Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 120
  1. #61
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    I think audiences (by which I mean movie-goers and consumers of other media adaptations as well because, let's face it, they form the majority of casual DC fans who actually bring in the moolah) have grown a lot more accepting of older/ageing heroes over the last decade...definitely the last half-decade.

    Look at some of the most iconic superhero movies and TV shows of the last decade.

    Logan featuring a visibly aged Wolverine on his final mission. The Dark Knight Rises which had a somewhat older and battered Bruce Wayne with grey in his temples (taken even further by Snyder in BvS and Justice League). Avengers Endgame and really a lot of Tony Stark's character arc in the MCU prior to that subtly dealt with his getting older and wanting to move on in his life from both his playboy days and playing superhero. One of the major characters of Into the Spiderverse was a middle-aged down-on-his-luck Peter Parker (and markedly not the young 20-something version who gets killed off in one of the opening scenes).

    On the TV side, Titans has an older Bruce Wayne in his fifties (at least the actor is, and I assume, the character as well). Batwoman is set in a world where Bruce is at least in his early forties (and we have Kevin Conroy who made a cameo as an even older version). John Wesley Shipp has returned in the Arrowverse to play multiple versions of the Flash who are well into their fifties and sixties.

    Hell, one of the biggest draws of the upcoming Flash movie is Michael Keaton returning as Batman, and one of the most popular rumors about the next Spider-Man movie is Tobey Maguire returning as Spider-Man! This even at a time when fans clamor for Hugh Jackman to return as Wolverine in the MCU...

    On average, actors playing on-screen superheroes are in their forties. Even if the age isn't addressed in the story itself, visually, that's the image most people have of superheroes, age-wise.

    You put all this together and I think most people are now comfortable with the idea of superheroes being older. They no longer need to be 20 or even 30-somethings. Robert Pattison is 34 and he's noticeably playing a ''young Batman'' - while the New 52 wanted to convince us that Batman was a lot younger than 34 despite having a 10 year old son and three other Robins!

  2. #62
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I think audiences (by which I mean movie-goers and consumers of other media adaptations as well because, let's face it, they form the majority of casual DC fans who actually bring in the moolah) have grown a lot more accepting of older/ageing heroes over the last decade...definitely the last half-decade.

    Look at some of the most iconic superhero movies and TV shows of the last decade.

    Logan featuring a visibly aged Wolverine on his final mission. The Dark Knight Rises which had a somewhat older and battered Bruce Wayne with grey in his temples (taken even further by Snyder in BvS and Justice League). Avengers Endgame and really a lot of Tony Stark's character arc in the MCU prior to that subtly dealt with his getting older and wanting to move on in his life from both his playboy days and playing superhero. One of the major characters of Into the Spiderverse was a middle-aged down-on-his-luck Peter Parker (and markedly not the young 20-something version who gets killed off in one of the opening scenes).

    On the TV side, Titans has an older Bruce Wayne in his fifties (at least the actor is, and I assume, the character as well). Batwoman is set in a world where Bruce is at least in his early forties (and we have Kevin Conroy who made a cameo as an even older version). John Wesley Shipp has returned in the Arrowverse to play multiple versions of the Flash who are well into their fifties and sixties.

    Hell, one of the biggest draws of the upcoming Flash movie is Michael Keaton returning as Batman, and one of the most popular rumors about the next Spider-Man movie is Tobey Maguire returning as Spider-Man! This even at a time when fans clamor for Hugh Jackman to return as Wolverine in the MCU...

    On average, actors playing on-screen superheroes are in their forties. Even if the age isn't addressed in the story itself, visually, that's the image most people have of superheroes, age-wise.

    You put all this together and I think most people are now comfortable with the idea of superheroes being older. They no longer need to be 20 or even 30-somethings. Robert Pattison is 34 and he's noticeably playing a ''young Batman'' - while the New 52 wanted to convince us that Batman was a lot younger than 34 despite having a 10 year old son and three other Robins!
    The problem is, with the exception of the MCU, the movies aren't intended to continue the same continuity forever. Sure, Jackman played Wolverine/Logan for 20 years, but the X-Men are getting rebooted into the MCU. Yes, Affleck is an older Batman and Keaton is coming back - but at the same time we're getting a younger Batman in Pattinson. Yes into the Spider-Verse had an older Peter, and Maguire might come back - we still have young Spider-Man with Tom Holland. Titans may have an older Batman, but Gotham had a child Bruce, Pattinson is getting a streaming GCPD show. Shipp may be playing an old Flash, but a younger Flash is the star. It's not that film audiences are comfortable with old superheroes and retirement leading to some legacy replacement - it's that they're comfortable with different iterations and versions of these characters existing. They're used to reboots, they're getting familiar with the idea of a multiverse. It doesn't matter if Batman is younger or older because there's always another Bruce Wayne. There's never just one main continuity any more outside a few specific examples - and even the MCU has to reboot or find a new multiverse version of a recasted Tony Stark some time.

