The case for a Nonagenarian Superman

[L.R Johansson]

...Is becoming increasingly stronger for me.

In fact, I think this is the logical conclusion and solution to the various continuity-problems and such that comes with the ambition to try and make a Superman-continuity where "everything counts".

Superman himself has enhanced longevity - in fact, I believe it's mentioned in various continuities that Kryptonians live longer even naturally - mentally and PHYSICALLY perfect Supermen and all that.

We saw this in the web-comic-series "Adventures of Superman" pulled off brilliantly - how Superman begins in the 1940's, and continues, PAST modern time, into the far future... into the very end of time.

We could even have it so that not all of the supporting characters are as defunct physically either - Lois for instance could be depicted more as a woman in her 50's, thanks to some compound or another which Superman exposed her to. (perhaps the elixir of life from Superman: Beyond even!)

Jimmy could be a man in a similar constitution, perhaps as a result of his many super-powered transformations. (Elastic Lad, anyone?! It would make sense if his moldable power would keep him from aging, reconstituting him)
Some people would of course, alas, be dead... for instance, the Kents, Perry White (Clark's SECOND editor...! Daily Star reinstated in continuity).

It would also, imho, provide a perfect explanation for the classic costume, SHORTer cape and all, being the current - because he really HAS been fighting for Truth, Justice and the 'American Way' ever since 1938!


Of course, the ultimate question then becomes... should he be called Kal-El, or... KAL-*L*?! ; )

Therein lies the final battle. I'm afraid that I'm of the opinion that it should be Kal-L - the first Superman.



Editors note: A nonagenarian is a person in their 90's - closing in on a hundred years old.

[Kuwagaton]

I feel like being around for sixty years is too much. Like people would kind of get sick after thirty.

[superduperman]

The only problem I see with this is everyone else around him and coming up with elaborate excuses for why they don't age as well. At some point you run into a JSA type situation where you have to keep coming up with excuses for why people are still vibrant well into their hundreds. Or other heroes. What if a Batman exists in this universe. How long has he been around? Then you run into a Generations type situation where you have to keep coming up with ways to keep him from aging as well. I would prefer something more like Archies where nobody ages and the stories are either stand alones or short lived and continuity is very loose.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I like the idea of Kal-L as the oldest superhero on the planet, but I wouldn't play him as Mr. 1940 walking anachronism. Not entirely, to my mind he would be 100 years ahead of every other superhero. The forefront of superhumanity, the first to travel time, visit the fifth dimension, the first to make contact with other worlds and dimensions. Same corny smile but with the wisdom of what the future holds for the younger heroes around him.

[Superlad93]

I've pondered this idea for a while. There are interesting story pathways this idea could take, but I ultimately it's not the best path. I know the frustration of the rebooting and endless origins, but this really isn't the best way to combat those and keep Superman's character intact.

For one, it turns the character into one big meta commentary almost all then time. The idea of Superman being this old concept that still persist against the march of time and progression. That's far too on the nose--again all the time-- for my taste. You thought it was hard for writers and fans to separate the character from the concept before? Well if this idea were in play, I think it would be nearly impossible. Adventures of Superman handled it so well because they weren't very interested in his character. They were speaking strictly conceptually for that whole issue. It was a love letter to the idea of Superman.It's a cool idea but it's not sustainable, imo.

My other issue is that it directly tampers with the character's personality to a degree that makes him less relatable than he already is to some people. Clark Kent literally becomes an immortal 90 year old man living in 2016. We leave the story of an immigrant/first generation trying to make his home a better place, and we replace it with an immortal god sort of going through the motions for 70 plus years. And if you make Lois and Jimmy immortal along with him then they get stripped of--conceptually-- what makes them work, imo.

I think the way to do the whole "it all happened to this guy" idea is to make an "approximating Superman." Basically say it all happened to the current Superman in some shape or form. You don't need a date and time because those aren't as important as the actual story. You can make "everything count" in a sense still. Also even with the 90 year old Superman from the 40s you wouldn't be able to make EVERYTHING count. This like origin specific stories or adventures that need other characters. Granted you could change those stories to fit, but then "everything" wouldn't really count and you would've changed things anyway. The only way this actually works is if everyone he knows is immortal.

[L.R Johansson]

I've pondered this idea for a while. There are interesting story pathways this idea could take, but I ultimately it's not the best path. I know the frustration of the rebooting and endless origins, but this really isn't the best way to combat those and keep Superman's character intact.

For one, it turns the character into one big meta commentary almost all then time. The idea of Superman being this old concept that still persist against the march of time and progression. That's far too on the nose--again all the time-- for my taste. You thought it was hard for writers and fans to separate the character from the concept before? Well if this idea were in play, I think it would be nearly impossible. Adventures of Superman handled it so well because they weren't very interested in his character. They were speaking strictly conceptually for that whole issue. It was a love letter to the idea of Superman.It's a cool idea but it's not sustainable, imo.

