-
Aging in the DC Universe
I know that time tends to move very slowly in comics but what do you think about DC allowing some of their characters to age while leaving others in a perpetual state of stasis?
We have characters like Jon whose been around a very short time and he went from a baby to a kid to now what? a young adult? while we have Billy, Raven and Gar who have been forced to stay teenagers for majority of their existence.
Should DC embrace allowing their characters to age, with their love for reboots it seems like it'd be simple enough to reach a point where you reset and start fresh again with everyone.
-
I would love for DC to have a consistent timeline and proper aging, but my debates on this forum tell me that I'm in a minority.
-
[QUOTE=PCN24454;5518426]I would love for DC to have a consistent timeline and proper aging, but my debates on this forum tell me that I'm in a minority.[/QUOTE]
100% agree with you.
Was only thinking about this the other day.
I think the fact that characters don't age is one of the reasons I've lost interest in the teams and characters I used to love as I myself have gotten older.
-
Well this goes into DC problem with legacy characters again
Their problem with Bruce being 40
I am happy that Diana has ascended to godhood but I cannot get the logic behind her predecessor leaving an island she is not allowed to leave to become WonderWoman rather then one of her many protege's
-
Aging is a tricky thing. Nailing down an exact age for a character is probably the worst thing you can do. When answering the age question, the best answer would probably be giving an age [I]range[/I].
To go with the Jon example, he was said to be 10, but it would've been a lot easier to just say he was a kid. Same thing for Damian. DC went out of its way to say Bruce missed Damian's [I]13th[/I] birthday instead of simply saying he missed his birthday. For how much I love the Super Sons, I had a lot of trouble wrapping my head around a 10 year old and a 13 year old hanging out. Again, it would've been easier to just say Jon and Damian are close in age, but between the two of them, Damian is the older one. When they started going to same school, Jon would have still been in elementary school and Damian would've been in middle school.
Speaking of school, I think Tim Drake's solo book did it pretty satisfactorily. Over the course of its 20 year publication, Tim went through all 4 years of high school, albeit at varying intervals, before he ultimately dropped out. DC really messed up by stating Tim's age as 16 multiple times since the n52 because when Tim said he was thinking about going to college at the start of Rebirth, I was like "Finally, someone's picking up where they left off," but nope, he's still 16 and they're sticking with it despite how contradictory that is with Damian's stated age being 10 when he first met Tim, who was 17 at the time, and now he's 14 for some reason and Tim is somehow younger. Like, way to shoot yourself in the foot, DC, when you were better off just being vague.
-
[QUOTE=garazza;5518467]Aging is a tricky thing. Nailing down an exact age for a character is probably the worst thing you can do. When answering the age question, the best answer would probably be giving an age [I]range[/I].
To go with the Jon example, he was said to be 10, but it would've been a lot easier to just say he was a kid. Same thing for Damian. DC went out of its way to say Bruce missed Damian's [I]13th[/I] birthday instead of simply saying he missed his birthday. For how much I love the Super Sons, I had a lot of trouble wrapping my head around a 10 year old and a 13 year old hanging out. Again, it would've been easier to just say Jon and Damian are close in age, but between the two of them, Damian is the older one. When they started going to same school, Jon would have still been in elementary school and Damian would've been in middle school.
Speaking of school, I think Tim Drake's solo book did it pretty satisfactorily. Over the course of its 20 year publication, Tim went through all 4 years of high school, albeit at varying intervals, before he ultimately dropped out. DC really messed up by stating Tim's age as 16 multiple times since the n52 because when Tim said he was thinking about going to college at the start of Rebirth, I was like "Finally, someone's picking up where they left off," but nope, he's still 16 and they're sticking with it despite how contradictory that is with Damian's stated age being 10 when he first met Tim, who was 17 at the time, and now he's 14 for some reason and Tim is somehow younger. Like, way to shoot yourself in the foot, DC, when you were better off just being vague.[/QUOTE]
lol no one knows what to do or where to put tim,
so now eventually Damian will outage him and time become a contradiction no one wants to deal with and vanishes
-
[QUOTE=Rac7d*;5518460]Well this goes into DC problem with legacy characters again
Their problem with Bruce being 40s[/QUOTE]
I really like how wrestling is becoming popular again because there are wrestlers in their 40s that are basically doing what Batman does and they're still great. Some are doing their best work at that age. Dustin Rhodes is in his 50s and he's one of the best wrestlers in AEW. The men at DC really have to get over their mid-life crises.