    But the comics are different, and what some people are asking for is different. A Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman retired and all their stories set in the past while continuity trudges on without them. That's very different from the movie and TV side of things. You're comparing apples and oranges.

  3. #63
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    The problem is, with the exception of the MCU, the movies aren't intended to continue the same continuity forever. Sure, Jackman played Wolverine/Logan for 20 years, but the X-Men are getting rebooted into the MCU. Yes, Affleck is an older Batman and Keaton is coming back - but at the same time we're getting a younger Batman in Pattinson. Yes into the Spider-Verse had an older Peter, and Maguire might come back - we still have young Spider-Man with Tom Holland. Titans may have an older Batman, but Gotham had a child Bruce, Pattinson is getting a streaming GCPD show. Shipp may be playing an old Flash, but a younger Flash is the star. It's not that film audiences are comfortable with old superheroes and retirement leading to some legacy replacement - it's that they're comfortable with different iterations and versions of these characters existing. They're used to reboots, they're getting familiar with the idea of a multiverse. It doesn't matter if Batman is younger or older because there's always another Bruce Wayne. There's never just one main continuity any more outside a few specific examples - and even the MCU has to reboot or find a new multiverse version of a recasted Tony Stark some time.

    But the comics are different, and what some people are asking for is different. A Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman retired and all their stories set in the past while continuity trudges on without them. That's very different from the movie and TV side of things. You're comparing apples and oranges.
    I agree with a lot of your points.

    My argument was simply that people aren't obsessed with the idea of superheroes looking 'young' anymore, and that most depictions of superheroes in the movies involve 40-something actors. This is in contrast to what was the stated goal, in the comics and in adaptations, for a long time that to be ''fresh'' and ''relevant'' superheroes needed to be rebooted to be young 20-somethings (with even 30 being regarded as 'old'). That was the philosophy behind the New 52. Its also the reason why Spider-Man hasn't gotten past high school for the last two reboots (though I hope Tom Holland gets to stay in the role for a long while and change that).

    For a long time after the Post-COIE reboot, people had a vague idea of an experienced Superman being around 35 (the official timelines DC published matched up to that). The New 52 screamed ''That's too old!" So Superman got rebooted into being around 27, and got ''cosmically divorced''

    But now we have a Superman who, in terms of the new timeline and his role as father to a pre-teen (now artificially aged up) son, has to be at least 40. And you know what? I think people are fine with it. Why wouldn't they be when they're clamouring for Henry Cavill, who's a few years shy of 40, to reprise his role? And Tyler Hoechlin may be 33, but he's playing a Superman who's canonically closer to 40 (more likely well past it), and who's the father of two teenage sons.

    The fear of turning characters older is going away. And when your 'mainstream' superheroes are 40-somethings and not in their late 20's/early 30's, you have the potential for multiple generations of characters to co-exist, for younger heroes to age and step up to the plate, for a real sense of legacy.

  4. #64
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I agree with a lot of your points.

    My argument was simply that people aren't obsessed with the idea of superheroes looking 'young' anymore, and that most depictions of superheroes in the movies involve 40-something actors. This is in contrast to what was the stated goal, in the comics and in adaptations, for a long time that to be ''fresh'' and ''relevant'' superheroes needed to be rebooted to be young 20-somethings (with even 30 being regarded as 'old'). That was the philosophy behind the New 52. Its also the reason why Spider-Man hasn't gotten past high school for the last two reboots (though I hope Tom Holland gets to stay in the role for a long while and change that).

    For a long time after the Post-COIE reboot, people had a vague idea of an experienced Superman being around 35 (the official timelines DC published matched up to that). The New 52 screamed ''That's too old!" So Superman got rebooted into being around 27, and got ''cosmically divorced''

    But now we have a Superman who, in terms of the new timeline and his role as father to a pre-teen (now artificially aged up) son, has to be at least 40. And you know what? I think people are fine with it. Why wouldn't they be when they're clamouring for Henry Cavill, who's a few years shy of 40, to reprise his role? And Tyler Hoechlin may be 33, but he's playing a Superman who's canonically closer to 40 (more likely well past it), and who's the father of two teenage sons.

    The fear of turning characters older is going away. And when your 'mainstream' superheroes are 40-somethings and not in their late 20's/early 30's, you have the potential for multiple generations of characters to co-exist, for younger heroes to age and step up to the plate, for a real sense of legacy.
    I still don't see it, because they're still going to be rebooted, we're still going to see new multiverse versions, so it doesn't matter if there's a Superman in his 40s - there's never going to be a legacy. No version of Jon is ever going to be the main version of Superman for very long. Legacy is never going to be lasting. I see the same thing you do, I just come to a different conclusion. We'll get older versions of classic heroes - but also younger versions of them too. Without a many decades long continuity though, legacy can never be more than a temporary, passing gimmick. We're always going to go back to more in their prime versions. We're always going to have the same character as the title hero even as actors change. The next generation will never replace them.

  5. #65
    Extraordinary Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,229

    Default

    I don't remember if I've answered this or not, but since they're already doing it, like, at this point the ages are approximately
    Gordon - White haired and retired
    Bruce - 41 at least
    Harley - Someone with a doctorate and a PHD
    Dick and Babs - Should be 30
    Tim - Young Adult
    Jaime Reyes - Graduating high school
    Billy Batson - High school
    Damian - 14
    My only problem is if everyone else don't age at the same rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    My argument was simply that people aren't obsessed with the idea of superheroes looking 'young' anymore, and that most depictions of superheroes in the movies involve 40-something actors. This is in contrast to what was the stated goal, in the comics and in adaptations, for a long time that to be ''fresh'' and ''relevant'' superheroes needed to be rebooted to be young 20-somethings (with even 30 being regarded as 'old'). That was the philosophy behind the New 52. Its also the reason why Spider-Man hasn't gotten past high school for the last two reboots (though I hope Tom Holland gets to stay in the role for a long while and change that).
    There's a book... Brainiac I think... yes... that places the (at that time) present day Superman at 35 years after Brainiac bottled Kandor.
    This was the mid to late 2000s when Tim Drake is 16 going on 17 and Damian was just or about to be introduced as a 10 years old.
    As of Superman Reborn, Jon was retroactively conceived earlier so using that timeline, and that's the only timeline we can use since Jon met 13 year old Damian at 10 before being aged up, Clark would be 39-40 now.
    Last edited by Restingvoice; 05-04-2021 at 08:39 AM.

  6. #66
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Restingvoice View Post
    I don't remember if I've answered this or not, but since they're already doing it, like, at this point the ages are approximately
    Gordon - White haired and retired
    Bruce - 41 at least
    Harley - Someone with a doctorate and a PHD
    Dick and Babs - Should be 30
    Tim - Young Adult
    Jaime Reyes - Graduating high school
    Billy Batson - High school
    Damian - 14
    My only problem is if everyone else don't age at the same rate.



    There's a book... Brainiac I think... yes... that places the (at that time) present day Superman at 35 years after Brainiac bottled Kandor.
    This was the mid to late 2000s when Tim Drake is 16 going on 17 and Damian was just or about to be introduced as a 10 years old.
    As of Superman Reborn, Jon was retroactively conceived earlier so using that timeline, and that's the only timeline we can use since Jon met 13 year old Damian at 10 before being aged up, Clark would be 39-40 now.
    I haven't really read much of the recent Superman books after the immediate Superman Reborn era so I'm not sure about how the timeline works now with respect to Jon.

    I'm guessing that Clark needs to be at least 40, assuming that Jon was chronologically born 10 years ago. Clark typically starts off as Superman at 25, and I think at least 5 years would have passed before Lois and Clark got married and conceived Jon. Likely more, honestly.

    Incidentially, before Superman Reborn, Clark was almost certainly a lot older, as was Lois. Pre-Flashpoint Superman was at least 35 when Jon was conceived (more likely something like 38), and they spent 10 years living in the New 52 reality. So that'd put them in their late forties. Yet Lois was able to impersonate New 52 Lois, who I guess was in her early thirties at most...but I guess that's just about plausible.
    Last edited by bat39; 05-04-2021 at 12:31 PM.

  7. #67
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    Incidentially, before Superman Reborn, Clark was almost certainly a lot older, as was Lois. Pre-Flashpoint Superman was at least 35 when Jon was conceived (more likely something like 38), and they spent 10 years living in the New 52 reality. So that'd put them in their late forties. Yet Lois was able to impersonate New 52 Lois, who I guess was in her early thirties at most...but I guess that's just about plausible.
    People don't notice Clark has the same face as Superman but you want them to notice that Lois Lane has aged 10+ years?

  8. #68
    Extraordinary Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    7,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I haven't really read much of the recent Superman books after the immediate Superman Reborn era so I'm not sure about how the timeline works now with respect to Jon.

    I'm guessing that Clark needs to be at least 40, assuming that Jon was chronologically born 10 years ago. Clark typically starts off as Superman at 25, and I think at least 5 years would have passed before Lois and Clark got married and conceived Jon. Likely more, honestly.

    Incidentially, before Superman Reborn, Clark was almost certainly a lot older, as was Lois. Pre-Flashpoint Superman was at least 35 when Jon was conceived (more likely something like 38), and they spent 10 years living in the New 52 reality. So that'd put them in their late forties. Yet Lois was able to impersonate New 52 Lois, who I guess was in her early thirties at most...but I guess that's just about plausible.
    Okay I checked. Superman Brainiac was in 2008. So it was after Damian was introduced. Damian has remained 10 from 2006 to 2016.

    Everyone in Present Day New 52 also remains the same age. Dick 21, Bruce 32, Clark 25. Lois I'm guessing around the same as Clark.

    Since Lois wasn't pregnant in Post Crisis but does during Convergence, at least there's 1 year between the end of Post Crisis until Convergence. (Unless I forget if they ever mentioned how much time passed within the bubble cities)

    Then they're transferred to New 52 of 5 years ago until Jon grew up to be 10 in Rebirth, when Damian turned 13

    They didn't spend 10 years in New 52 universe. Only 8 years passed from their arrival. 5 years ago from before New 52 Present Day + Rebirth moving forward 3 years with Damian's birthday.

    It was 10 years from Jon's birth in Convergence, but not 10 years in New 52. Just 8.

    So Lois and Clark, at the time of early Rebirth, would be 46 years old at least.

    Meanwhile, since at the beginning of Rebirth Damian turns 13, the others would be 3 years older as well, placing New 52 Lana at 28 (she's the same age as Clark) and Lois approximately the same.

    Anyway I don't think they think or portray them that detail. Just that they're older. I imagine they imagine them to be only 10 years older instead of almost 20.

    ---

    Taylor who will be writing Jon confirmed the age difference is Damian 14 and Jon 17, so he's still using the Reborn timeline.

  9. #69
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Restingvoice View Post
    Okay I checked. Superman Brainiac was in 2008. So it was after Damian was introduced. Damian has remained 10 from 2006 to 2016.

    Everyone in Present Day New 52 also remains the same age. Dick 21, Bruce 32, Clark 25. Lois I'm guessing around the same as Clark.

    Since Lois wasn't pregnant in Post Crisis but does during Convergence, at least there's 1 year between the end of Post Crisis until Convergence. (Unless I forget if they ever mentioned how much time passed within the bubble cities)

    Then they're transferred to New 52 of 5 years ago until Jon grew up to be 10 in Rebirth, when Damian turned 13

    They didn't spend 10 years in New 52 universe. Only 8 years passed from their arrival. 5 years ago from before New 52 Present Day + Rebirth moving forward 3 years with Damian's birthday.

    It was 10 years from Jon's birth in Convergence, but not 10 years in New 52. Just 8.

    So Lois and Clark, at the time of early Rebirth, would be 46 years old at least.

    Meanwhile, since at the beginning of Rebirth Damian turns 13, the others would be 3 years older as well, placing New 52 Lana at 28 (she's the same age as Clark) and Lois approximately the same.

    Anyway I don't think they think or portray them that detail. Just that they're older. I imagine they imagine them to be only 10 years older instead of almost 20.

    ---

    Taylor who will be writing Jon confirmed the age difference is Damian 14 and Jon 17, so he's still using the Reborn timeline.
    Jon was clearly a newborn when they came to the New 52 universe though. So by that point, the New 52 timeline had 'stretched' to 10 years as opposed to 5.

    Granted, something weird was happening around 2016 with regards to the timelines. This was before the continuity changes from Superman Reborn hit, so technically it was still the New 52 continuity in play, albeit with Pre-Flashpoint Superman flying around (along with Wally, in his New 52 body and age, with Pre-Flashpoint memories). But Damian was now 13, and it was also around 10 years since the Justice League fought Darkseid. And it wasn't really whether the New 52 timeline had just been 'stretched' from 5 years to 10, or if we were supposed to believe that around 5 years had passed since the start of the 'present-day' New 52 (there was a Batman story that apparently mentioned the Court of Owls arc having taken place 5 years ago...)

    Once Superman Reborn happened, the continuity of the DCU got rewritten and we firmly moved to the current version of the timeline, which I think is around 15 years or so. Possibly more.

  10. #70
    Incredible Member Psy-lock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Why not just have humans age a bit slower than irl? Like, let's say the standard life expectancy in the DCU is around 130 or something, so Bruce can do his thing well into his sixties.

  11. #71
    Astonishing Member 9th.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psy-lock View Post
    Why not just have humans age a bit slower than irl? Like, let's say the standard life expectancy in the DCU is around 130 or something, so Bruce can do his thing well into his sixties.
    Good idea but it's not really necessary since old people in fiction don't move like ones in real life



    Also Bruce has robots he can fight crime until he's senile.
    Reading List (Super behind but reading them nontheless):
    DC: Green Lantern, Red Hood, Far Sector, The Other History of the DC Universe, Truth and Justice
    Marvel: HiXmen, Miles Morales: Spider-Man, Immortal Hulk, Daredevil
    LionForge: Noble, Astonisher
    Image: Killadelphia, Bitter Root, Excellence
    IDW: TMNT: The Last Ronin
    Other: XOGeneSYS, Clock Striker, Is'Nana The Were-Spider, Yohance, EXO Wale Williams

  12. #72
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    6,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    The fear of turning characters older is going away. And when your 'mainstream' superheroes are 40-somethings and not in their late 20's/early 30's, you have the potential for multiple generations of characters to co-exist, for younger heroes to age and step up to the plate, for a real sense of legacy.
    At least to me 40-something seems to be kind of the limit (and at least Superman and Batman actually have to be close to 40 because of the ages of Jon and Damian).

    I don't see them have Batman be 50+ in the main continuity.

    Btw. in case of the older Batman in other media they usually didn't age the rest of the Batman characters with him. The DCEU had still a 20-something Harley Quinn, Gordon was still Commissioner, Alfred didn't seem older than usual and the some goes for the Joker.

  13. #73
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psy-lock View Post
    Why not just have humans age a bit slower than irl? Like, let's say the standard life expectancy in the DCU is around 130 or something, so Bruce can do his thing well into his sixties.
    That's one interpretation of what this new Linearverse concept is...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aahz View Post
    At least to me 40-something seems to be kind of the limit (and at least Superman and Batman actually have to be close to 40 because of the ages of Jon and Damian).

    I don't see them have Batman be 50+ in the main continuity.

    Btw. in case of the older Batman in other media they usually didn't age the rest of the Batman characters with him. The DCEU had still a 20-something Harley Quinn, Gordon was still Commissioner, Alfred didn't seem older than usual and the some goes for the Joker.
    As far as Batman being 50+ goes...yeah, I don't see it happening in-universe anytime soon. But 20 years from now, assuming they're still publishing Batman comics in a mainline continuity? Who knows? Our perceptions of age groups and what people of a certain age are meant to look like, or act like, or be capable of, is changing. 40 is the new 30 and all that...

    When it comes to the DCEU, Gordon and Alfred are at the appropriate ages relative to a 45 year old Bruce, according to me. I imagine Gordon as being about 15-20 years older than Bruce, and Alfred as being anywhere between 20-30 years older than Bruce. JK Simmons and Jeremy Irons are aged appropriately relative to Affleck. I guess the problem is that we're used to on-screen portrayals of Alfred looking visibly aged no matter what era of Batman's career they appear in - Michael Caine was in his seventies when he played Alfred to a 30 year old Bruce Wayne. Going by the comics, I think it makes more sense for Alfred to be in his forties or early fifties when Batman is starting out.

    Harley is of course a lot younger, but then again, Harley comes onto the scene a lot later in Batman's career anyway so it makes sense. And Jared Leto is about the same age as Ben Affleck (actually a little older) so again he's age-appropriate there (I know his Joker looks and acts younger, but even if you assume he's five years younger than Leto is, it still works).

  14. #74
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    2,918

    Default

    Every fashion was made to be trendsetting and modern in their time periods, but that doesn't stop them from being dated and out-of-style when their time passes.

    The excuse that Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are meant to appear in "modern day" doesn't hold water since lots of fad supers were also meant to appear in modern day as well.

  15. #75
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PCN24454 View Post
    Every fashion was made to be trendsetting and modern in their time periods, but that doesn't stop them from being dated and out-of-style when their time passes.

    The excuse that Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are meant to appear in "modern day" doesn't hold water since lots of fad supers were also meant to appear in modern day as well.
    These are characters, not zoot suits!

    Edit: Also, they're still fashionable. But they won't be if you purposefully age them up and relegate them to in the past stories. That's just stupid.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •