Page 145 of 175 FirstFirst ... 4595135141142143144145146147148149155 ... LastLast
Results 2,161 to 2,175 of 2616
  1. #2161
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    Why not?
    To answer your question with an equally valid question - Why, after 80+ years and many great kidless stories, should he?

  2. #2162
    Amazing Member TaliaJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    45

    Default

    My answer to why I don't especially like Clark having a biological son is that not being able to have a child was something that could give him a fundamental sense of dissatisfaction with his life. Let's face it, Superman's life is pretty great. As he's usually depicted these days, he generally has a great public image, a great marriage, and a great career. Add being able to start a family on top of that, and it's just too much. I'm not saying he can't have a good life, but traditionally, he wasn't even able to get married. He wasn't able to attain everything he wanted to in his personal life. Now that he can attain a much larger percentage of what he wants on a personal level, I want there to be at least something he's dissatisfied about. Superman is already Superman - does he really need a picturesque family life on top of that?

    And to be clear, I am OK with him being able to get married. I just think that being able to do that AND have a biological child is going too far.

    If he REALLY has to have a child, I think it would be more thematically interesting if he adopted one.

    (BTW - I don't read modern Superman comics, so I'm not necessarily complaining about the execution, but about the concept.)
    You can see my work-in-progress Superman fansite here: http://superman.nfshost.com/index.php Info, reviews, graphics, media, and more!

  3. #2163
    AT EASE, LOO-SUH! Superlad93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaliaJoy View Post
    (BTW - I don't read modern Superman comics, so I'm not necessarily complaining about the execution, but about the concept.)
    Had you brought this up during the run just prior to the current one, there wouldn't be too much to say against you. The run before this one did have Superman married and with a child living on a farm of all places. The only counter argument really possible with that was how overall earnest and oftentimes charming those idea could be presented.

    But the actual current run kind of addresses all of your concerns head on. Clark is married, but due to an ill-timed in the moment and very public kiss between Superman (not Clark) and Lois in the streets of Chicago, there were rumors going around about Lois having an affair with Superman. Lois had to endure being called some unacceptable names, and Clark was powerless to stop it because the media has an obvious bias towards Superman because he's both SUPERMAN and superMAN. This didn't last too long because Clark has since come out to the world as Superman, but that has actually opened up potentially more issues to come down the line.

    Then in the case of his son, 11 year old Jon Kent goes off into space because his confidence in living up to his father's legacy is shaken when he finds out that an alternate future version of him becomes a mass murderer as the new Superman. Jon gets sucked into a wormhole out in space, spends roughly 5 to 6 years on the evil Earth-3 surviving on his own, and then returns to his home and his family with only about 3 weeks passing for them.

    Clark effectively misses out on watching his son grown up, and the kicker is that no matter how you slice it, what Jon went through was the direct result of being Clark Kent/Superman's son. Now his son has effectively gone off to college (The Legion of Super-Heroes recruited him) and Clark has to both be proud of the young man his son is becoming and also feel the sting of the years lost that he'll never get back.
    Last edited by Superlad93; 01-27-2020 at 03:48 PM.
    #MakeAlexGreatAgain

    "Your videos give us hope. They give us strength in these times of slow normals, Chun-Li costumes and rampant New York fires.
    We shall overcome. The day will come when we are all warmed up."


    -Coffee That

    Who tryina throw some hands in SFV or Granblue Fantasy Vs?

  4. #2164
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    To answer your question with an equally valid question - Why, after 80+ years and many great kidless stories, should he?
    That's a bad argument. Just cause he had great kidless stories for 80 years. Doesn't mean he shouldn't have one.
    I am just saying it's a bad argument. I don't think it's invalid to think of the kid as bad for franchise or not for you. Jon could become scrappy doo,If not done correctly.

