Yeah and he’s gone now. Comics these days move way too fast. It’s one of the reasons I dropped out of them.
Superman
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
He's already been around six years--and like Damien he is pretty popular. Kal's still Superman as well, but Jon stars in the new official Superman title which is part of an extended storyline.
But he did return during the Rebirth era, together with his parents, and founded the new Kryptonian colony that has not only been shown to still exist as New Krypton in the 31st century in Bendis' LoSH title, but also was a founding member of the United Planets.
He may not make regular appearances, but Christopher, going by his birthname Lor-Zod now, is still part of the DCU.
I am not oblivious to the importance of having diverse characters for inclusivity but it feels sometimes like this is getting like killing off a characters as a creative dead end and easy headline. What if it was the same character but he was black? What if it was the same character but now they're a woman? What if it was the same character but he was gay/bisexual? After a while it just gets numbing and feel more like a cheap decision than a meaningful one. Maybe it's just the crap media bite headlines we get, "Hellraiser is back and Pinhead is a woman!", "The first minor Marvel character is gay!", "Superman is bisexual!".
Especially in this case, it was the writer Tom Taylor who made the choice, and DC editorial went along with it. And the Jon Kent Superman was already happening, Taylor was hired as the writer, and it was his decision to make him bisexual. Similarly, Tim Drake outing himself as bisexual a few months ago also was a decision by the writer, Meghan Fitzmartin, that was actually sprung on DC editorial. (see this article
Similarly, Clive Barker is involved in the Hellraiser reboot, and the original novella that introduced the Cenobites described their leader (that turned into Pinhead for the movie) as such:
Its voice, unlike that of its companion, was light and breathy-the voice of an excited girl. Every inch of its head had been tattooed with an intricate grid, and at every intersection of horizontal and vertical axes a jeweled pin driven through to the bone. Its tongue was similarly decorated.
Note, the Lead Cenobite (Barker apparently never liked the "Pinhead" monicker the make-up department came up with) is described as an "it", and the only gender-specific part of the description is a female one.
This really is mostly media making provocative headlines to stir up negative responses from people who aren't necessarily familiar with the subject matter.
I mean, this happened:
Not to mention all the people who thought this was Clark being outed as bisexual.
Nevermind that Clark Kent is still Superman. Just not the only Superman, anymore.
Uh, ... there already is a black Batman, Jace Fox. And again, Bruce Wayne still around, still Batman. Just not the only one. It's basically the Miles Morales approach.
The best approach to having your cake and eating it too, so to speak. Fans of the original can still read new stories of the original. And new fans can hopefully be created with the new character. I like this approach way more than outright replacing an potentially beloved character. Negatively is expected and honestly more understandable.
Is there another approach where a comic creator can create a character, with his or her ethnicity and become a fresh character a reader has never read before without using a widely established title or icon? Miles Morales, Sam Wilson should be treated as characters to explore than the ethnic versions of something that are iconic. Why go through the effort to developed when readers know full well the character is a wannabe??? I don't think it helps those ethnic characters long term.
The same for LGBTQ characters, should be created but not as a stunt to elevate the speculators on how much a comic book can be inflated in price on EBay or hobby stores, the canvas is large for them to exist and be compelling if the character is taken seriously and mold their direction for readers to behold. I think its lazy for a writer and artist to make a potential character inherits a brand they didn't earn.
The same for LGBTQ characters, should be created but not as a stunt to elevate the speculators on how much a comic book can be inflated in price on EBay or hobby stores, the canvas is large for them to exist and be compelling if the character is taken seriously and mold their direction for readers to behold. I think its lazy for a writer and artist to make a potential character inherits a brand they didn't earn.
Brand recognition.
You'll get more eyes on the book if you start with that, generally.
It's why we're in the era or reboots and revisits. It's an easier sell than something fresh and new. At the end of the day, it's still about money.
Though I say this as someone that's eagerly waiting for volume 2 of Naomi who has no attachment to a previous character (funny enough, a Bendis co-creation who happened to co- create Miles). But I won't pretend her series would probably sell even better if she was a member of the bat or super family.
You'll get more eyes on the book if you start with that, generally.
It's why we're in the era or reboots and revisits. It's an easier sell than something fresh and new. At the end of the day, it's still about money.
Though I say this as someone that's eagerly waiting for volume 2 of Naomi who has no attachment to a previous character (funny enough, a Bendis co-creation who happened to co- create Miles). But I won't pretend her series would probably sell even better if she was a member of the bat or super family.
I mean, Milestone has been trying establish original minority characters for three decades now, and for the most part they couldn't even get collected editions of their already existing material, let alone new content.
Miles Morales has been very successful and was the main character in his own movie which won an Academy Award, he's brought in new fans and especially young fans. Same goes with Sam Wilson as Cap, which lead to a hit series and there is a movie in the works. He means a lot to younger and new fans. Jon as Superman will do the same. This is about bringing in new fans and it's working. Years from now they will mean as much as Peter Parker, Steve Rogers, and Clark Kent because they will be the heroes that young people look up to and get inspired by.
