How old is Superman?

[Jim Kelly]

There were different rules of comic book time when Weisinger was editing Superman than when Schwartz (and others) were editing Superman. Mort essentially had it that Superman became active in 1938, before that he was Superboy. How you figure that out is your problem, but comic book time and real time didn't need to be the same thing. So characters just remained stuck at the same age even though time was passing all around them. However, with Supergirl it was different. She was perhaps 14 when she arrived on Earth (1959) and she acted like a little girl. But relative to Superman, Lois and Jimmy, Linda Lee aged rapidly and entered college in 1964--which means she was ageing almost in real time, but then her age slowed down after that, yet not completely.

When Schwartz and the other editors took over in 1970, it was stated that the rules of time had changed and Superman would now stay at a permanent age of 29, with the Superboy stories happening about 15 years before the Superman stories (more like 13 years--or even 12 years when Mike Grell was drawing Superboy, since he looked older by then). Supergirl got out of college and bounced between a few different jobs, so she was probably in her mid-twenties at that time. But then in the early 1980s, after Supergirl got her own new title, she was de-aged to a younger age, before dying in the Crisis.

[superduperman]

Batman being about 40 makes sense given how many Robins there are. Dick is in his early to mid-twenties. So that puts his Robin career, at the earliest, at around maybe 12? So he's been operating for maybe ten years as a superhero. Tim is late teens. So he would have been Robin for maybe a couple years. Damien, last I heard, was 13. But if we're talking the force grown Damien and not natural age Damien, who knows how old he really is. There was a story just prior to Flashpoint where James Jr., the baby from Year One, was in his twenties. So this would mean that Batman had been operating for at least 20 years by that point. In YO he was 25 when he came back to Gotham. So maybe 45? Batman's pushing 50 while Superman was still in his early thirties by that point. And YO makes a direct reference to Superman. At some point the math doesn't add up.

[Tzigone]

There was a story just prior to Flashpoint where James Jr., the baby from Year One, was in his twenties.

Yeah, that was weird. I still prefer him not existing in the sense he just does not fit into the Gordon story to me. Because he didn't for so long, I guess.

At some point the math doesn't add up.

True, but it's still sometimes fun to play with. Especially when fans get to either have fun being exasperated or pick and choose what bits they keep. More frustrating is when DC is pushing a line you don't like on ages.

[bat39]

There were different rules of comic book time when Weisinger was editing Superman than when Schwartz (and others) were editing Superman. Mort essentially had it that Superman became active in 1938, before that he was Superboy. How you figure that out is your problem, but comic book time and real time didn't need to be the same thing. So characters just remained stuck at the same age even though time was passing all around them. However, with Supergirl it was different. She was perhaps 14 when she arrived on Earth (1959) and she acted like a little girl. But relative to Superman, Lois and Jimmy, Linda Lee aged rapidly and entered college in 1964--which means she was ageing almost in real time, but then her age slowed down after that, yet not completely.

When Schwartz and the other editors took over in 1970, it was stated that the rules of time had changed and Superman would now stay at a permanent age of 29, with the Superboy stories happening about 15 years before the Superman stories (more like 13 years--or even 12 years when Mike Grell was drawing Superboy, since he looked older by then). Supergirl got out of college and bounced between a few different jobs, so she was probably in her mid-twenties at that time. But then in the early 1980s, after Supergirl got her own new title, she was de-aged to a younger age, before dying in the Crisis.

Don't think it was ever officially stated that Superman always debuted in 1938. But I think the issue was with Superboy - writers and artists initially set him in the contemporary era, and later, they set his adventures during the pre-1938 depression era because they intuitively thought that the Superboy stories were 'prequels' to Action Comics #1. This lead to Superboy being caught in a 'time warp' of sorts wherein his adventures were set in the Depression era while present-day Superman kept getting 'pushed ahead'. Until the sliding timescale was introduced, putting Superboy about 15 years behind Superman...

Its fun to think though...had that set-up persisted to this day, Superboy's era would be the early 2000's! Though if we assume that Superman would be 'aged up' as much as he has in the Rebirth era, then it'd probably be the early to mid 1990's...