  5. #2165
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superlad93 View Post
    Had you brought this up during the run just prior to the current one, there wouldn't be too much to say against you. The run before this one did have Superman married and with a child living on a farm of all places. The only counter argument really possible with that was how overall earnest and oftentimes charming those idea could be presented.

    But the actual current run kind of addresses all of your concerns head on. Clark is married, but due to a ill-timed in the moment and very public kiss between Superman (not Clark) and Lois in the streets of Chicago, there were rumors going around about Lois having an affair with Superman. Lois had to endure being called some unacceptable names, and Clark was powerless to stop it because the media has an obvious bias towards Superman because he's both SUPERMAN and superMAN. This didn't last too long because Clark has since come out to the world as Superman, but that has actually opened up potentially more issues to come down the line.

    Then in the case of his son, 11 year old Jon Kent goes of into space because his confidence in living up to his father's legacy is shaken when he finds out that an alternate future version of him becomes a mass murderer as the new Superman. Jon gets sucked into a wormhole out in space, spends roughly 5 to 6 years on the evil Earth-3 surviving on his own, and then returns to his home and his family with only about 3 weeks passing for them.

    Clark effectively misses out on watching his son grown up, and the kicker is that no matter how you slice what Jon went through was the direct result of being Clark Kent/Superman's son. Now his son has effectively gone off to college (The Legion of Super-Heroes recruited him) and Clark has to both be proud of the young man his son is becoming and also feel the sting of the years lost that he'll never get back.
    @taliajoy
    Yeah! The writing has its problems or its counters. People don't generally feel any sympathy for clark as a father.It is just another tale with shitty father troupe. You know like goku.
    Jon has been getting beat up by villains, since 8 or something because he was the son of superman. Those stuff has been happening since jurgens. It isn't something new.

  6. #2166
    AT EASE, LOO-SUH! Superlad93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    8,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    @taliajoy
    Yeah! The writing has its problems or its counters. People don't generally feel any sympathy for clark as a father.It is just another tale with shitty father troupe. You know like goku.
    Jon has been getting beat up by villains, since 8 or something because he was the son of superman. Those stuff has been happening since jurgens. It isn't something new.
    This is totally fine for your opinion, but I don't want my previous post or my opinion in general to recolored based off yours.

    This is not at all what I was implying when I said "no matter how you slice it, what Jon went through was the direct result of being Clark/Superman's son." What I was trying to say was that because Jon is the son of Superman he is also a superhero himself, and he is thus exposed to a similar level of the out-there and fantastic that his dad is. Because he is Clark's son and direct heir he feels the weight of responsibility that people around him will place upon him and that he will place upon himself. Because he's the son of Superman his life is placed on a macro scale in comparison to every other young boy.

    That's all I was getting at.
    Last edited by Superlad93; 01-27-2020 at 03:50 PM.
    #MakeAlexGreatAgain

    "Your videos give us hope. They give us strength in these times of slow normals, Chun-Li costumes and rampant New York fires.
    We shall overcome. The day will come when we are all warmed up."


    -Coffee That

    Who tryina throw some hands in SFV or Granblue Fantasy Vs?

  7. #2167
    Mighty Member Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superlad93 View Post
    This is totally fine for your opinion, but I don't want my previous post or my opinion in general to recolored based off yours.

    This is not at all what I was implying when I said "no matter how you slice it, what Jon went through was the direct result of being Clark/Superman's son." What I was trying to say was that because Jon is the son of Superman he is also a superhero himself, and he is thus exposed to a similar level of the out-there and fantastic that his dad is. Because he is Clark's son and direct heir he feels the weight of responsibility that people around him will place upon him and that he will place upon himself. Because he's the son of Superman his life is place on a macro scale in comparison to every other young boy.

    That's all I was getting at.
    Essentially he's a celebrity's kid. Whereas Clark was raised normally by the Kents and grew into the world we now know, Jon came into it much earlier and with the same expectations any child has placed on then when they enter the career their parent(s) became legends in.

