Bring back Conner Kent!

[JasonKent]

Ok , I'mjust going to blunt, bring back Conner Kent! as Superboy. Not as Supernova or any other name. He earned that name over the years and the fact that he chose to keep after finding out about his link to Lex makes it even more fantastic. Don't get me wrong I love Superman but Conner just had something that hooked me. I want him to return to smallville. Build a life there through school etc. there have been plenty of comics and shows to let us know how freaky highschool can be. Maybe a love interest to rival Cassie. Some outerspace stuff thrown in for good measure and not forgetting the lex angle. Probably the best idea any writer has had in throwing a spanner in the Supe/Lex relationship.

Oh and a round two with superpsycho prime would be good also!

[suprmn1982]

read teen titans i think they are

[Ontir]

Someone, whether here or on the DC Boards posted an idea that Supergirl's time in the 31st century, where Brainiac 5 is trying to bring Dream Girl back from the dead, will have some impact on Connor, when she returns to our time. I don't know if it's true, but it's an interesting hypothesis!

[dupersuper]

Titans just has him being cloned...that clone'd be Connor as much as Conner is Clark. I realize dc cloning has transfered Golden Guardians' consiousness twice, and Luthors' brain once...but S-boys brain seemed pretty pulped...and has been dead a year.

[10xPete]

I like Conner as Superboy or Superboy as Conner, which ever is the way it is supposed to be. I don't know why they have to change the good stuff.

[DonC]

Althought the case is still in appeal, DC recently lost the rights to the character name Superboy. Speculation has it that Conner is going to remain dead until that case is resolved.

[littleredhat]

So Superboy was killed by lawyers?

I should have known.:mad:

[Ontir]

If that's the case, then we should thank God that we won't have to see much of "Superboy Prime" for a good long while!

[jam]

Althought the case is still in appeal, DC recently lost the rights to the character name Superboy. Speculation has it that Conner is going to remain dead until that case is resolved.

Does anyone know who *holds* the rights currently?

[Mon-el]

Does anyone know who *holds* the rights currently?

Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, widow and daughter of the late Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel, but like DonC said the case is in the appeals process.

[ShaggyB]

Ok , I'mjust going to blunt, bring back Conner Kent! as Superboy. Not as Supernova or any other name. He earned that name over the years and the fact that he chose to keep after finding out about his link to Lex makes it even more fantastic. Don't get me wrong I love Superman but Conner just had something that hooked me. I want him to return to smallville. Build a life there through school etc. there have been plenty of comics and shows to let us know how freaky highschool can be. Maybe a love interest to rival Cassie. Some outerspace stuff thrown in for good measure and not forgetting the lex angle. Probably the best idea any writer has had in throwing a spanner in the Supe/Lex relationship.

Oh and a round two with superpsycho prime would be good also!

OK not to be blunt, but NO. leave him dead. He did not earn the name superboy. when you spend your whole collected works having your origin retconned till it isnt anywhere near what it use to be(lex DNA wasnt connar's in the 90s) and you spend about what was it 8 months of realtime comics avoiding being superboy, you dont represent it in anyway. you havent earned it. his death was heroic and made even me, like him a bit. Sams issue of supes bats was good too but i say leave it at that.

eitherway i dont think dc is getting the rights to superboy back anytime soon so expect a name change for prime if we see him again and forget connar as superboy, if you want connar back except the change and hope it will strengthen his character.

[ForEverAncien]

I concur...let the lad have his rest. The fight as it was...was an ender. Which I would like to remember that way. For a long time.OK not to be blunt, but NO. leave him dead. He did not earn the name superboy. when you spend your whole collected works having your origin retconned till it isnt anywhere near what it use to be(lex DNA wasnt connar's in the 90s) and you spend about what was it 8 months of realtime comics avoiding being superboy, you dont represent it in anyway. you havent earned it. his death was heroic and made even me, like him a bit. Sams issue of supes bats was good too but i say leave it at that.

eitherway i dont think dc is getting the rights to superboy back anytime soon so expect a name change for prime if we see him again and forget connar as superboy, if you want connar back except the change and hope it will strengthen his character.

[NotSuper]

Take this for what it's worth but the new Superman editor said that Conner wasn't coming back.

[Agentum]

Is that the brat Superboy from the 90s?, a highly annoying character imho.

[Indefatigable]

He JUST died, if he comes back, it'll take a while.

[Agentum]

They always comes back.

[NotSuper]

They always comes back.
I wonder how many DC character have died and never come back. There should be some kind of list for that.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Conner will be back sometime. He'll return down the road. DC won't let a great death in a huge story-arc be overshadowed by a piss poor return. ( lookin at Magneto's Excalibur/Bobby Ewing return...)

[jam]

I just want to clarify something. It's my understanding of the legal battle between the Siegels and DC for "Superboy".

Does this mean we won't be seeing any "Superboy" archive editions anytime soon?