-
[QUOTE=Tugger;5518452]100% agree with you.
Was only thinking about this the other day.
I think the fact that characters don't age is one of the reasons I've lost interest in the teams and characters I used to love as I myself have gotten older.[/QUOTE]
DC is a business with IPs worth potentially billions of dollars. Having a character like Bruce Wayne age in real time and eventually retire would be incredibly short sighted.
We can’t expect our favorite heroes to age along with us as the current crop of comic book fans are just a tiny drop in the overall bucket. DC/WB is probably planning ways to generate interest from mainstream audiences and the next generation of fans.
-
So long as they don't bring back Hal Jordan's grey sideburns it's all good.
DC goes through the process of rebooting it's timeline every 10 years or so anyways, so anyone who grows too old becomes young again.
-
[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;5518381]I know that time tends to move very slowly in comics but what do you think about DC allowing some of their characters to age while leaving others in a perpetual state of stasis?
We have characters like Jon whose been around a very short time and he went from a baby to a kid to now what? a young adult? while we have Billy, Raven and Gar who have been forced to stay teenagers for majority of their existence.
Should DC embrace allowing their characters to age, with their love for reboots it seems like it'd be simple enough to reach a point where you reset and start fresh again with everyone.[/QUOTE]
I'm against it. In such a shared universe, once some people start aging fans always ask well, why isn't So-and-so and Such-and-such aging too? Specifically the fans who want to see those characters aged out and replaced by legacy characters. And frankly, DC isn't made for that. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman aren't supposed to be replaced permanently with legacy characters, only temporarily as a stunt. If you want to see characters grow old, retire, die, aand the next generation take over, then frankly maybe DC and Marvel aren't for you any longer.
-
Its always a interested topic.
Personally i have over the recent years been a bit less hard NO on it.
Because there are some good things that came from moving forward.
But in general im still in the NO camp.
Look at Jon Kent, aging up has hurt the character...at least in my opinion.
Now the teen Jon is pretty generic boring, has little character and is not very interesting.
When i look back before Bendis messed Jon up, how much heart and soul this young boy had...how enjoyable the character was.
I dont have a problem when its Elseworld stuff like Batman Beyond or so, but in general i dont like the idea.
Maybe because if you move forward it could mean that somewhere is the finish line, some day their stories could come to an end...and i just dont like this idea when it comes to Comics.
Which is strange since im fine with it in mangas, books etc...but somehow i want to read about a Bruce Wayne in his prime when im an Old man.XD
Also a big part of this is that im a huge fan of the idea that Generations of Writers take those characters and tell stories with them, not endings.
Of course in cases like Mr Freeze i want him to one day find a cure for Nora and both of them getting a happy ending, but there are so many stories you can tell with the character, so many directions and things to explore.
-
The problem with Jon Kent wasn't that he aged, it's that he aged so soon after he was created, and in a manner that made it impossible to explore his adolescence, since he literally didn't have one.
From what I understand the original idea for 5G was really good. Let characters age and die, but allow writers to go back in time for stories of characters in their prime. You can tell stories about Batman in his 40s until the end of time, while also allowing other writers to move forward in time with his gradual aging.
-
[QUOTE=PCN24454;5518426]I would love for DC to have a consistent timeline and proper aging, but my debates on this forum tell me that I'm in a minority.[/QUOTE]
You're not alone.
[QUOTE=Robotman;5518511]DC is a business with IPs worth potentially billions of dollars. Having a character like Bruce Wayne age in real time and eventually retire would be incredibly short sighted.
We can’t expect our favorite heroes to age along with us as the current crop of comic book fans are just a tiny drop in the overall bucket. DC/WB is probably planning ways to generate interest from mainstream audiences and the next generation of fans.[/QUOTE]
Uhhh, DC had Earth-Two and I don't mean the Nu52 version, I mean the Pre-Crisis versions where all the heroes got old and had kids who grew up to become heroes themselves while the 'main' heroes stayed young in their own universe.
A shame they got rid of it because they need it now more than ever.
-
[QUOTE=garazza;5518472]I really like how wrestling is becoming popular again because there are wrestlers in their 40s that are basically doing what Batman does and they're still great. Some are doing their best work at that age. Dustin Rhodes is in his 50s and he's one of the best wrestlers in AEW. The men at DC really have to get over their mid-life crises.[/QUOTE]
As someone in his fifties, while I'm in pretty good shape and stay physically active, I'm not exactly the way I was when I was in my twenties and thirties. That's without having a fight since I was in elementary school, wither. :) There is no way a Batman in his forties can be at his peak effectiveness, which is why DC is very hesitant to move him into middle age.
-
[QUOTE=Alpha;5518633]From what I understand the original idea for 5G was really good. Let characters age and die, but allow writers to go back in time for stories of characters in their prime. You can tell stories about Batman in his 40s until the end of time, while also allowing other writers to move forward in time with his gradual aging.[/QUOTE]
I disagree - it wasn't really a good idea at all. The whole let characters age and die and tell stories in the past is something better suited for a spin off line, as opposed to the mainline itself. The explorations of aging, retiring, death, replacement and legacy are best suited for the more else-worldy sort of thing, a secondary line, while the mainline sticks with the traditional characters in their prime and pushing their stories with no ending in sight, since ultimately they're the characters that matter. Superman is Clark Kent, Batman is Bruce Wayne, Wonder Woman is Diana, and so on. They're icons, myths, legends. And if you push them in the main as aging and dying you risk harming the usability of those characters. Take the JSA - the older, original Flash and Green Lantern aren't the ones people care for, because they're the old guys, they're out of touch, their stories of them in their prime take place in the past. They're stuck there in the past largely irrelevant. The characters that are going to remain important can't get stuck and trapped in some prior point in history. They need to have their stories take place in the here and now, in the present. The only reason that Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman still matter 80+ years after they were created is because they've always been modern characters. You set them "in the past" you take away their modernity, their relevancy. In effect, you are saying they're unimportant, they're the past, and DC has to make bets on people connecting with the new characters who come to replace them.
That's just not how DC should be.
-
[QUOTE=John Venus;5518704]Uhhh, DC had Earth-Two and I don't mean the Nu52 version, I mean the Pre-Crisis versions where all the heroes got old and had kids who grew up to become heroes themselves while the 'main' heroes stayed young in their own universe.
A shame they got rid of it because they need it now more than ever.[/QUOTE]
Yes, a properly done Multiverse would allow for multiple takes that have a higher chance of getting different audiences.
Some want story progression with aging and mantle passing. Meanwhile, there are always going to be fans and creators who want to read/work on new twists of the iconic characters. Stubbornly wanting it to be one or the other leaves money on the table either way.
I'm not remotely feeling this Jon Kent nonsense though, if only because WB/DC don't instill confidence that they don't just want to get rid of Clark because they are sick of him (even before he arrives at the low point that Barry and Hal previously reached when Wally and Kyle replaced them) but still want to make money off of his logo.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5518811]I'm not remotely feeling this Jon Kent nonsense though, if only because WB/DC don't instill confidence that they don't just want to get rid of Clark because they are sick of him (even before he arrives at the low point that Barry and Hal previously reached when Wally and Kyle replaced them) but still want to make money off of his logo.[/QUOTE]
I'm worried about this too. Superman is one of my favorite characters, but it feels like WB doesn't know what to do with him, so want to just replace Clark with a new Superman they feel they can profit off of more. I'm...not enthused.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5518811]I'm not remotely feeling this Jon Kent nonsense though, if only because WB/DC don't instill confidence that they don't just want to get rid of Clark because they are sick of him (even before he arrives at the low point that Barry and Hal previously reached when Wally and Kyle replaced them) but still want to make money off of his logo.[/QUOTE]
Long term, I can't see DC/WB getting rid of Clark permanently. Obviously, that would be kind of crazy. discarding the most iconic superhero of all-time. Short term? Different story.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5518843]I'm worried about this too. Superman is one of my favorite characters, but it feels like WB doesn't know what to do with him, so want to just replace Clark with a new Superman they feel they can profit off of more. I'm...not enthused.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Darknight Detective;5518868]Long term, I can't see DC/WB getting rid of Clark permanently. Obviously, that would be kind of crazy. discarding the most iconic superhero of all-time. Short term? Different story.[/QUOTE]
Best case scenario is something like the Peter/Miles stuff. Which I'm not thrilled about but could certainly deal with (I respect the well earned success of Miles, but I'm generally not interested in any Spider-Man save Peter).
