Does Parenthood Really Sideline Characters?

[Agent Z]

No. There are numerous characters that aren't parents that have been sidelined.

[phantom1592]

In a post-Ant-Man movie world, I think it's safe to say the answer is "no," but, at the end of the day, it all a case-by-case basis, since success depends on how the writers handle it.

Why would you say that? !st) Cassie was around before the powers and was a plot point during Scott's whole character. It's one thing when the kids are there from the beginning. 2nd) The fact that they aged her up in the comics and made her a hero was part of the problem with the timeline. She's actually a good example of why it SHOULDN'T happen...

Oftentimes, yes. It rarely works. And when it comes to characters like Jubilee and Spider-Woman, them having the kids in the first place are decisions of irresponsibility. Jubilee I said a teenager. She was a vampire. She is a mutant. She lives with people who are regularly attacked in a place with no security. There is no father and she is not equipped to take care of the kid to give him a good life. As far as we can tell, he is not a mutant, therefore, there is no reason for the X-Men to hold onto him. If Jubilee really cared about the kid, she would let an ordinary couple adopt him. It would be putting his future and life above her own. But sadly, at the moment, she seems to be more concerned about herself. Keeping him out of selfishness and irresponsibility. Then there’s Spider-Woman. She pretty much had the kid as a hobby. Knowing that he wouldn’t have a father, Jessica decided to make a baby for fun. And she doesn’t even take care of him. She pawns him off on other people because she wants the baby as a hobby, but at the same time doesn’t want to give up her superheroing. More irresponsibility and putting herself above the kid who she chose to bring into the world for her own pleasure..

This is a huge part of it. A responsible parent retires and protects and provides for their children. People have stopped seeing Kid Sidekicks as wish fulfillment and now just see Child Endangerment. The 'grown up mentality' don't want heroes to be putting on masks and swinging from buildings to fight random crime when they've got kids at home. It's irresponsible. So yeah.... most of the time when a hero has a kid or spouse or something that SHOULD be more important to them... they stick to the background.

The other that's been mentioned is of course the sliding timeline. If you age ONE character, you have to age them all... and it's sloppy and ugly storytelling at it's worst. Comic Editor's can't keep a leash on their writers to even TRY to keep that ball of yarn straight. So at the end of the day, Heroes with babies just isn't worth the trouble it brings.

[WebLurker]

Why would you say that? !st) Cassie was around before the powers and was a plot point during Scott's whole character. It's one thing when the kids are there from the beginning. 2nd) The fact that they aged her up in the comics and made her a hero was part of the problem with the timeline. She's actually a good example of why it SHOULDN'T happen...

I guess we have totally different opinions on the subject. My main point was that the movie was an example of how having a parent superhero can be used for good effect and that it's not inherently bad in and of itself.

So at the end of the day, Heroes with babies just isn't worth the trouble it brings.

Having seen the Incredibles movies, read the Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows and All-New Wolverine series, I would have to disagree. (Note: if you meant infant kids, not kids in general that might be a different situation, but I still stand by the idea that it can be executed well under the right circumstances.)

[Agent Z]

Why would you say that? !st) Cassie was around before the powers and was a plot point during Scott's whole character. It's one thing when the kids are there from the beginning. 2nd) The fact that they aged her up in the comics and made her a hero was part of the problem with the timeline. She's actually a good example of why it SHOULDN'T happen...






This is a huge part of it. A responsible parent retires and protects and provides for their children. People have stopped seeing Kid Sidekicks as wish fulfillment and now just see Child Endangerment. The 'grown up mentality' don't want heroes to be putting on masks and swinging from buildings to fight random crime when they've got kids at home. It's irresponsible. So yeah.... most of the time when a hero has a kid or spouse or something that SHOULD be more important to them... they stick to the background.

.

Except no one is saying these kids have to become sidekicks.

[ed2962]

No it does not.

By the way, Reed and Sue go planet hopping at the drop of a hat, are they irresponsible for depending on the story leaving the kids behind and possibly making them orphans...or how about when they take the kids along possibly placing them in danger?

Right now in those "grown up" DC Comics Superman and Batman have their kids fighting crime!

[responsarbre]

There's an argument to be made that if you're going to have kids in New York City, it's more responsible for them to grow up in a household where at least one parent has superpowers.

[AdamFTF]

There's an argument to be made that if you're going to have kids in New York City, it's more responsible for them to grow up in household where at least one parent has superpowers.