Does this mean DC can't use the name "Superboy" or the whole character?

Do the Siegels alegedly own the "Superboy" character, and if so, is that "the adventures of Superman as a boy" Superboy only?

Is this problem why John Byrne took "Superboy" out of continuity? Is that why "Superboy" returned as one of the four "supermen"?

Who owns the character of "Conner Kent"? Could DC publish a comic of that name, with that character?

How did DC get away with using "Superboy Prime" in the Infinite Crisis?

Crumbs, what a lot of questions!

[PretenderNX01]

There's a lot of confusion and mis-information about the "rights to Superboy".

Whats at stake is whether the Siegles/Shusters have a claim in the ownership of the concept of a younger Superman/Clark Kent in addition to DC comics ownership of the character/concept called "Superboy".

This would mean that DC would owe them a portion (or all, to be decided by judges) of the profits from any character named "Superboy" as well as instances of a young Clark Kent possibly (such as the TV series Smallville) that were made after 1994.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=7054
http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/3483/2/
http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=9983
Also the new Legion cartoon stars Superboy (Kal-El/Clark Kent)

Conner Kent's death was not in any way related to this leagal battle. A simple code name change would have prevented any profit sharing since Conner is a clone/offspring of Superman and not "Superman as a boy".

Of course, it is interesting to note that DC’s current Superboy has nothing at all to do with Siegel’s original ideas, that is, Conner Kent, a member of the Teen Titans, is not “Superman as a boy.” Rather than rocketing to space, the present-day Superboy was created in a test tube, by blending the DNA of Superman and Lex Luthor. It’s interesting, but of relatively little importance to this matter, as the Conner Kent character was created in 1993 as part of the “Death of Superman” event storyline, nine years prior to the filing of the Notices of Termination by the Siegels, and four years prior to the filing of the Termination on Superman. Although, it is fodder for conspiracy theorists – did DC see this coming down the road as early as 1992-93, and opted to kill the character and create new versions rather than continue to use a character it might (as early as 1999) only own half the copyright to? Probably not – though Superboy is a new creation, the Superman that came out of the other side of the Death of Superman was the same one that went in the front.
http://www.newsarama.com/DC/Superman/SuperboyCompl.htm

Conner's death was the editors decison to have something "shocking" and "dramatic". Its their idea that every crossover must have one. A dumb choice in my opinion, especially compared to letting that crybaby killer Superboy Prime live, but thats DC's decision- and why I'm reading more Marvel now. ;)

[nuclearman]

No one remains dead these days.. what is the matter with leaving him dead?

I liked the character and he died a heroic death... I am sure the creators at DC could come up with a character just as popular... couldn't they?

I like the idea of heroes in the DC Universe dying and staying dead... it adds a sense of realism to the universe.... and tension with regards to the other characters remaining.

[Kaos]

but conner was cooool. he was a g man, why'd they do him like that. He was sposed to become raw and shit, not die? why die? whyyyy?

[doomworm]

I'm going to add to what Pretender said about Smallville. It has been highly speculated (and if I remember, outrightly stated) that the title of the show and the kinda-sorta lack of identifying costumes allows that property to lay outside of legal ties.

Agentum is right that the '90's Superboy was kind of annoying. I liked him a ton when he debuted, especially since he was about my age then (Jr. High). They really did develop him into a pretty interesting guy in the last five years or so, though.

Sadly, though, dead does mean dead in comics, as we all know!

[Dussan]

How did he die?

I lost interest in all things Superman about 10 years ago. But I caught glimpes of him.

[ChaosBurnFlame]

Some corrections:

COnner Kent wasn't created in 1993.


A superboy was created in 1993.

The name 'Conner' and etc was created solely by Geoff Johns, with a character whose past and backstory and personality(and powers) are so far removed from the Superboy created back in 'Return of Superman' that to call them the same character is insulting to the former.

And personally, thank god Conner is dead. I couldn't take any more of his emo whininess. Bring back Kon-el, reveal that he was sleeping in a chamber in Cadmus and massive group hypnosis was used on everyone to think the Emo was him.

[Alex A Sanchez]

And personally, thank god Conner is dead. I couldn't take any more of his emo whininess. Bring back Kon-el, reveal that he was sleeping in a chamber in Cadmus and massive group hypnosis was used on everyone to think the Emo was him.

Wait- I always thought Conner Kent and Kon-el were the same guy? Who was the guy called Superboy in Young Justice? I like that guy. If he's the one dead then that sucks.

[ChaosBurnFlame]

Wait- I always thought Conner Kent and Kon-el were the same guy? Who was the guy called Superboy in Young Justice? I like that guy. If he's the one dead then that sucks.

The two characters are so different in personality, backhistory, and actual abilities that they are only the same in the editorial staff's eyes only.

[Matt Wayne P.I]

Just leave the bastard dead as same as krypto!!!man i hate that dog!!!