On the live action front, MCU more than gave Steve Rogers his due and made audiences love him before retiring him and letting the story continue with Sam. So that all feels earned, that's how you do it. Depending on how the new Superman reboot pans out, if it's a different character, it's going to reek of "we kept fucking up with Clark, and it's somehow his fault as a character, so let's pivot to make out jobs easier."
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5518873]Best case scenario is something like the Peter/Miles stuff. Which I'm not thrilled about but could certainly deal with (I respect the well earned success of Miles, but I'm generally not interested in any Spider-Man save Peter).
On the live action front, MCU more than gave Steve Rogers his due and made audiences love him before retiring him and letting the story continue with Sam. So that all feels earned, that's how you do it. Depending on how the new Superman reboot pans out, if it's a different character, it's going to reek of "we kept fucking up with Clark, and it's somehow his fault as a character, so let's pivot to make out jobs easier."[/QUOTE]
The only thing Clark needs is maybe a little of a makeover, that's all. The idea that he can't work today... I don't get it (as you would agree).
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5518873]Best case scenario is something like the Peter/Miles stuff. Which I'm not thrilled about but could certainly deal with (I respect the well earned success of Miles, but I'm generally not interested in any Spider-Man save Peter).
On the live action front, MCU more than gave Steve Rogers his due and made audiences love him before retiring him and letting the story continue with Sam. So that all feels earned, that's how you do it. Depending on how the new Superman reboot pans out, if it's a different character, it's going to reek of "we kept fucking up with Clark, and it's somehow his fault as a character, so let's pivot to make out jobs easier."[/QUOTE]
As it stands, on the film front, with the racebending and the more political writing leanings of the writer that they've chosen, even if it is Cark, it might not feel like Clark. Sort of changing everything but the name kind of thing, that's my worry. I'm really hoping the reboot Superman is one of DC's actual black Supermen and not Clark, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be "new and improved" Clark, which just feels like the wrong way to add diversity to their film slate when they have actual POC characters just begging for a film. WB just doesn't want Clark right now, so they'll change him in the larger media scape, and there's the worry that the comics will follow suit. We might wind up with two Superman titles starring Jon Superman and Val-Zod Superman. And Clark will just be out for a while...
-
[QUOTE=Robotman;5518511]DC is a business with IPs worth potentially billions of dollars. Having a character like Bruce Wayne age in real time and eventually retire would be incredibly short sighted.
We can’t expect our favorite heroes to age along with us as the current crop of comic book fans are just a tiny drop in the overall bucket. DC/WB is probably planning ways to generate interest from mainstream audiences and the next generation of fans.[/QUOTE]
People wdont care about Bruce Wayne they care about Batman. I guess DC is gonna wait for the public to force them to remove Bruce which honestly explain Jace presence. in 8 year we may see a live action Jace the way we are seeing a live action Sam as captain america
-
[QUOTE=Rac7d*;5518959]People wdont care about Bruce Wayne they care about Batman. [/QUOTE]
For most superheroes, yes, but Bruce Wayne is one of the exceptions. One of the few secret identities that everybody knows about.
-
[QUOTE=Rac7d*;5518959]People wdont care about Bruce Wayne they care about Batman. I guess DC is gonna wait for the public to force them to remove Bruce which honestly explain Jace presence. in 8 year we may see a live action Jace the way we are seeing a live action Sam as captain america[/QUOTE]
...you're kidding right? You really see the public deciding to "force" DC to remove Bruce Wayne?
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519005]...you're kidding right? You really see the public deciding to "force" DC to remove Bruce Wayne?[/QUOTE]
If the mainstream audience mirrored the one here on this site, goodbye Bruce! :D
-
[QUOTE=The Darknight Detective;5519039]If the mainstream audience mirrored the one here on this site, goodbye Bruce! :D[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you do realize that the mainstream audience is nothing like the Batman hating posters who are super abundant on this forum right?
Honestly, this forum is so, so, so weird with all the Batman/Bruce haters that are concentrated here. It's like this forum exists on Bizarro World...
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519005]...you're kidding right? You really see the public deciding to "force" DC to remove Bruce Wayne?[/QUOTE]
Eventually as marvel continues to diversify their on screen lineup
They will eventually be forced to updated their trinity
-
[QUOTE=Rac7d*;5519053]Eventually as marvel continues to diversify their on screen lineup
They will eventually be forced to updated their trinity[/QUOTE]
Or they'll just, you know, actually use their existing non-Trinity POC characters right? Like, that's a legit and more likely option. Well, except that they're already racebending Superman on their own without the public pushing for that. But yeah, rather than replacing Bruce, I think the better option is just give Vixen and Steel and Bumblebee and Cyborg and Mr. Terrific movies.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519051]Yeah, you do realize that the mainstream audience is nothing like the Batman hating posters who are super abundant on this forum right?
Honestly, this forum is so, so, so weird with all the Batman/Bruce haters that are concentrated here. It's like this forum exists on Bizarro World...[/QUOTE]
Heh. It was extremely weird reading some of the comments for the first time a decade ago.
-
[QUOTE=Rac7d*;5518959]People wdont care about Bruce Wayne they care about Batman. I guess DC is gonna wait for the public to force them to remove Bruce which honestly explain Jace presence. in 8 year we may see a live action Jace the way we are seeing a live action Sam as captain america[/QUOTE]
The mainstream audience shows no signs of getting sick of Bruce. He has a new film trilogy on the way after all. Aside from some voices on this forum that say the mainstream only likes Batman but not the character of Bruce, there isn't any meaningful evidence to back that up.
A live action Jace could work, never say never. But if we get that before Dick as Batman II (or just a good adaptation of Dick in film in general, as either Robin or Nightwing) I'm going to be pretty pissed. Any creative decision for another successor Batman usually involves kneecapping Dick in some capacity to justify doing it, but WB doesn't have much incentive to go without Bruce period.
-
I think aging isnt something that DC should be scared of and something that they should embrace. When you halt a character from really aging for 20 years it stunts the story potential. How long does Beast Boy/Raven have to go through teen issues?
If DC did a simple "2 years in the real world = 1 year in comics/24 issues" that gives them 20 years to tell 10 years in the comics. Seeing Bruce age and how he has to adapt to that would be great, he goes from wearing spandex everyday to creating a more super powered Bat suit that makes up for his age.
And of course DC loves a good reboot so once your characters get to old you do a reboot and start from scratch again. Comics are like soap operas where they arent as big as they used to be and they need to be changed up.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5519094]The mainstream audience shows no signs of getting sick of Bruce. He has a new film trilogy on the way after all. Aside from some voices on this forum that say the mainstream only likes Batman but not the character of Bruce, there isn't any meaningful evidence to back that up.
A live action Jace could work, never say never. But if we get that before Dick as Batman II (or just a good adaptation of Dick in film in general, as either Robin or Nightwing) I'm going to be pretty pissed. Any creative decision for another successor Batman usually involves kneecapping Dick in some capacity to justify doing it, but WB doesn't have much incentive to go without Bruce period.[/QUOTE]
Wait, you actually want Dick Grayson to become Batman? Isn't the whole point of Nightwing that Dick ISN'T Batman and never will want to become like him. That's why I wish he would change his suit into this [url]https://i.pinimg.com/474x/52/0e/14/520e145a12d4c25c7b83a8711b51d42e.jpg[/url]
A colorful suit that shows Dick can live a life Bruce can't. Like, I to enjoyed the Batman & Robin dynamic between Dick and Damian, but I didn't actually want Dick to be tied down into that role.
-
I think it'd be a great story where Dick feels like he's obligated to take up the mantle and spends a couple of months/year as Batman before ultimately giving it up and returning to Nightwing.
-
[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;5519285]I think it'd be a great story where Dick feels like he's obligated to take up the mantle and spends a couple of months/year as Batman before ultimately giving it up and returning to Nightwing.[/QUOTE]
isnt that what happened
-
[QUOTE=Primal Slayer;5519242]I think aging isnt something that DC should be scared of and something that they should embrace. When you halt a character from really aging for 20 years it stunts the story potential. How long does Beast Boy/Raven have to go through teen issues?
If DC did a simple "2 years in the real world = 1 year in comics/24 issues" that gives them 20 years to tell 10 years in the comics. Seeing Bruce age and how he has to adapt to that would be great, he goes from wearing spandex everyday to creating a more super powered Bat suit that makes up for his age.
And of course DC loves a good reboot so once your characters get to old you do a reboot and start from scratch again. Comics are like soap operas where they arent as big as they used to be and they need to be changed up.[/QUOTE]
Stunting the story potential is only a thing if the audience doesn't rotate out, or you don't get new writers with new ideas. I mean, teens today aren't like teens when I was growing up, and that was just the 2000's. Find writers who can tell new stories about Beast Boy and Raven as teenagers that echo with modern teenage themes. You can change the stories up without aging the characters up and out of relevancy.
-
[QUOTE=Alpha;5519275]Wait, you actually want Dick Grayson to become Batman? Isn't the whole point of Nightwing that Dick ISN'T Batman and never will want to become like him. That's why I wish he would change his suit into this [url]https://i.pinimg.com/474x/52/0e/14/520e145a12d4c25c7b83a8711b51d42e.jpg[/url]
A colorful suit that shows Dick can live a life Bruce can't. Like, I to enjoyed the Batman & Robin dynamic between Dick and Damian, but I didn't actually want Dick to be tied down into that role.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't want any other permanent Batman except Bruce, but if we had to have one or if we need a temporary successor, Dick is the only one I'd be interested in. In either comics or adaptations.
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519341]Stunting the story potential is only a thing if the audience doesn't rotate out, or you don't get new writers with new ideas. I mean, teens today aren't like teens when I was growing up, and that was just the 2000's. Find writers who can tell new stories about Beast Boy and Raven as teenagers that echo with modern teenage themes. You can change the stories up without aging the characters up and out of relevancy.[/QUOTE]
Raven was the same age as Dick, Wally and Donna when she debuted, and Gar wasn't that much younger. They are not going to cease being relevant if they are just written to be the age they are supposed to be, which isn't all that much older than teens. For all the problems the the Titans generation faces, being stuck in the vague 20s age range (like the JL are in the 30s-40s age range) isn't one of them,
-
[QUOTE=garazza;5518472]I really like how wrestling is becoming popular again because there are wrestlers in their 40s that are basically doing what Batman does and they're still great. Some are doing their best work at that age. Dustin Rhodes is in his 50s and he's one of the best wrestlers in AEW. The men at DC really have to get over their mid-life crises.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, Batman as he's characterized now and with all the Robins + proteges only makes sense as a man in his late 40s to mid 50s.
-
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5519341]Stunting the story potential is only a thing if the audience doesn't rotate out, or you don't get new writers with new ideas. I mean, teens today aren't like teens when I was growing up, and that was just the 2000's. Find writers who can tell new stories about Beast Boy and Raven as teenagers that echo with modern teenage themes. You can change the stories up without aging the characters up and out of relevancy.[/QUOTE]
New audiences can still read older comics that already exist, that's not really a solid point.
-
I'm a great big YES on this.
That was beauty of Earth-2 for me.
You got to see a possible future where Robin grew up, Bruce got too old to continue being Batman and you saw the kids stepping up.
As a BIG reader in the 90's I also admit I'm more than a little biased. I loved Connor (GA), Kyle (GL), Kon (Supes), Cassie (WW), Jaime (BB) and Grant (Damage)
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;5519407]Raven was the same age as Dick, Wally and Donna when she debuted, and Gar wasn't that much younger. They are not going to cease being relevant if they are just written to be the age they are supposed to be, which isn't all that much older than teens. For all the problems the the Titans generation faces, being stuck in the vague 20s age range (like the JL are in the 30s-40s age range) isn't one of them,[/QUOTE]
Eh, I'm not a fan of aging up Dick, Wally, or Donna either. Mostly because they worked in that particular teen niche, that DC needs to have filled, and once they were aged out of it they needed to be replaced by new teen characters, and that's how we ended up with the absurdity of four Robins. To me, that's a pretty condemning argument against aging up some characters.