This statement kind of reminds me of something regarding my initial example of Jubilee and Shogo. During Brian Wood's run, it was more common for the X-Men to get attacked because of Shogo than for Shogo to be attacked because of the X-Men. First, he was infected by Arkea, which was a completely random thing and had nothing to do with the X-Men's presence. Then, it turned out that his biological father was a Japanese super-criminal called The Future. It made sense that the kid would need a super-powered guardian. Even for a non-mutant baby, he seemed kind of danger-prone.

[phantom1592]

I guess we have totally different opinions on the subject. My main point was that the movie was an example of how having a parent superhero can be used for good effect and that it's not inherently bad in and of itself.


Having seen the Incredibles movies, read the Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows and All-New Wolverine series, I would have to disagree. (Note: if you meant infant kids, not kids in general that might be a different situation, but I still stand by the idea that it can be executed well under the right circumstances.)

Well the question was 'does parenthood sideline characters' which generally implies Infants and babies. If the kids are around from the beginning and are fully formed 'kids'... that's a bit different. But if the kids are old enough to actually be characters in their own right, then obviously they CAN'T sideline the hero... they were there from the beginning. If a baby comes along later in the game... then you've already added at least 9 months to the overall timeline.

As for Renew your Vows... and the Incredibles? Yeah, it's pretty irresponsible. It's usually pointed out that having kids means you retire. Things may happen to get you back in the tights, but it should NOT be taken lightly. AND the baby years were again spent retired. For whatever outside reasons, the kids became the #1 priority.

Also, Ant-man is a fairly unusual situation. Cassie is not HIS responsibility. She's not in his custody. She has a mother, she has a stepfather. she does not live with Scott. He can fight crime without worrying that she'll end up in an orphanage or something. If he's stepped on by Galactus, She will be just as well provided as if he wasn't.

Except no one is saying these kids have to become sidekicks.

I know, but Batman and child endangerment is a common segue whenever 'superhero parents' comes up. He's raised what five robins... and only had 2/5th of them brutally murdered. Nope... 3/5th, forgot Damian died two for a hot second. Maybe 4/5ths if you count the Tim Drake fake out recently... we knew he survived, but they didn't...

[Ascended]

Like virtually any narrative tool, it's not a good thing or bad thing in and of itself. It's how its used that really makes the difference.

Having kids hasn't hurt or slowed down Superman or Batman. It didn't slow down Invincible. It's not the death sentence some people think it is (Invincible ending had nothing to do with Tera).

I do think there are hurdles to adding a kid to a character's supporting cast. Back in the day when comics were actually for kids, the audience didn't want to read about the troubles parents have. And now that the audience is made up of adults (many of whom have kids of their own) we don't want to read about changing diapers while we're actually changing diapers in real life.

And writers who don't have kids are going to struggle with the dynamic, which reduces the potential talent pool. Not by much, I dont think, but still.

And I believe that kids get used a lot to explain why a character is written out of a story. It's (sometimes) not the kid who pulled the hero into limbo; the hero was going there anyway and it was the kid who was used to justify it.

It's a well known cliche in fiction (especially tv and comics, it seems) that adding kids to a story is basically the endgame and it's all downhill afterwards. I'm not sure why that mindset began, nor why it persists, but its not actually true. Perhaps writers run out of ideas and "have the characters become parents!" is their last gasp of attempted creativity. Maybe they suck at writing parents and don't portray the situation properly and it all turns boring because the writer is an idiot. I dunno. But I know that being a parent isn't the end of a person's life and there's plenty of examples in comics that show it can be done successfully. It can be done poorly too of course, but what can't?

[WebLurker]

Well the question was 'does parenthood sideline characters' which generally implies Infants and babies. If the kids are around from the beginning and are fully formed 'kids'... that's a bit different. But if the kids are old enough to actually be characters in their own right, then obviously they CAN'T sideline the hero... they were there from the beginning. If a baby comes along later in the game... then you've already added at least 9 months to the overall timeline.

What about scenarios where a older kid gets added to the mix later down the line?

As for Renew your Vows... and the Incredibles? Yeah, it's pretty irresponsible. It's usually pointed out that having kids means you retire. Things may happen to get you back in the tights, but it should NOT be taken lightly. AND the baby years were again spent retired. For whatever outside reasons, the kids became the #1 priority.

In reality, both the Incredibles films and RYV were using the superhero dynamic to as the theme for explore a nuclear family's relationships (it's kinda metaphorical, as Guardians of the Galaxy might put it). In context, with the Incredibles, the kids got involved in the superheroing because of outside factors or because they stowed away; in practice, their parents are shown trying to keep them out of the main conflicts when possible. In the case of RYV, I think we're supposed to see it as an apprenticeship, for lack of a better word (and she does wind up enrolling in the Xavier Institute pretty early on). Mileage may vary if those work for suspension of disbelief.

Also, Ant-man is a fairly unusual situation. Cassie is not HIS responsibility. She's not in his custody. She has a mother, she has a stepfather. she does not live with Scott. He can fight crime without worrying that she'll end up in an orphanage or something. If he's stepped on by Galactus, She will be just as well provided as if he wasn't.

Fair enough, although I would point out that Ant-Man sees himself as being responsible for being there for her when needed; that drives a lot of his conflict in the second movie.

[phantom1592]

What about scenarios where a older kid gets added to the mix later down the line?

Have there been any examples where the kid gets added to the mix... and DOESN'T get drug into the crime fighting meat-grinder? Every one I'm thinking of always follows the Robin blueprint of hero rescues/adopts/finds a young kid, kid insists on following the mentor's footsteps... Hero tries to teach them to do it 'right' and occasionally the kid is beat to death with a crowbar or blow over the atlantic showing off that YEAH, the lifestyle is dangerous.

I'm a huge fan of the teenage sidekick trope. I HATE Damian but was a HUGE fan of Tim's Robin. I like kid flash, I liked Speedy... never cared much for Jason or Bucky... but the fact of the matter is that yeah, dressing up underage kids in costumes is INSANELY dangerous and REALLY irresponsible parenting.

It seems like there HAS to be a situation where the older kid does NOT follow that blueprint, and simply goes to school, does their homework and watches TV while mom or dad fight crime... but I'm really drawing a blank right now.


Regardless, if you're responsible for children or any age, and they depend on your income, your life insurance, your guidance... then you have no business in the cape. Some real world jobs are dangerous too, but there are insurances and stuff to help care for the families of cops who fall in line of duty.... No life insurance company is going to pay out when they pull the mask off Crimson Avenger or whoever.

[Agent Z]

Well the question was 'does parenthood sideline characters' which generally implies Infants and babies. If the kids are around from the beginning and are fully formed 'kids'... that's a bit different. But if the kids are old enough to actually be characters in their own right, then obviously they CAN'T sideline the hero... they were there from the beginning. If a baby comes along later in the game... then you've already added at least 9 months to the overall timeline.

As for Renew your Vows... and the Incredibles? Yeah, it's pretty irresponsible. It's usually pointed out that having kids means you retire. Things may happen to get you back in the tights, but it should NOT be taken lightly. AND the baby years were again spent retired. For whatever outside reasons, the kids became the #1 priority.

Also, Ant-man is a fairly unusual situation. Cassie is not HIS responsibility. She's not in his custody. She has a mother, she has a stepfather. she does not live with Scott. He can fight crime without worrying that she'll end up in an orphanage or something. If he's stepped on by Galactus, She will be just as well provided as if he wasn't.







I know, but Batman and child endangerment is a common segue whenever 'superhero parents' comes up. He's raised what five robins... and only had 2/5th of them brutally murdered. Nope... 3/5th, forgot Damian died two for a hot second. Maybe 4/5ths if you count the Tim Drake fake out recently... we knew he survived, but they didn't...

Not all of the Robins Bruce has raised are his children. Having a child while being a crimefighter does not automatically make you guilty of child endangerment. You're conflating two separate arguments here.

[GrandEleven]

Yep, I think it's been shown time and time again that it does. Having a kid for most characters is like a ticket into comic limbo.

I think you have the cause/effect backwards.

When a writer isn't sure what to do with a character and plans on sidelining them, parenthood/settling down is an easy/ideal story to pick. Even writers who don't write about families can find a million reasons to solo the hero if they really want to use them.

[Flash Gordon]

Batman has been a dad for most of his self life and if works okay, mostly.

It works for some characters, but takes a certain level of creativity+life experience to pull off as a writer.

[DragonsChi]

It should be said that when you are the most popular character in a medium on a global scale there is very little that you can do to ruin that character completely.

Characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, & Spider-Man can have risk taken that many other characters do not have the pleasure of. At the same time those characters could have the risk be utter failures and still get the time to needed to either adjust those risk so they actually work or to be written out.

Think back to the times when each of these characters were at their worst in comic history. Diana becoming a not so secrete spy instead of an amazon. Clark recent 52 characterization. And so on.

People can't compare certain things as being apples to apples when in truth one is an apple and the other is tuna fish.