My other issue is that it directly tampers with the character's personality to a degree that makes him less relatable than he already is to some people. Clark Kent literally becomes an immortal 90 year old man living in 2016. We leave the story of an immigrant/first generation trying to make his home a better place, and we replace it with an immortal god sort of going through the motions for 70 plus years. And if you make Lois and Jimmy immortal along with him then they get stripped of--conceptually-- what makes them work, imo.

I think the way to do the whole "it all happened to this guy" idea is to make an "approximating Superman." Basically say it all happened to the current Superman in some shape or form. You don't need a date and time because those aren't as important as the actual story. You can make "everything count" in a sense still. Also even with the 90 year old Superman from the 40s you wouldn't be able to make EVERYTHING count. This like origin specific stories or adventures that need other characters. Granted you could change those stories to fit, but then "everything" wouldn't really count and you would've changed things anyway. The only way this actually works is if everyone he knows is immortal.

I suppose you're right there - things would change in the end.

Also, I kind of don't want all of the supporting characters to be immortal, just not 90, just to give them a liiiittle bit more run while the new era starts getting molded out - an era in which Superman really IS the world's first superhero.

You bring up a point about how it changes the story of the character to some extent, and I think you're right there as well - the question then is, would this necessarily be a bad thing?

To me, the current Son of Superman -arc depicts a Superman who was active for around 15 years, and then you add up another 10 years and now he's got a son of his own, and his story is ALREADY changing. If we want to do the story of Supes marrying, and then finally having children, then I'm afraid we're already changing the character - we're already taking him to places his creators never did, perhaps never intended.

Superman as a senior citizen is then the second-next step. Is that really wrong? IMHO... you can't have one without the other, because then the story gets stale again.


The Phantom, Superman's direct predecessor in a meta-sense, is a perfect example of this - the strip was in a perpetual hold-up, until Lee Falk finally married him off with his love-interest - Diana (who is actually a STRIKINGLY similar character to Lois Lane, now that I think about it...! Just a bit more even-headed, less impulsive). After a few years of that, they had them get children.

And then things started getting stale again... it's now been something like 35 years, and the Phantom's twins are only now starting to become teens...! It's become so that many readers are just waiting for this Phantom to hurry up and DIE already! So that he can be replaced by a new character - supposedly his son.

(the Phantom can be argued to be the ORIGINAL Legacy-hero, in that sense. Not sure if you're familiar with him, but there you go.)

Unless you acknowledge this part of the character, then there's no going back after him having children - the comic must then continue to progress. Lois must become old. Superman? Not really. He's ALREADY an immortal god - time to acknowledge it.


(oh, and I agree about the Batman, WW, et c - they'd have to be aged as well, which would be catastrophic for some of them, since, well, they're NOT Superman! ; ) But I don't give a damn... the needs of the greatest hero far, far outweighs the needs of his lessers. )

[Superlad93]

You bring up a point about how it changes the story of the character to some extent, and I think you're right there as well - the question then is, would this necessarily be a bad thing?

In this case, yeah I think so.

If we want to do the story of Supes marrying, and then finally having children, then I'm afraid we're already changing the character

But the idea fits very snugly into the immigrant story. It's more in line with progression than a departure. He's an immigrant who found love in his new land, and now his son literally and thematically bridges the gap between his worlds. But in the end it's all about Clark the immigrant.

Superman as a senior citizen is then the second-next step.

Why would that be the next step? Superhero comics are perpetual in nature. Superman, Lois, and Bruce will always be in the prime of youth. You want to see them older? That's were possible future stories come in. Comic book forward progression is an illusion. The trick is to find ways to dynamically run in place. What you're suggesting is more suited to a very specific story with a beginning middle and end. If you transplant this of yours Superman into the main DCU then he will conceptually fall apart I feel. Bruce, and Dick are never going to age out and die. That means no more forward time progression. That means Superman's whole immortal thing means nothing outside of possible futures. His history won't be truly explored because if we're focusing on the present then what's the point of always going back to the past? But if your intention is for those past stories to mean something, then that very same effect can be gotten from approximating those old stories.

In Trinity, Post-Crisis Superman just brought up a story from the 1950s, but he clearly wan't alive during the 50s. It was an approximation of that story from the 50s. The same idea and ramifications are present, but you don't need to uproot the character conceptually to call back to those stories. It just seem like a simpler and more practical idea, imo.

So that he can be replaced by a new character - supposedly his son.

That's an over simplification. The Phantom is not at all comparable to Superman in fame or staying power--he just isn't. Clark Kent can't be replaced by his son in real time for any long amount of time, because his fame and the nature of perpetual comics. At best they'd go the way of Batman Beyond and give Jon (and Damian) an all-grown-up Super Sons book to progress in.

Unless you acknowledge this part of the character, then there's no going back after him having children - the comic must then continue to progress. Lois must become old. Superman? Not really. He's ALREADY an immortal god - time to acknowledge it.

This simply isn't true when you take into account that these characters are brands. Bruce is just as immortal and Clark in this sense. You're viewing comics as if they have an end point or a natural time progression when they 100% don't. My kids will be reading about Clark Kent's adventures 20 years from now and so will their kids. Again, what you're asking for is something with a beginning middle and end. That's not mainstream superhero comics.

