

That's a very interesting perspective and comparison of where DC might be going with Jon. Definitely wouldn't mind seeing the dynamic of having a Superboy who is also the biological son of Superman in the DCU explored in this type of manner. The potential is there, it's just whether DC can actually achieve it.

[Sacred Knight]

Just for some context though: Superdad is historically stronger than New 52 Superman if we're going by both characters high feats.

I gotta disagree on this one. If this is circa-President Luthor post-Crisis Superman, the MOS origin is still firmly intact and thus he's significantly weaker. A permanent augmentation of his strength and strong Silver Age reintroductions to the mythos had not taken place yet. I don't think this Superman has topped the idea of bench-pressing the equivalent weight of a planet, for instance. Unless I'm missing some key details (always possible), New 52 Superman should be significantly more powerful.

[Kuwagaton]

Sounds like my (Super)dad can beat your (Super)dad.

While we're on the subject of comparing Jon Kent to Franklin Richards, didn't Marvel break up the Fantastic Four a while back? Is Franklin still a child with an on-going series somewhere in the Marvelverse right now? If Marvel's historic child character isn't working for modern audiences, and DC Comics' historic child superhero character, Shazam, isn't working for modern audiences, why do they think tossing in a 10 year old crime fighter will help the Superman line?

Though we are discussing similarities between the characters, that has absolutely nothing to do with dependence. If Marvel depended on DC, they wouldn't release Young Avengers afters seeing Teen Titans slump. If DC depended on Marvel, they'd be trying to wheel out David Zavimbe because T'Challa is hot right now. There are trends followed, but the books live and die for themselves.

I mean, they crammed Damian down the throats of Batman fans for long enough that they eventually started to like him (I don't work that way, others do, perhaps), but has it really helped his sales overall? Would Batman be selling less if he had Tim Drake playing the Robin role? Or even if he was a solo hero with help from Alfred and Nightwing (Now an adult) and such from time to time?

Interesting spin to put on DC creating a viable new character with a positive reception, haha.

It's considerable, Tim vs Damian. The New 52 B&R did very well in sales.

I mean, sure, this change of shoehorning more kid superheroes onto existing titles runs counter to my tastes and my preferences, but, beyond that, I'm not sure it's their best move for the long-term health of the line, unless they just view comics as a way to sell merchandize and costumes to children and such.

When the comic books were aimed for kids, they crushed the sales we see today. Honestly, you can argue that they could care a lot less about the long-term health of the line.

Wrestling did kind of a similar thing a while back. In the last 90s, you had 7 million people watching WWF on Monday nights and 7 million people watching WCW on Monday Nights- for a total of 14 million people a week.

That's not really how it works, at least because tons of people were watching both shows. So you can't say 7 and 7 is 14 here.

Now there's only WWE (Formerly WWF) and they get 2 million people a week. What changed? Well, in the mid to late 90s, they made a move to go after an adult audience, and it worked well for them. Then they decided to be a G-rated children's show. Oh, there are some adults who still like it, so if you go to a forum or something, you'll find people defending it, but that's because they are part of the 2 million people left watching. The other 12 million people have moved on with their lives.

This makes it sound like a switch went off, when it was never steady like that in reality.

At any rate, tv to comics is apples to oranges. You have literally millions of variables as to why one jumps ship with tv, and the level of commitment is different to begin with since there's no buying or collecting necessary. Comic buying levels are pathetic but no one buying hundreds of dollars of stuff just stops.

I quit watching wrestling when it was still about peak Raw approaching Smackdown years (summer of 1999) and they did goofy crucifixion stuff. There wasn't a storyline or rating level out there to bring me back, I just quit because I felt like it. Millions of variables.

It's not that I'm aiming for that level of sexuality in Superman comics, I'm just saying, you know, we don't don't need to dumb it down to be a G-rated kid-centric set of titles.

It all comes back to how having a son is supposed to make it a kid title, as if it wasn't before. And yet I remember Damian Wayne getting impaled. I don't see jumping to a conclusion about what we will or won't get.