Superman issue #9 Spoiler discussion

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

The connection between Jor El and Dr. Manhattan is supposed to be addressed at some point, so I think Oz Effect will either be retconned out by Doomsday Clock or there will be some backfill of story to set Jor El up leading into Man of Steel. It hasn't been explained yet, but it's been touched on in several places by Bendis as being something that will play a role going forward. I think he just has to wait out Doomsday Clock.

I very much doubt it, we’ll see but until then, **** this comic.

[Superlad93]

If the older Jon isn't willing to possibly sacrifice himself save the younger Jon in the present and spare him years of torture, because he knows "it will all work out" wouldn't he also be doing wrong by being selfish?

No because it's himself you're talking about and not another person. He is the young boy in the volcano and the young man in the present. There is no ethical battle on that front.

But Clark wanting to change his son's past is ethically immoral, and effectively killing his son in the present.

[Superlad93]

Something kind of cool:

https://twitter.com/BRIANMBENDIS/sta...56223085961216

Bendis: "For those who have been asking, yes this page was scripted this way. It says his face is covered by text to represent how Ultraman was NOT breaking his spirit #Superman9 #Superman I will post @BrandonPeterson full art. It’s so good"

I really dig that Bendis represented Jon's enduring spirit like that. The idea that Ultraman would talk and talk, looked like his father, and had the power to kill him, Jon's spirit was never broken. I love the idea that Jon doesn't look back on that moment as Ultraman laying out his dark philosophy created to twist and warp him, but rather that Ultraman was kind of just awkward and super annoying. Reducing the bully to the small person they are.

[Artemisfanboy]

I think the old Marvel rules for time travel used to explain all the time displaced X-Men were that they weren't actually changing anything just creating a new timeline going forward. So under those rules, yeah he could save himself, but he and his parents would still go through everything, but he and the younger Jon would be living in a new branch of time.

He's making the choice for himself that basically, yes this is going to be hard and going to hurt, but I came out the other side and helped a lot of people along the way.

If he's going to essentially kill 17 year old Jon by stopping 11 year old Jon from going in the first place, then yeah, I think he'd have to be undoing all the good he's done on his journey. It all gets a little paradoxy sure. I think it's being set up this way on purpose. He explicitly mentions all the people he's saved with Jor El, which despite the failures he acknowledged Jor El was doing good. All these people he's helped on Earth 3 and presumably more good he's been able to do on his way back.

The Marvel rules frankly make the most sense, especially if you're doing stories set in a universe where time-travelling to accomplish a specific goal is a viable story mechanic. Otherwise you have to bring up the self negating paradox question. If Jon saving his past self negates every action he's ever taken through out time and space(remember he's spent his previous six-seven years of life displaced in the past, he hasn't traveled back from the future, there is no future timeline to be overwritten), how could he save himself? Why does the only the last action he took remain? To illustrate the point another way.

You build a time machine to go back in time to prevent something. You go back into time and prevent it. You prevented it Becuase you prevented it, you never build the time machine in the new timeline, thus never go back to prevent it. What happens?

And following the "marvel rules" would allow everything that happens during bendis's run to still count towards character development and history, so it's not like we're throwing away everything that happens after Superman #7 in the timeline, we just get the younger Jon back alongside his older self.

You also have to ask the question does the older jon have a right to choose to sacrifice his younger self. How would the younger Jon feel to know his father and future self could of chose to save him, but didn't. In a way they would be choosing to abandon him.

Obviously we're asking deep uncomfortable morality questions complicated by theoretical temporal physics. Which is why it's a good thing step back and realize we're talking about fictional characters and situations and not real people.

We also might need to ask the the question if as a reader, reading stories about fictional characters your actually in favor of the older Jon himself as a character, or if your actually in favor of getting rid of the kid Jon, and this is their opportunity to write him out. As a reader, I admit I'm predisposed towards bringing the kid Jon back, but at the same time I also don't really care if the older Jon ends up staying around alongside kid Jon. If you just want Lois and Clark not to have a child to look after you probably against both young Jon and adult Jon coexisting even though you'd get to keep the older Jon.

[Artemisfanboy]

No because it's himself you're talking about and not another person. He is the young boy in the volcano and the young man in the present. There is no ethical battle on that front.

But Clark wanting to change his son's past is ethically immoral, and effectively killing his son in the present.

I'm not talking about Clark here. I'm talking about Jon choosing to let himself fall into the black hole.

Specifically in reference to the theory that Jon and Jor-el time traveled from further in the future, and still have counterparts native to the present.

[Vordan]

It’s not just Bendis. Snyder and King and their friends are all playing fast and loose with continuity now. How many characters and events have showed up in HiC that shouldn’t exist or contradict New 52 stories.

Oh make no mistake, I’m not singling Bendis out. DC continuity is screwed, has always been screwed and will always be screwed. That people still expect these characters to not have contradictions and bits of their history that don’t make sense baffles me. This is the price for a universe full of serial characters whose stories will never end.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Oh make no mistake, I’m not singling Bendis out. DC continuity is screwed, has always been screwed and will always be screwed. That people still expect these characters to not have contradictions and bits of their history that don’t make sense baffles me. This is the price for a universe full of serial characters whose stories will never end.