  8. #2168
    Astonishing Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Here’s another hot take: The nostalgiafication of Clark’s farmer upbringing doesn’t really make sense. SPOILERS FOR RISE OF SKYWALKER: spoilers:
    At the end of the movie Rey goes and buries Anakin/Luke and Leia’s lightsabers on Tatooine, a backwater hellhole where Anakin and Leia were slaves, and Luke wanted to get the hell off of where he also lost his uncle and aunt. That whole scene was mired in nostalgia aimed at the audience but it didn’t make any sense for the characters to feel the same way we did about that planet.
    end of spoilers.

    Obviously I wasn’t a fan of that scene and it got me thinking about portrayals of Clark’s relationship with Smallville. Obviously unlike Tatooine, Clark has a much more positive relationship with Smallville. But at the end of the day Clark and Luke Skywalker both have similar upbringings and relationship with their hometowns. Ultimately they both recognize that they are meant for more than being farmers in backwaters, and so they leave those places behind and set out on their paths. So I don’t like how many writers portray Clark as wanting to go back to that lifestyle, when him recognizing that isn’t actually what he wants is such a crucial part of his character growth. It’s fine for stuff like Kingdom Come, where him regressing like that is explicitly treated as a bad thing, (at the start at least, YMMV at the ending), but ultimately I’d like to see a greater focus put on the happiness and fulfillment Clark gets from being a journalist and being Superman.

    Put it another way: If the goal of DC’s handling of the modern Superman is to make him more relatable, having him wax nostalgic about the glories of rising at 5 in the morning to go plow the fields probably isn’t something most readers can connect to. I bet most would rather hearing about the joys of flying or being a star reporter in a major city.

    Edit: Just to be clear I’m not **** talking anyone who is happy with that lifestyle, but Clark explicitly doesn’t choose that life for himself. So I don’t get why they keep having him pine over it, even though I do think that salt of the earth poor blue collar upbringing is crucial to his character.
    Last edited by Vordan; 01-24-2020 at 09:44 AM.

  9. #2169
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Here’s another hot take: The nostalgiafication of Clark’s farmer upbringing doesn’t really make sense.

    Obviously I wasn’t a fan of that scene and it got me thinking about portrayals of Clark’s relationship with Smallville. Obviously unlike Tatooine, Clark has a much more positive relationship with Smallville. But at the end of the day Clark and Luke Skywalker both have similar upbringings and relationship with their hometowns. Ultimately they both recognize that they are meant for more than being farmers in backwaters, and so they leave those places behind and set out on their paths. So I don’t like how many writers portray Clark as wanting to go back to that lifestyle, when him recognizing that isn’t actually what he wants is such a crucial part of his character growth. It’s fine for stuff like Kingdom Come, where him regressing like that is explicitly treated as a bad thing, (at the start at least, YMMV at the ending), but ultimately I’d like to see a greater focus put on the happiness and fulfillment Clark gets from being a journalist and being Superman.

    Put it another way: If the goal of DC’s handling of the modern Superman is to make him more relatable, having him wax nostalgic about the glories of rising at 5 in the morning to go plow the fields probably isn’t something most readers can connect to. I bet most would rather hearing about the joys of flying or being a star reporter in a major city.
    I tend to agree. Clark had a relatively happy childhood. Or at least, he had as good a childhood as he was going to have, considering all the things that set him apart and make him different and labeled him as "The Other" in his own mind even if no one else noticed.

    But not everyone wants to go home again. And Clark built a fulfilling, happy life beyond Smallville. As the Man of Tomorrow, it seems to run against what he's all about if he regresses.

    Now, I can see it working in some situations. It worked under Tomasi, because Clark and Lois were lying low and needed to be out of sight as much as they could. So Clark going back to farming fit what they needed at the time. And it works in stuff like Kingdom Come (insofar as a Superman giving up ever works); his life had turned ugly and wrong and he wanted to regress to better days. I get that.