[manofsteel1979]

Mentally,I always have seen Superman about 10-15 years older than myself in universe. However that no longer works as I'm now about to hit the big "four Oh" in a few months. It's sort of weird to think I'm either the exact same age or even a year older than Supes is right now!

Apparently Frank Miller had a similar epiphany with Batman when he was approaching 30 back in 1986 which led him to write The Dark Knight Returns.

[Jim Kelly]

Don't think it was ever officially stated that Superman always debuted in 1938.

I don't recall if it was ever stated in an actual story, but I remember this being stated in a letter column. However, I wouldn't want to try and track down exactly which comic had such a statement. I'm pretty sure this was the Weisinger approach to continuity--that stories happened when they happened and there wasn't the kind of constant refresh button on them like you had with the Marvel Comics stories.

And retroactively this was made how it was by that statement back in 1970--in SUPERBOY 171--that they were now going to put Superboy on a sliding time scale, but the previous stories had been set in the 1930s.

I wouldn't say there had been an exact timeframe for the Superboy stories when Weisinger was the editor. It was more like Little Lulu or Nancy, where sometimes if felt like the 1930s but sometimes it felt more up to date. Murray Boltinoff became the SUPERBOY editor in 1968 and maybe then it was more firmly set in the 1930s--issue 168, just before the change, had pre-war Nazi saboteurs in Smallville.

It felt kind of weird in the 1980s, when THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SUPERBOY was now supposed to be in the 1960s--given I remembered all those Superman stories from the 1960s.

[Sacred Knight]

Mentally,I always have seen Superman about 10-15 years older than myself in universe. However that no longer works as I'm now about to hit the big "four Oh" in a few months. It's sort of weird to think I'm either the exact same age or even a year older than Supes is right now!

Apparently Frank Miller had a similar epiphany with Batman when he was approaching 30 back in 1986 which led him to write The Dark Knight Returns.

You're depressing me!

[Johnny Thunders!]

I figure he is always about 35. That would make Batman around the same age and Robin around 20? Dick Grayson I mean.

[Jim Kelly]

Personally I like the World's Finest to be younger. I was quite happy when Julie Schwartz insisted Superman was only 29. I didn't like it in the 1960s when Supes looked like he was going bald. Swan and Anderson made the 1970s Superman look much younger and with it.

Frankly, I don't understand what DC is thinking making Batman and Superman these dad heroes. How does that appeal to readers? It seems like DC is getting ready to retire Bruce and Clark so Damian and Jon can take over the family business. But those Super Sons only exist in the comic books--if they really were the future, wouldn't they be getting movies or TV shows or product lines?

If one is a fan of Superman and Batman, surely one wants to read about them in their prime, not when their best years are behind them.

[Jackalope89]

Personally I like the World's Finest to be younger. I was quite happy when Julie Schwartz insisted Superman was only 29. I didn't like it in the 1960s when Supes looked like he was going bald. Swan and Anderson made the 1970s Superman look much younger and with it.

Frankly, I don't understand what DC is thinking making Batman and Superman these dad heroes. How does that appeal to readers? It seems like DC is getting ready to retire Bruce and Clark so Damian and Jon can take over the family business. But those Super Sons only exist in the comic books--if they really were the future, wouldn't they be getting movies or TV shows or product lines?

If one is a fan of Superman and Batman, surely one wants to read about them in their prime, not when their best years are behind them.

Damian and Jon both had cameos in Young Justice Outsiders, Damian has been rather prominent in a number of the DC animated films the last 10 years or so. And Jon was even hinted at in the latest Supergirl season (Clark and Lois went to Argo City to have the baby).

Besides which, a lot of people want to see these characters actually progress as characters. Not stay static forever. And one of the best ways is parenthood.

And lets not forget, Batman has been collecting Robins for a VERY long time. So him getting a biological child (aside from Helena Wayne) was going to happen at some point.

[Tzigone]

Frankly, I don't understand what DC is thinking making Batman and Superman these dad heroes. How does that appeal to readers?

It appeals to me. I like heroes having real lives (not just padding for adventures). I like love interests knowing identities. I like marriage and babies. It was a marriage that made me pay attention to my first comic (X-Men) and a pregnancy that made me interested in Spider-Man. The perpetual sameness/staticness of old comics where no aged certainly has it's business advantages, and is well-suited to a rotating audience. But it's the kind of thing that bored me by time I reached high school age.