Pretty much, yeah. The expectation that an 80+ continuity with at least five different resets created by dozens of different creators and editors with wildly different ideas is ever going to be consistent is kind of a fool's errand. Granted, DC's current status quo of "history is broken so everything happened, unless it didn't" may be frustrating to some, but there has never been a moment in DC's history where it's all fit together nicely.

[Kuwagaton]

Coming away with different reads continues to be fascinating, because I thought the total opposite. I thought that even while Bendis was going so big and out there, he would go out of his way to establish a firm link to a classic part of Superman's lore from the comics or the movies, or just Superman himself. He has Jon go all Superman: The Movie by having him train with Jor-El and learn about the galaxy. He has multiple characters call Jon "Young Superman" or "Son of Superman." He even has Ultraman comment on how they are parallels between Jon crash landing in a place where he could grow to his potential similar to his father. Ultraman keeping Jon alive (even feeding him) and opening up to him seemed to hint at the inherent father/son bond Jon shares with his dad (also directly brought up by Ultraman) Then as Dispenser of Truth pointed out, Jon's final moment of triumph and leap into manhood is encapsulated with an Action Comics issue #1 homage. And to top it all off Jon is proud of himself because he felt he got out of there using his brains and brawn the way his mom and dad would have. He attributes the successes to himself, yes, but also to them and the life skills they imparted onto him.

From what I was reading, Jon's journey was "Superman Jr." as f#%k.

Like literally every other writer Bendis has what he enjoyed in his formative years leak through here and there (like the X-Men stuff he isn't even hiding), but he never turns it into those books. Jon's feeling of alienation don't find their root in just his odd genetics (like an X-Men), but rather specifically if he can ever hope to be good enough to live up to what his dad means to people. That is, for the first time in Jon's lifespan, having the character voice his thoughts and feeling on the idea in any meaningful way.

And as Jon continues to tell his story I find more in common with Greek myths, epic poems, and even young adult novels than I do 90s comics. As a really big fan of Jon Kent since he put on the cape, I kind of appreciate him building a lore that, while informed by his father's myth and continuity, is all his own. That's why maybe more than ever I'm down for a solo book chronicling these adventures in greater detail.

If you mean "Superman Jr." in the sense that he's just a smaller version of Clark, then yeah, I think that was actively done away with to shape a more specific character. But this is totally "Superman Jr." in the sense of Jon still 100% saying "I'm the actual Son of Superman, and I'm gonna live up to all that means."

That's great defining of why this doesn't die on concept. Cool way to analyze what ties back and what paves a new way in the lore. As Bendis has mentioned, he enjoys squeezes lemons because you have to if you want lemonade. But Jon is an existing core character. He's already had an origin and unlike Jor El, he wasn't just sitting on a shelf. This idea puts him out of his own story though returning him there would be cheap. Worse, the build up to it is Superman being extremely reluctant, then getting convinced, then being really sad about it, only to have Jon and Lois come back separately disfunctional and as confirmation that his gut feeling was right: everyone was lost as some monsters kidnapped his son and stole his childhood. Which is why I don't think you can hit the reset button, having taken it there. But as a year long vaguely resolved plot goes, I think the light it puts on the story is pretty crummy.

[Artemisfanboy]

That's great defining of why this doesn't die on concept. Cool way to analyze what ties back and what paves a new way in the lore. As Bendis has mentioned, he enjoys squeezes lemons because you have to if you want lemonade. But Jon is an existing core character. He's already had an origin and unlike Jor El, he wasn't just sitting on a shelf. This idea puts him out of his own story though returning him there would be cheap. Worse, the build up to it is Superman being extremely reluctant, then getting convinced, then being really sad about it, only to have Jon and Lois come back separately disfunctional and as confirmation that his gut feeling was right: everyone was lost as some monsters kidnapped his son and stole his childhood. Which is why I don't think you can hit the reset button, having taken it there. But as a year long vaguely resolved plot goes, I think the light it puts on the story is pretty crummy.

I disagree on it not being possible to be reset. There is no reason the younger Jon can not be rescued via a time travel story and that said story can not be constructed in such a way to leave the characters guiltless. I can't help but to feel some of the people yelling here that it would effectively amount to killing Jon, actually are just people who wanted to get Jon as a kid written out. I'ts been pointed out you can very easily even keep the older counterpart around alongside a restored young Jon. Yes the characters may have some scars and dirt on them, but I find this situation broken and un-enjoyable. In respect to some of the aforementioned people, I understand this comes down to reader preferences. I simply don't like whats happened here and want the young Jon back in the end. I'm not able to settle for less or to accept this as the permanent status quo. And have every full intention of dropping the books until somebody, be it Bendis or the next writer fixes this and brings rescues the younger Jon. How to get that is almost clinical for me. As a reader I need the young Jon back.