(oh, and I agree about the Batman, WW, et c - they'd have to be aged as well, which would be catastrophic for some of them, since, well, they're NOT Superman! ; ) But I don't give a damn... the needs of the greatest hero far, far outweighs the needs of his lessers. )[/I]

But then going through the trouble of making "everything count" is lost because now quite a bit doesn't. I just don't think it does more harm than good.

[Sacred Knight]

Its an interesting concept, but ultimately I think there are too many issues with making him this actually this old in canon to be worth it. When does his classic supporting cast come in? Early in his career? Or later? Because they can't just age along with him, because these people age normally. So you have to pick. And whichever era you pick, what is his supporting cast then in the other era?

I just don't think it would be well-received.

[Ascended]

I think there are ways to make it work. At least for a decade or so, which is likely all you'd get before DC forced a reboot anyway (two arcs a year means you'd only get twenty stories out of immortal Superman. Twenty stories isnt hard to come up with). But Superlad and Sacred are correct that it'd be damn near unsustainable. You'd basically have to find that one writer who can spin it and then keep them on the book indefinitely. And each issue would be walking a knife's edge of pulling it off. But Im hesitant to say it could never work either. Nothing's impossible after all. Or so an imaginary character once told me right before jumping into orbit.

One way you might make it work is you take an Atomic Robo approach and tell stories from different eras. You can do a story set in the 60's with Lois and Clark married, followed by a story set in the present where Clark has out-lived most of his friends and loved ones and found new people to care for, followed by one set in the 40's where Lois doesnt know who Superman really is.

But that's just one possible solution to one problem on a list of many, many problems and challenges you'd have to face.

[Superlad93]

One way you might make it work is you take an Atomic Robo approach and tell stories from different eras. You can do a story set in the 60's with Lois and Clark married, followed by a story set in the present where Clark has out-lived most of his friends and loved ones and found new people to care for, followed by one set in the 40's where Lois doesnt know who Superman really is.

But that's just one possible solution to one problem on a list of many, many problems and challenges you'd have to face.

But the thing is, it's overall utility can be replicated without making a completely alien character by just saying those stories happened to the same guy but in modern times. You want stories where Lois doesn't know Clark is Superman? Flashback. You want a story about Clark outliving his friends? Possible future. The only things this forever Superman idea really seems to bring are the specific aesthetics of the times, and a much harder to relate to Superman. You can scratch either of those itches via imaginary story or possible future.

I personally don't understand the gain from this idea. Everything won't count for this guy unless it's outside the DCU continuity. You somehow need Batman, Lois, and Jimmy to live at prime youth from 1940 to 1980. If you switch them out for stand-ins then the whole thing is pointless.

It's more effective and less of a conceptual uprooting to just loosely fit most of his old stories into the middle of his career. There will be some adjusting but the main idea of each story will be there. It's what they did with Batman, and it's seems to be what they're now doing with Superman (Waid also did this with Kingdom Come Superman in a pretty great way).

[Jim Kelly]

I can see it working as one continuity. However, I don't like the idea of giving Lois and Jimmy perpetual youth. The reason behind characters like them and Perry is to surround Superman with real human beings. If they are more or less the same as him, they don't serve that function and become pointless.

Alan Moore solved this problem by giving Supreme a new girl friend. I think Lois and Jimmy would have to age or die.

But I don't imagine that movies or TV shows would reflect this continuity. James Bond isn't allowed to get old in the movies--even though for the Ian Fleming books it would be more logical. So you would have an old Superman in the comics, but a young Superman on the screen.

I really enjoyed GENERATIONS by John Byrne and the concept could be an ongoing series. But I doubt we'd see this as the mainstream DCU Superman.

[daBronzeBomma]

As an Elseworlds idea, I think this has been done more than once.

For the main/current/canon Superman? Hard pass.

Superlad93 summed it up best why this approach doesn't work as the "main" Superman:

We leave the story of an immigrant/first generation trying to make his home a better place, and we replace it with an immortal god sort of going through the motions for 70 plus years. And if you make Lois and Jimmy immortal along with him then they get stripped of--conceptually-- what makes them work, imo.

The most powerful stories are the enduring ones. And they endure because they are told and re-told over and over.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I liked Supreme, the univwrse resets itself around him during a crisis. I thought that premise was good. Tom Strong and Planetary had 100 year old superheroes as main characters. Jupiters Legacy does too! Elseworlds books I guess. I did just read about Superman having his head shaved before being poisoned. Anything goes right now as DC cobbles together Superman. Why not the old(est) guy? I want to see Kal L slug Darkseid!

[victorsage]

For an Elseworld book, or a single graphic novel? Sure. Heck Superman & Batman Generations is basically what you are talking about. But you can't really do that long term in a main continuity.

[Sacred Knight]

I would ADORE it as an explorative 7 issue stand-alone minseries. One issue per decade.