    I'd even be willing to buy Clark working a farm because it leaves his schedule more flexible for Superman stuff. He worked as a journalist originally because he needed a up-to-the-moment source of information, and that justification works in reverse; farming means he can disappear for Superman work without raising suspicion. It's a pragmatic choice, not necessarily a nostalgic one.

    But when Clark's life and job are going well and he's maintaining the balance between Clark's duties and Superman's responsibilities, there's not much reason for him to want to go backwards. Fondly remember Smallville and the farm? Absolutely. Go back and visit sometimes? Sure. But outside of specific reasoning that usually has more to do with circumstances than personal choice, it's not something he should want to return to. Maybe when he retires.
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

  10. #2170
    Mighty Member Yoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Hereís another hot take: The nostalgiafication of Clarkís farmer upbringing doesnít really make sense. SPOILERS FOR RISE OF SKYWALKER: spoilers:
    At the end of the movie Rey goes and buries Anakin/Luke and Leiaís lightsabers on Tatooine, a backwater hellhole where Anakin and Leia were slaves, and Luke wanted to get the hell off of where he also lost his uncle and aunt. That whole scene was mired in nostalgia aimed at the audience but it didnít make any sense for the characters to feel the same way we did about that planet.
    end of spoilers.

    Obviously I wasnít a fan of that scene and it got me thinking about portrayals of Clarkís relationship with Smallville. Obviously unlike Tatooine, Clark has a much more positive relationship with Smallville. But at the end of the day Clark and Luke Skywalker both have similar upbringings and relationship with their hometowns. Ultimately they both recognize that they are meant for more than being farmers in backwaters, and so they leave those places behind and set out on their paths. So I donít like how many writers portray Clark as wanting to go back to that lifestyle, when him recognizing that isnít actually what he wants is such a crucial part of his character growth. Itís fine for stuff like Kingdom Come, where him regressing like that is explicitly treated as a bad thing, (at the start at least, YMMV at the ending), but ultimately Iíd like to see a greater focus put on the happiness and fulfillment Clark gets from being a journalist and being Superman.

    Put it another way: If the goal of DCís handling of the modern Superman is to make him more relatable, having him wax nostalgic about the glories of rising at 5 in the morning to go plow the fields probably isnít something most readers can connect to. I bet most would rather hearing about the joys of flying or being a star reporter in a major city.

    Edit: Just to be clear Iím not **** talking anyone who is happy with that lifestyle, but Clark explicitly doesnít choose that life for himself. So I donít get why they keep having him pine over it, even though I do think that salt of the earth poor blue collar upbringing is crucial to his character.
    Is this another carry over from Superman: The Movie? The idealization of Smallville? One of the things I liked about American Alien was it's modernization of Smallville and the move away from it being some ideal landscape. The Kent's weren't really farmers by choice there, Jonathan was a lawyer and Martha a vet before their accident. And they did essentially get *stuck* there afterwards. It wasn't Green Acres idealic - there were cracked out junkies holding up convenience stores. And Clark wanted to and did get the f' out of there as soon as he could. They even played up the small town guy reinvents himself in the big city. God, if Landis wasn't such a piece of sh!t that story should get so much more play. Why don't writers just steal parts of it.

  11. #2171
    Astonishing Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Is this another carry over from Superman: The Movie? The idealization of Smallville? One of the things I liked about American Alien was it's modernization of Smallville and the move away from it being some ideal landscape. The Kent's weren't really farmers by choice there, Jonathan was a lawyer and Martha a vet before their accident. And they did essentially get *stuck* there afterwards. It wasn't Green Acres idealic - there were cracked out junkies holding up convenience stores. And Clark wanted to and did get the f' out of there as soon as he could. They even played up the small town guy reinvents himself in the big city. God, if Landis wasn't such a piece of sh!t that story should get so much more play. Why don't writers just steal parts of it.
    It comes from the Donner movie and from Byrne. Before that I think the Kents were shopkeepers in Smallville and not farmers. Yeah American Alien basically did the whole Post Crisis take on Superman in a way that I actually loved and enjoyed. Of course Landis has to go ruin it by being Landis but if they really do want to go with the “Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do” take, American Alien should absolutely be the source material.