Well, Bruce Wayne once went ahead and founded an international Batman franchise recruiting individuals all around the world and bestowing the Batman title on them. I don't follow the Bat-books currently (there's just so many of them), so I don't know for sure, but I imagine he and Jace have at least an understanding. Saw a current ad for "Fear State", a crossover in the current Bat-books, making a distinction between "Batman" (Jace Fox) and "The Batman" (Bruce Wayne).
As for black Bruce Wayne, I mean, probably? Somewhere down the line? Maybe as an Elseworld or something, though I doubt it would be a permanent change. And I don't think there are any plans currently to do that.
And while I don't read Marvel Comics, I'm pretty sure Peter and Miles have an understanding, as well. And if I remember recent headlines correctly, Peter is being replaced by Ben Reilly again, so there. Anyway, I'm not sure how Peter could got to court about this, anyway. Certainly not without revealing his secret identity, and considering the lengths he's gone to to get it back after Civil War, I don't see him doing that anytime soon.
As for black Bruce Wayne, I mean, probably? Somewhere down the line? Maybe as an Elseworld or something, though I doubt it would be a permanent change. And I don't think there are any plans currently to do that.
And while I don't read Marvel Comics, I'm pretty sure Peter and Miles have an understanding, as well. And if I remember recent headlines correctly, Peter is being replaced by Ben Reilly again, so there. Anyway, I'm not sure how Peter could got to court about this, anyway. Certainly not without revealing his secret identity, and considering the lengths he's gone to to get it back after Civil War, I don't see him doing that anytime soon.
Peter is sort of a mentor to Miles when he needs advice, but generally lets him do his own thing. Ben replacing him is because Peter is sick and unable to be Spider-Man right now. Ben Reilly is the Kenny of the Marvel Universe so Peter will be back sooner or later.
Interesting discussion. @Mr. Adventure, I think a lot of the fuss is because of crap media headlines. Comics companies have tried to look "inclusive" at various times, with sometimes laughably horrible results (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraño?wprov=sfla1).
But most of what we've been seeing for the past 20+ years has been because the people *creating* comics have become more diverse, as have the people *reading* comics. I remember the first time I met another woman who read comics - the heavens opened and angels sang!
So I'm good with this.
I had another thought: younger folks are questioning *everything* about gender & sexuality. Of the "kids" I know well, aged 14 to 20, they ask questions I didn't even *think* to ask until I talked to them! They're redefining this stuff, and won't stand for bullshit in life or fiction.
But most of what we've been seeing for the past 20+ years has been because the people *creating* comics have become more diverse, as have the people *reading* comics. I remember the first time I met another woman who read comics - the heavens opened and angels sang!
So I'm good with this.I had another thought: younger folks are questioning *everything* about gender & sexuality. Of the "kids" I know well, aged 14 to 20, they ask questions I didn't even *think* to ask until I talked to them! They're redefining this stuff, and won't stand for bullshit in life or fiction.
Last edited:
So I'm sure the way this commentary is framed will push some people's buttons (to put it mildly), but I thought there was some worthwhile perspective here:
See also: the Lauren Winn quote in my sig.
So is there anything to all this? Does Superman work best when filtered through a romantic perspective -- and does it make sense to code that perspective as specifically "female"?
This also reminds me of Gail Simone's Twitter thread on Superman from a few years back:
https://twitter.com/gailsimone/status/858821368317493248
See also: the Lauren Winn quote in my sig.
So is there anything to all this? Does Superman work best when filtered through a romantic perspective -- and does it make sense to code that perspective as specifically "female"?
I vote "yes," at least to the first part of that question.
There's a lot to be said for the most successful and beloved screen interpretation of Superman being the one who had the lengthy '70s and '80s romance with Margot Kidder's Lois Lane and who was portrayed as more gentle and peaceful than many later interpretations, and this was from the less culturally-enlightened period around 1978.
I also think it's a big part of why Superman & Lois succeeds so resoundingly: the show's emphasis on Clark as a loving husband and father. Not to mention having a wonderfully dimensional Lois Lane who is situated as very much an equal partner.
There's certainly a prominent romance angle, but as many of the Superman stories I love most were written by males such as Mark Waid, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Neal Gaiman, Roger Stern, Tom King, Kurt Busiek, Jerry Seigel, Elliot S Maggin, Karl Kessel, Carey Bates, Joe Casey, Joe Kelley....
Kids have always been like this. One of youth's affectation that they outgrow.
Yeah, the "men can't write Superman" thing is hyperbolic and simplistic, but I did think the section of her commentary I quoted was well-observed. The real point is that approaching the character with an emphasis on power and violence is a formula for failure. He's best portrayed as a romantic figure, in multiple senses of that word.