[Ascended]

Personally I like the World's Finest to be younger. I was quite happy when Julie Schwartz insisted Superman was only 29. I didn't like it in the 1960s when Supes looked like he was going bald. Swan and Anderson made the 1970s Superman look much younger and with it.

I didnt care for the receding hairline either. I'm fine with an older Superman, but let the man age gracefully; Kent is a fine wine and just gets better with age.

I actually like the idea of Bruce falling apart as he gets older though. The toll has to catch up sometime. Makes him rely on his mind more, and really highlights where the character's strengths have always truly been.

Frankly, I don't understand what DC is thinking making Batman and Superman these dad heroes. How does that appeal to readers? It seems like DC is getting ready to retire Bruce and Clark so Damian and Jon can take over the family business. But those Super Sons only exist in the comic books--if they really were the future, wouldn't they be getting movies or TV shows or product lines?

Legacies and sidekicks are good for business. They expand the brand and can appeal to younger readers. A 12 year old isn't going to register any real difference between 29 and 40. Both are just old. Hell, why do you think Bats and Spidey have so many spin-off characters? It's actually surprising Clark doesn't have more kids and legacies. It might not increase the number of copies Clark's books sell, but it can make other books like Super Sons (or Superboy or Supergirl or Steel or Valor or Legion or.....) possible. And sell more "S" t-shirts and hats.

As for the movies, man come on. WB can barely get a movie about Clark or Bruce out there, and the last few they did manage to make didn't do well. Cant expect Jon and Damian to get a hard push from larger media when the studio is tripping over its own feet trying to get Batman done. But the Super Sons are getting YA novels, Damian is in a lot of those direct to blu-ray cartoons, or video games, etc. They're getting attention, they're just not getting "movie" level attention. But no one is replacing Bruce or Clark. These are just new sidekicks/legacies, this time with the "biological" gimmick.

If one is a fan of Superman and Batman, surely one wants to read about them in their prime, not when their best years are behind them.

Tom Brady is winning Super Bowls at 40. An extra decade isn't going to slow down Bruce or Clark. This *is* them in their prime.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Since they seem so entirely lost as to how to make a Superman movie, I think an Elseworld's story like Red Son or the introduction of the Supersons would be completely smart moves at this point. I would even go with a Superman of the multiverse story and introduce Calvin Ellis. Multiversity or Final Crisis are basically Superman's Into the Spiderverse so the material is there and the public knows how comics work by now. DC could just jump ahead 25 years and do a Supersons movie or Kingdom Come just to revitalize the brand.

I definitely like the younger looking Superman, Garcia Lopez seems to set him at about 29, but the Curt Swan Superman always looks older to me. I don't mind the balding Superman too much but it definitely feels like a different character. I think it makes him seem more powerful almost. He's got a receding hairline and a "power" belly.

[manofsteel1979]

I didnt care for the receding hairline either. I'm fine with an older Superman, but let the man age gracefully; Kent is a fine wine and just gets better with age.





Tom Brady is winning Super Bowls at 40. An extra decade isn't going to slow down Bruce or Clark. This *is* them in their prime.

Besides,for a being with at least a twice as long life span as the average human (depending on the continuity he can live anywhere from 200 years to infinity)even if a 40 year old Superman would outwardly look about 40, physically he'd still be in his prime in regards to his powers. I personally subscribe to the idea he ages normally outwardly until he reaches about 50 human years but his aging slows to a crawl as he absorbs more and more solar energy to the point he basically nearly stops aging at all His "prime" could literally be hundreds of years.

[superduperman]

Besides,for a being with at least a twice as long life span as the average human (depending on the continuity he can live anywhere from 200 years to infinity)even if a 40 year old Superman would outwardly look about 40, physically he'd still be in his prime in regards to his powers. I personally subscribe to the idea he ages normally outwardly until he reaches about 50 human years but his aging slows to a crawl as he absorbs more and more solar energy to the point he basically nearly stops aging at all His "prime" could literally be hundreds of years.

This is how I feel. I think his aging should slow to a crawl once he hits 50. This makes sense to me. His body will have absorbed enough solar radiation to make it happen by then. I like the way Kingdom Come did it.