[Superlad93]

But Jon is an existing core character. He's already had an origin and unlike Jor El, he wasn't just sitting on a shelf. This idea puts him out of his own story though returning him there would be cheap.

But how does that make any sense? Jon's story is whatever the next issue says it is. There was no predetermined story beat that Bendis took Jon from. He was the new writer charged with continuing all of these characters' stories, and he did. And this isn't at all framed as Jon's origin but rather his coming of age. I'm not specifically calling you out, but this story moving it away from any predestination that fans had in mind isn't something it or any other writer is required to keep in mind. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by "his own story." Do you mean out of the Superman book for 5 issues? If that's the case, it's not actually his book. It's a book he's been known to be a part of, and even in Tomasi's run he's had whole arcs where Jon wasn't seen too.

I'm not talking about Clark here. I'm talking about Jon choosing to let himself fall into the black hole.

Specifically in reference to the theory that Jon and Jor-el time traveled from further in the future, and still have counterparts native to the present.

Sorry about that. I didn't clock that's what you guys were talking about. My bad for butting in.

But if my two cents are worth anything, I don't think it has anything to do with time travel. In an interview Bendis says that Clark assumes it's time travel, but it isn't. The intent seems to be that this isn't something that Clark or anyone in the family can fix, but rather something they have to grow past in a healthy way as a family.

[Sacred Knight]

Nothing will probably be retconned with Jor-El. At least, I'm not confident anything from Doomsday Clock will really play a role with Jor-El anytime soon, at least in regard to tying up any Oz Effect loose ends. Unless he's actually said so and I've missed it.

[Flash Gordon]

Thought this issue was great, actually! Bendis wrote a great Ultraman.

Jon having all these weird timey wimey adventures out in space, works really well tbh.

[Yoda]

Nothing will probably be retconned with Jor-El. At least, I'm not confident anything from Doomsday Clock will really play a role with Jor-El anytime soon, at least in regard to tying up any Oz Effect loose ends. Unless he's actually said so and I've missed it.

Bendis was asked on twitter whether Dr. Manhattan's role in Jor El's continued existence had been forgotten and he "Not by me" in response, so that indicates he's aware of and likely going to at least address it in some fashion. Given Jor El's statements about how he's a cosmic accident more or less, it could come up at some point when they catch back up with Jor El.

And there's the old Word Balloon interview where he said certain characters or events would click for readers once Doomsday Clock wraps up and he's writing around not spoiling Johns' reveal. When asked directly about Jor El, he changed the subject. I suppose that could be a reference to the Legion, but he's talked about the Legion pretty openly.

[Artemisfanboy]

But if my two cents are worth anything, I don't think it has anything to do with time travel. In an interview Bendis says that Clark assumes it's time travel, but it isn't. The intent seems to be that this isn't something that Clark or anyone in the family can fix, but rather something they have to grow past in a healthy way as a family.

The next logical alternative would be that there's a time flow dilation between the main earth and earth 3, if there's no time travel involved at all. Followed by the more nonsensical being in a volcano artificially ages you seven years. In which case we got to deal with the the whole Earth 3 not being wrecked by Anti-Monitor and the Crime Syndicate being alive plot holes, which are dodged if they've went back to before Earth 3 was destroyed. And regardless of whether Bendis intends to fix it or not I'm still want to be by a future writer, hopefully the next one. Until then, I guess I'll be left waiting.

[Superlad93]

The next logical alternative would be that there's a time flow dilation between the main earth and earth 3, if there's no time travel involved at all. Followed by the more nonsensical being in a volcano artificially ages you seven years. In which case we got to deal with the the whole Earth 3 not being wrecked by Anti-Monitor and the Crime Syndicate being alive plot holes, which are dodged if they've went back to before Earth 3 was destroyed. And regardless of whether Bendis intends to fix it or not I'm still want to be by a future writer, hopefully the next one. Until then, I guess I'll be left waiting.

Not really plot holes when DC underwent two large scale universe/multiverse reshaping events that directly added and affected the continuity, added years (10) to the DCU, and brought back characters (Superman Reborn and Metal). This all being hinted at by the fact that Ultraman says that he and Superman have done battle multiple times, but that's not the case if we're just going by New 52 continuity.

But also, it's the DCU. It's possible that in some sections of space Jon and Jor-El went time moved faster relative to Earth time. Not how relativity works? Yeah. But magic wishing rings, dark gods, and alien supermen.

I honestly think you're on the money, though. I think relative to the Earth/universe you're in, time flows differently. Thus Jon only spent 2 to 3 weeks with his grandfather (his sense of time disoriented by the constant space travel), but once he hit the warm hole it had a reverse relativistic effect on him and wherever he went, thus the 6 years on Earth-3 relative to the remaining week or so on Earth-0.

Great example that I wouldn't at all be surprised if Bendis was inspired by: Thor: Ragnarok. In that movie Loki and Thor landed on Sakaar 30 seconds apart with Loki landing first, but by the time Thor lands, Loki had been there weeks. It even includes a wormhole.