  12. #2172
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    To answer your question with an equally valid question - Why, after 80+ years and many great kidless stories, should he?
    A question to a question is not a real answer. I don't see what's so bad. The comics have always played with the idea of the son of Superman. It just depends on the execution.


    Quote Originally Posted by TaliaJoy View Post
    My answer to why I don't especially like Clark having a biological son is that not being able to have a child was something that could give him a fundamental sense of dissatisfaction with his life. Let's face it, Superman's life is pretty great. As he's usually depicted these days, he generally has a great public image, a great marriage, and a great career. Add being able to start a family on top of that, and it's just too much. I'm not saying he can't have a good life, but traditionally, he wasn't even able to get married. He wasn't able to attain everything he wanted to in his personal life. Now that he can attain a much larger percentage of what he wants on a personal level, I want there to be at least something he's dissatisfied about. Superman is already Superman - does he really need a picturesque family life on top of that?

    And to be clear, I am OK with him being able to get married. I just think that being able to do that AND have a biological child is going too far.

    If he REALLY has to have a child, I think it would be more thematically interesting if he adopted one.

    (BTW - I don't read modern Superman comics, so I'm not necessarily complaining about the execution, but about the concept.)
    Thank you, I think you have a point. I like the kid idea, especially after 80 years of Superman's story, but it depends how it's done. I like the new possibilities and story ideas that expand the Super mythos.

    Also, adopting a child sounds valid, but I find it more emotionally satisfying that Clark is able to have a biological child with the woman he loves.


    Quote Originally Posted by Superlad93 View Post
    Had you brought this up during the run just prior to the current one, there wouldn't be too much to say against you. The run before this one did have Superman married and with a child living on a farm of all places. The only counter argument really possible with that was how overall earnest and oftentimes charming those idea could be presented.

    But the actual current run kind of addresses all of your concerns head on. Clark is married, but due to a ill-timed in the moment and very public kiss between Superman (not Clark) and Lois in the streets of Chicago, there were rumors going around about Lois having an affair with Superman. Lois had to endure being called some unacceptable names, and Clark was powerless to stop it because the media has an obvious bias towards Superman because he's both SUPERMAN and superMAN. This didn't last too long because Clark has since come out to the world as Superman, but that has actually opened up potentially more issues to come down the line.

    Then in the case of his son, 11 year old Jon Kent goes of into space because his confidence in living up to his father's legacy is shaken when he finds out that an alternate future version of him becomes a mass murderer as the new Superman. Jon gets sucked into a wormhole out in space, spends roughly 5 to 6 years on the evil Earth-3 surviving on his own, and then returns to his home and his family with only about 3 weeks passing for them.

    Clark effectively misses out on watching his son grown up, and the kicker is that no matter how you slice what Jon went through was the direct result of being Clark Kent/Superman's son. Now his son has effectively gone off to college (The Legion of Super-Heroes recruited him) and Clark has to both be proud of the young man his son is becoming and also feel the sting of the years lost that he'll never get back.

    I haven't read the Bendis Superman comics, but this sounds interesting. Don't know how the execution was but it makes sense the way you put it.

  13. #2173
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaliaJoy View Post
    My answer to why I don't especially like Clark having a biological son is that not being able to have a child was something that could give him a fundamental sense of dissatisfaction with his life. Let's face it, Superman's life is pretty great. As he's usually depicted these days, he generally has a great public image, a great marriage, and a great career. Add being able to start a family on top of that, and it's just too much. I'm not saying he can't have a good life, but traditionally, he wasn't even able to get married. He wasn't able to attain everything he wanted to in his personal life. Now that he can attain a much larger percentage of what he wants on a personal level, I want there to be at least something he's dissatisfied about. Superman is already Superman - does he really need a picturesque family life on top of that?

    And to be clear, I am OK with him being able to get married. I just think that being able to do that AND have a biological child is going too far.

    If he REALLY has to have a child, I think it would be more thematically interesting if he adopted one.

    (BTW - I don't read modern Superman comics, so I'm not necessarily complaining about the execution, but about the concept.)
    Yeah I’m not going to dig super deep into this except to tell you that this entire comment is extremely extremely disrespectful to infertile couples as is the assumption that if people can’t have biological kids they should “just adopt.”
    These are very complex issues and unless you have lived them, you really should refrain from trying to talk about them on these terms.

    As a formerly infertile woman myself and mother to a son born after years of medical struggle, I’m extremely used to this kind of casual insensitivity when discussing fertility issues and kids and I’m too hardened by it to be hurt anymore but please reconsider EVER talking about infertility like this again and/or talking casually about how you want to inflict it upon a couple, even a fictional one, because it creates drama.

    This is extremely uncool.

    As someone who struggled a great deal to conceive, Lois and Clark overcoming years of narrative infertility to have Jon meant a great deal to me. I don’t expect someone who has not lived it to fully grasp how meaningful that might be but I do ask that you please show more awareness and sensitivity before shooting off about extremely sensitive topics that, outside of comics, impact real peoples lives.
    Last edited by Nelliebly; 01-24-2020 at 12:16 PM.

  14. #2174
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    To answer your question with an equally valid question - Why, after 80+ years and many great kidless stories, should he?
    Because, a lot of those 80 years of “kidless” stories were dictated, in part, by some inherently sexist crap and that sexist crap encompassed the way publishing approached both his ability to get married and have children?

    Because decades of insensitive infertility storylines which led to gross and misogynistic jokes about how Lois Lane would die horribly in childbirth deserved to actually be refuted and addressed?

    Because Lois Lane was victimized for decades with crappy stories that distinctly weaponized her fertility including a very famous and graphic game that literally revolves around her murder as a pregnant woman?

    Because over 20 years ago on “Lois and Clark” a devastating infertility story was started with Lois and Clark but was never actually given a resolution?

    Because Superman, as an adopted child, may have complex longings to have a biological child? Because fertility and adoption and craving blood connection is a very complex, deep issue that you really only understand if you’ve lived it on one or both sides?

    Because Lois Lane and Superman have canonically wanted children together specifically for decades now to the point that Grant Morrison wrote his own version of IVF into All Star Superman?

    Because, after 80 years, exploring the idea of one of the most beloved love stories in fiction having a child together in canon is a ::genuinely:: new idea?

    Because the idea of a child born of the greatest superhero in the world and a human mother who of brilliant and Famous in her own right can, in the right hands, lend itself to exploration of its own dual identity issues and struggle to know one’s place?

    You do not have to personally like Lois and Clark having a child together in canon. But to act like there was no valid reason after 80 years to explore this for real is silly at best and disingenuous at worst.
    Last edited by Nelliebly; 01-24-2020 at 01:12 PM.

  15. #2175
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Discovery is way better than the movies. And it has the kind of depth and character work you expect from Trek. You might not like it, I don't know your tastes, but it's won over two old school bastards who don't care for the new movies at all.

    Just.....when you watch it, if you're a nut for Trek continuity, you're gonna be saying "Wait, that's not right!" a lot of the time. Don't worry; the show knows that, and they screw with your expectations on purpose. So what you think doesn't fit continuity often ends up being twisted up in a way that not only fits, but surprises you.

    Give it a few episodes, see what you think.
    I missed this reply. Sound cool. I'll give it a chance, the way you put it sounds intriguing. I know some Trek fans seem very close minded. Even when I don't like some Trek show or movie, I'm glad others do. Not every Trek is for all the fans. I already had MY Trek back in the 60s thru the 90s; the rest is bonus.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •