Here we talk Classic Superman. DCnU need not apply. (Sorry)

[Mat001]

[Mat001]

[MFitzH2O]

At first I was against bring the Kent's back to life when Byrne rebooted the series but as time went on and I saw just how great the dynamics was with them being alive I came to love it most of all about the reboot of 86. Their missed presents in the new books is devastating.

Totally agree. They added a great dimension to the character. It was, by far, the best thing about that reboot.

[Mat001]

[Mat001]

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Totally agree. They added a great dimension to the character. It was, by far, the best thing about that reboot.

I liked the Kents in the Byrne reboot (though not the way John Byrne drew them), but it still bothered me. Thing is when there was a Superboy (Superman as a boy), there were plenty of stories to be told about their relationship with Clark--because those stories could be told in the ongoing adventures of Superboy. Once Superboy is removed, Byrne's only way to explore that relationship (other than flashbacks) was to keep them alive.

This is a curious thing--not just with Superman but with many other DC characters. You have one continuity--Superboy--which develops several concepts (Smallville, fleshing out Ma and Pa Kent, Lana Lang, Krypto, Mon-El, the Legion of Super-Heroes, and so on) that didn't exist in the grown up Superman story originally. You then take out the central element from all that--Superboy--but everything else remains.

Heck the whole Smallville TV series was made possible by all those classic Superboy stories--but the one thing that is Superboy is removed.

DC's comic book continuity is weird. Characters come into being spawn hundreds of concepts and then those same characters are extracted from continuity, but the concepts they spawned remain. I think if I was a kid discovering comics now, it would leave me shaking my head. Because anyone who looks into the history of a character (whether it's Sinestro, Supergirl, or Hawkman) will soon encounter all these walls of continuity corruption.

[Lexrules]

I liked the Kents in the Byrne reboot (though not the way John Byrne drew them), but it still bothered me. Thing is when there was a Superboy (Superman as a boy), there were plenty of stories to be told about their relationship with Clark--because those stories could be told in the ongoing adventures of Superboy. Once Superboy is removed, Byrne's only way to explore that relationship (other than flashbacks) was to keep them alive.

This is a curious thing--not just with Superman but with many other DC characters. You have one continuity--Superboy--which develops several concepts (Smallville, fleshing out Ma and Pa Kent, Lana Lang, Krypto, Mon-El, the Legion of Super-Heroes, and so on) that didn't exist in the grown up Superman story originally. You then take out the central element from all that--Superboy--but everything else remains.

Heck the whole Smallville TV series was made possible by all those classic Superboy stories--but the one thing that is Superboy is removed.

DC's comic book continuity is weird. Characters come into being spawn hundreds of concepts and then those same characters are extracted from continuity, but the concepts they spawned remain. I think if I was a kid discovering comics now, it would leave me shaking my head. Because anyone who looks into the history of a character (whether it's Sinestro, Supergirl, or Hawkman) will soon encounter all these walls of continuity corruption.

Excellent post buddy and very true. It was much easier growing up as a child in the late 70's early 80's. They could say like now. Here is a reboot just follow this but if you become a fan of that character and look into it's history it must become very confusing .

[Lake Nowhere]

There's not nearly enough Tom Grummett in this thread. One of my favorite covers ever.

[It's Superman]

There's not nearly enough Tom Grummett in this thread. One of my favorite covers ever.

Agreed, I luve this cover.

[It's Superman]

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Another funny thing is that Lex Luthor got his name thanks to Superboy. Up until Adventure Comics 271 (April 1960), Luthor was just known as Luthor. But in "How Luthor Met Superboy," by Jerry Siegel and Al Plastino, it was shown for the first time how young Lex Luthor met young Clark Kent and Superboy (which, of course, served as a major plot point in the Smallville TV show).

[Kilgore Trout]

The death of the Kent's completed the transformation of Superboy to Superman. It was a watershed moment and moved the character forward.

The Kent's alive serves no purpose... Their purpose was to raise Superboy and instill their value system, quietly in a place of anonymity. Keeping them alive seemed to retard his growth - he was seen as needing them to make his big decisions - and having Superman do it 8 times a year for 20 years led to the perception that Superman was basically ineffectual and unable to lead, needing to consult with everyone he knew before making any decisions as if he had no core values...

It also contributed to the Big Blue Boy Scout moniker thats still a stink on that version of Superman.

[manofsteel1979]

The death of the Kent's completed the transformation of Superboy to Superman. It was a watershed moment and moved the character forward.

The Kent's alive serves no purpose... Their purpose was to raise Superboy and instill their value system, quietly in a place of anonymity. Keeping them alive seemed to retard his growth - he was seen as needing them to make his big decisions - and having Superman do it 8 times a year for 20 years led to the perception that Superman was basically ineffectual and unable to lead, needing to consult with everyone he knew before making any decisions as if he had no core values...

It also contributed to the Big Blue Boy Scout moniker thats still a stink on that version of Superman.

I see the point you make, and I agree to a certain degree, but that was the fault of the writers over the years overusing the Kents in that fashion, not the concept of them being alive into Clark/Superman's adulthood. However, with a few exceptions, I think it was the other media versions, particularly the Lois & Clark TV show, that pulled this trick. That version of Superman seemed like he couldn't do anything without his parents giving him a pep talk, but again that was likely the writers wanting to use the characters and write for those actors (who were a great version of the Kents btw), and it was an easy way to do that. The comics themselves really didn't play the "running home to Smallville to Mom and Dad to find out what to do next" much beyond a few scenes here and there over the span of hundreds of issues over 25 years, and it is those examples that those that decry Superman have seized on to bolster their claims that Superman is a boring, ineffectual Boyscout.

It is true, as others have pointed out, that the primairy purpose for the Kents is to give Clark a moral base from which Superman springs forth from. In the older version with Superboy, then you get to have your cake and eat it too. You can have them around in Clark's SUPERBOY past and write them as characters, while having them gone when Clark is SUPERMAN, that way, they exist while not existing, if that makes any sense. When Byrne got rid of SUPERBOY, that presented a problem. So, Byrne just kept them alive into Superman's adulthood so they could be present and be written about. Now that SUPERBOY is once again a part of the equation , (to some extent, even if he just wears a t-shirt and jeans at that time, if ACTION #6 is to be believed) then the Kents are not really required to be around, and can be used as before 1986. However, I still miss them being present , and I do think, when used properly, they add a lot to the stories.

[An Ear In The Fireplace]

Yet the Smallville TV show proved you can do a whole series about Clark's becoming Superman. This is the failure of imagination among the Superman rebooters in 1986. Even if you don't have "Superboy" that doesn't mean you can't still do a series about young Clark, as Legends of the Dark Knight told stories about Batman's early days. Of course, just as John Byrne was getting Superman off the ground, there was the Superboy TV show and the resulting comic book spin-off (that had to hurt).

[manofsteel1979]

Yet the Smallville TV show proved you can do a whole series about Clark's becoming Superman. This is the failure of imagination among the Superman rebooters in 1986. Even if you don't have "Superboy" that doesn't mean you can't still do a series about young Clark, as Legends of the Dark Knight told stories about Batman's early days. Of course, just as John Byrne was getting Superman off the ground, there was the Superboy TV show and the resulting comic book spin-off (that had to hurt).

The funny thing is, the original conception for MAN OF STEEL and the stories that followed was to be a from the ground up reboot where we would be following Superman from the beginning and watch him learn the ropes. That was when the original plan following CRISIS that the entire DCU would be rebooted from square one with all new #1 issues. All the heroes were to be new to the world and green. However, that plan changed, and Byrne was forced to make MAN OF STEEL a "greatest hits" compilation that would establish the parameters of the new history and that SUPERMAN,ACTION and ADVENTURES would feature an already established Superman well into his career so that he would still be a contemporary of Batman, Green Lantern and the rest (even if most of his rogues didn't start appearing until his 8th year, meaning that he spent his first years fighting just bank robbers and Luthor, I guess). Ultimately, Wonder Woman was the only character to be "introduced" as a "new" character following the end of COIE, which in itself presented a whole host of problems with the rest of the DCU's continuity.