Controversial Superman Opinions

[SiegePerilous02]

Jimmy and Perry have offered far less to the Superman mythos for decades. Yet any writer who even suggested killing them off would be metaphorically crucified.

They've offered less than the Kents have how, exactly?

The Kents still only offer their place in the origin, which they have even when they're dead while he's an adult.

[Agent Z]

They've offered less than the Kents have how, exactly?

The Kents still only offer their place in the origin, which they have even when they're dead while he's an adult.

The most noteworthy thing Jimmy has done in decades was become the new publisher of the Daily Planet and that happened in 2019. Even the adaptations struggle to find something for him to do. Same with Perry.

Clark being a father and seeing how hus parents react to their grandchild offers more interesting possibilities than whatever random scenario Jimmy or Perry get thrown into.

And just to be clear, I don't think Jimmy and Perry should be killed off. I just don't get why the Kents are the ones we keep having this conversation about despite a number of redundant Superman characters that bring far less to the table. More often than not it just comes across like Jonathan and Martha get scapegoated for Superman's popularity issues the same way Lois does.

[SiegePerilous02]

The most noteworthy thing Jimmy has done in decades was become the new publisher of the Daily Planet and that happened in 2019. Even the adaptations struggle to find something for him to do. Same with Perry.

Clark being a father and seeing how hus parents react to their grandchild offers more interesting possibilities than whatever random scenario Jimmy or Perry get thrown into.

And just to be clear, I don't think Jimmy and Perry should be killed off. I just don't get why the Kents are the ones we keep having this conversation about despite a number of redundant Superman characters that bring far less to the table. More often than not it just comes across like Jonathan and Martha get scapegoated for Superman's popularity issues the same way Lois does.

It comes up with the Kents because they actually were dead for 50 or so years, and that shaped how Clark functioned as an adult. It's not like it's a new status that's never been tried before.

They finally found a use for them by bringing in Jon, but it's not like Clark is around to witness any interactions right now. So it's still a hypothetical scenario, no different than Jimmy or Perry sitting on the sidelines while they wait for writers to do something with them

[godisawesome]

I kind of think the doldrums with Perry and Jimmy share a common cause with the continuous lapsing into killing off one or more Kent’s - creative laziness.

Back when the Kents were first killed off, it wasn’t to teach Clark any lesson; it was just because the writers were being utilitarian with them as features in the origin story, and didn’t care about them afterwards. When Jimmy and Perry started to recede, it wasn’t because there weren’t ways to update them in interesting ways; it was because writers lost interest in writing stories focusing on them.

Really, a “perfected” Superman show could have his entire supporting cast be alive, active, and focused on - you’d just have to know how to approach them and have fun with it.

[Jon Clark]

I kind of think the doldrums with Perry and Jimmy share a common cause with the continuous lapsing into killing off one or more Kent’s - creative laziness.

Back when the Kents were first killed off, it wasn’t to teach Clark any lesson; it was just because the writers were being utilitarian with them as features in the origin story, and didn’t care about them afterwards. When Jimmy and Perry started to recede, it wasn’t because there weren’t ways to update them in interesting ways; it was because writers lost interest in writing stories focusing on them.

Really, a “perfected” Superman show could have his entire supporting cast be alive, active, and focused on - you’d just have to know how to approach them and have fun with it.

It could also have all of his familiar supporting cast dead or part of his past. I've seen tons of things that seem to just want Superman doing amazing feats without needing the Kents, the Planet or even Clark Kent destracting from the heroics. Look at the big Bendis move of killing off Clark as a secret ID Sure he could still turn in stories to Perry, but that isn't what we are getting. Superman is now taking an extended trip to Warworld where none of the classic supporting cast are involved in his adventure.

[Agent Z]

It comes up with the Kents because they actually were dead for 50 or so years, and that shaped how Clark functioned as an adult. It's not like it's a new status that's never been tried before.

There's a lot of things that were once the status quo. It doesn't mean they need to come back or were inherently better.

They finally found a use for them by bringing in Jon, but it's not like Clark is around to witness any interactions right now. So it's still a hypothetical scenario, no different than Jimmy or Perry sitting on the sidelines while they wait for writers to do something with them

My point exactly. Whether it's the Kents, Jimmy, Perry or whoever, it is only a matter of one writer or editor coming up with an interesting story idea for them. If you're going to argue the Kents should be dead because they bring nothing to the table anymore, the same can be said for so many of Superman's supporting cast.