[Dr. Banner]

Why doesn't Superman just fly around the world and turn back time to save Superboy. I mean, that's what he does isn't it?

[JulianPerez]

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of Connor Kent in the whole world, but that was one hell of a way to go. If I had a favorite character, I'd want him or her to go down the way Connor did.

The thing about the death of Supergirl in CRISIS is, Supergirl could have died or not died and the story of CRISIS would have remained the same. Compare that to Connor Kent's death: his death was the turning point of the entire miniseries. It was the central point of the overall story arc of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Earth-2 Superman.

The kid died a hero, and he died in a way that completely validated his heroism and worth. Now, contrast Connor Kent's treatment with the deaths of the New Warriors in another recent crossover. The New Warriors deserved a little better than dying because of their own carelessness and thoughtlessness, two characteristics the seasoned Warriors ought not to have had. It is unprofessional to write characters you don't like as being fools.

The two characters are so different in personality, backhistory, and actual abilities that they are only the same in the editorial staff's eyes only.

If your rebellious sister grows up, takes out her nose ring, and decides to get married and have children, does that make her no longer your sister?

Then why does Conner Kent growing up and reaching maturity no longer make him Conner Kent?

I strongly suspect that the people that complain about Conner Kent's treatment in TEEN TITANS would complain no matter HOW Conner Kent grows up. Because he's going to have to, sooner or later - youth and acne are the only problems that go away with time. There's a desire to preserve heroes in stasis and react negatively to having characters progress forward (e.g. wanting to keep Kyle the "only" GL no matter what) that ought to be combatted, because take it from a longtime Supergirl, Hawkeye and Vision fan: there's nothing better than watching a character grow up, gradually, progress, and achieve maturity.

And angst and "emo" posturing are only aggrivating when they're insincere. Considering the revalations that rock Conner Kent's life (including the tragic problem of possible male pattern baldness!) his emotions and inner life are perfectly legitimate.

Geoff Johns did the right thing. He played Damage Control with an unlovable pain in the ass whose existence needed justifying. He HAD to move the conceptual furniture around: the character was a boring mess. And like the original poster said, Superboy proved himself worthy of being attached to the Superman cosmology by triumphing over his doubts and finally, with his ultimate sacrifice, establishing himself forever as a being of valor that valued bravery over his own life.

And ultimately, that's why Conner Kent ought to stay dead. His arc is finished. He went from a cocky punk to somebody that was uncertain of his worth, to someone that, with his death, proved his worth with his hero's finale.

[Alex A Sanchez]

I strongly suspect that the people... would complain no matter HOW Conner Kent grows up. Because he's going to have to, sooner or later

According to Peter David in Young Justice he doesn't have to grow up. More correctly: he can't. He's a clone and has to stay a kid forever.

[Sean Whitmore]

According to Peter David in Young Justice he doesn't have to grow up. More correctly: he can't. He's a clone and has to stay a kid forever.


Two things:

-Peter David actually inherited that plot point from Superboy's own book. I wanna say it was Ron Marz who wrote the story where he realized he wouldnt age, thought it might have been Kesel before he left the first time.

-And it's not the case anymore, anyway. After the "Sins of Youth" storyline in Young Justice, the magical transformation to adulthood that Superboy went through jump-started his system, allowing his body to age once again.

So he coulda been Superman one day. *sniff* :(
(well, not in real life, but you get the idea).


SEAN

[ChaosBurnFlame]

First, some points:

Personality changes aside, 'Conner Kent's' entire origin, back history, and powerset was changed as well in 'Teen Titans #1'.

To you he may have been boring, but to me, he was my favorite character(the Karl Kesel/Peter David version at least).

There is no debate in the fact that he was changed, because he was, and Geoff Johns knew he could get away with it, because he knew he had a strong following of fans.

Kevin O'Connell at a convention actually called him out about changing Impulse to the point where he didn't resemble his former self.

Geoff Johns' exact response? "I didn't like the character, so I changed him until I liked him".

Now please do read that carefully. Note how he said HE, personally, didn't like the character, and how HE changed the character until HE, personally, liked the character. That's not what a writer is supposed to do, especially one that writes comics and takes over after the work of previous writers.

The State of DC comics in over hte past two years is where anyone's work prior to 'Desecration Day' basically got screwed in regards if it would be kept in continuity or not. Peter David joked that he's glad DC is acting like Linda never existed, because then at least she wouldn't be raped and thrown in a ditch.

Basically, what I'm saying is what Geoff Johns did wasn't what a professional writer should do. he did it for his own self satisfaction, and the end result was a character that didn't resemble a character that was the original reason I read DC comics. And it insults me when people say that what Geoff did was a good thing, for all the right reasons, etc.

Say you like it, but don't act like it's the greatest writing ever. Geoff basically did the change, then sat on it for 2 years with a whole bunch of angsty emo whining that wore everyone who liked the old character.