[SiegePerilous02]

There's a lot of things that were once the status quo. It doesn't mean they need to come back or were inherently better.




My point exactly. Whether it's the Kents, Jimmy, Perry or whoever, it is only a matter of one writer or editor coming up with an interesting story idea for them. If you're going to argue the Kents should be dead because they bring nothing to the table anymore, the same can be said for so many of Superman's supporting cast.

I think the difference is that Perry and Jimmy used to bring stuff to the table before fading into the background as story needs changed. The Kent's always have their place in the origin, but they are not district as characters the way Jimmy and Perry are for ongoing story needs. At least when Clark is no longer a kid. They only contribute Clark going home for some blandly wholesome scenes where they offer him generic advice to solve problems he could figure out himself.

It's been like that since the 80s and hasn't changed. Why the need to keep bringing them back if they are just gonna hang around doing nothing? It's not like Clark is short on human connections with more layered characters at this point. It also doesn't help that they are associated more with the "Clark Kent is the real person, Superman is the disguise" simplification, which takes a lot of the nuances out of Kal's psychology. Clark being a lonely figure (at least pre-marriage with Lois) rings a bit more hollow if his parents are always around.

[Stanlos]

One thing that really bugs me about the "I want the Kents alive" camp is how they never really explain what good the Kents do when they're alive and it's always just this finger wagging attempt of moral aggrandizing to try and guilt trip the opposition into abandoning ship and just rolling over. The Kent's are alive because management nuked the grand childhood Superman had in the Pre-Crisis days that dated back to the 40's where the Kent's played the nurturing parental role to a young Clark Kent. In some grand magnanimous instance of clarity Bryne realized that he didn't have an avenue to show Clark's brand new All American upbringing because his new backstory simply wasn't interesting enough to support long form storytelling like the Pre-Crisis one had so they proceeded to backport the Kent's from Kal-El childhood into his adulthood but they failed to realize that it makes no sense to have the Kent's serve the same role for +35 year old SuperMAN that they served for a adolescent SuperBOY. The Kent's don't have any relevant experience to Clark's adult life, he was doing thing they couldn't have even comprehended were possible until they found his rocket by the roadside. Pretending that they have valuable nuggets of wisdom for Superman when he's well into his career is ludicrous and that's exactly why you get "homespun wisdom fortune cookie" takes that make Clark look like a dumbass.

In what world is it bad storytelling for elderly people who were already old when they found baby Kal-El to die of illness or natural causes? It's a reasonable estimation of how they might pass away. It's nothing like the random act of violence that spawned Batman because it has nothing to do with pain and suffering making Clark into the ultimate badass the way it did for Bruce. The death of the Kent's was always a much more sobering reminder of the limits of his great powers and quite honestly it was nice to see someone go through personal loss and TAKE IT WELL! (Maybe because Siegel went through similar events in his childhood!) To show actual maturity and growth as a person in the face of what the Bat writers popularized in the 80's where any instance of tragedy became some kind of great breaking moment and you were never the same ever again. We lost that with Superman either getting everything put back or having any emotional connection to things in his life he lost severed. With all of those moronic changes the Post-Crisis writers came up with the story of Superman became a weird accent piece to the DCU the Batman writers had come up with. To hell with that Superman is not a part of Batman's tale and anyone that believes otherwise can go back to the Batman side of the dance floor.

Just because you do not like what a character is does not mean you get to beat it into a shape you find aggregable. There's a reason the Japanese don't do this with their storytelling and they're creaming the American's now.

Edit: Also can someone explain to me why it's okay for Aunt May to die but not the Kent's? I've notice that double think for some time now. Apparently Peter does need May to die so he can move on with his life but Clark has to keep the Kent's around? Am I missing something?

I want the Kents alive and I will tell you that they bring joy to my heart. Superman and the others are fantasies. In this case having the Kents around is kind of like having my Grammies around even they are no more. I find it comforting. It is a way that I can relate to Supes

[Zagre]

I just don't think characters have to be "alive" just because they bring something to a particular plot. I llike the Kents being alive because I think it's helps Superman differentiate himself as a character by having a living, loving family that reflects the normalcy he grew up with, even if a aprticular plot is about fighting an alien dictator or something.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think the "should all characters be killed off just because they aren't immediately relevant to plot" stance is becoming a bit of a straw man. People generally only discuss the Kents being alive or dead, not the entire supporting cast in general. Because their being alive in the present day creates a change in Clarks character. Ymmv on if the change matters or is even unanimously perceived, but it's up for debate with the Kents while nobody is declaring that Pete Ross should be dead just because he's in the background.

It's also a case by case basis with superhero parents. Nobody is declaring that Gordon or Hippolyta need to be killed off. Hippolyta does end up dead semi frequently, but she always comes back and it's not treated as a source of contention. Because unlike the Kents and Clark, Diana having a parental figure in her adult life has been consistent for her entire publication history and shaped her character.

[yolo_dude]

The no-kill rule WHEN WRITTEN WELL is an amazing and great aspect of the Superman mythos, this is probably best shown by Elliot S Maggin novel "Miracle Monday."

HOWEVER it can be strawmanned and make Superman look ineffective, holier-than-thou, self-centered, and selfish if it's not written well.
The writer must thoroughly and aptly show why the "no-kill" rule works in this specific circumstance.
It's not good enough to say Superman found "a better way" simply by stopping the villain without killing him.

[Jim Kelly]

Frankly, I don't understand the kill rule. It used to be standard operating procedure that ALL super-heroes had a no-kill rule. Any supers that allowed themselves to kill were no longer heroes--they could maybe be anti-heroes--they had violated one of the sacred comic book conventions.

So if every super-hero had a no-kill rule, it didn't seem that strange. It was just the norm for comic books.

It seems like Marvel movies have reset this rule and now killing is okay. But that just seems like laziness. Because it's too hard to do big explosive effects events at the end of a movie without someone biting the dust, they took the safety off.

[SiegePerilous02]

Frankly, I don't understand the kill rule. It used to be standard operating procedure that ALL super-heroes had a no-kill rule. Any supers that allowed themselves to kill were no longer heroes--they could maybe be anti-heroes--they had violated one of the sacred comic book conventions.

So if every super-hero had a no-kill rule, it didn't seem that strange. It was just the norm for comic books.

It seems like Marvel movies have reset this rule and now killing is okay. But that just seems like laziness. Because it's too hard to do big explosive effects events at the end of a movie without someone biting the dust, they took the safety off.

I think the no-kill rule holds up fine as long as they don't go overboard with the villains. When they up the threat level to every villain piling up bodies left and right, the superheroes look like ineffectual morons by not putting them down. At least in the case of repeat offenders who keep getting out of jail.

That's the bigger problem with how the villains and threat levels are written. The Joker is a far more effective character when he's unpredictable, so him killing people constantly robs him of that. He's a dangerous killer, but the older stories would have him do other stuff too or at the very least be thwarted before he actually carries out with his plots, so at least Batman and the GCPD look effective within the context of the fantastical adventure stories.

We were probably better off when that was the norm for superheroes, and not the genre trying to have it both ways like it frequently does in the modern era.

[Stanlos]

Frankly, I don't understand the kill rule. It used to be standard operating procedure that ALL super-heroes had a no-kill rule. Any supers that allowed themselves to kill were no longer heroes--they could maybe be anti-heroes--they had violated one of the sacred comic book conventions.

So if every super-hero had a no-kill rule, it didn't seem that strange. It was just the norm for comic books.

It seems like Marvel movies have reset this rule and now killing is okay. But that just seems like laziness. Because it's too hard to do big explosive effects events at the end of a movie without someone biting the dust, they took the safety off.

I think it has to do with changes to society and thus in the meaning of heroism.

[NathanS]

I disagree, it's more Superheros, for better or worse, no longer being aimed primarily at children. Go back to the 40s and 50s and much like today heroes aimed at kids like Superman, the Lone Ranger, and so on, don't kill. but say James Bond or The Shadow aimed at adults, well they kill lots of people. And there are Superheroes made for kids today, and hey guess what? They don't kill.