Heroes having kids - Yes or No?

[The Darknight Detective]

He can, 'cause he's Batman. I understand you think this is a hard or even impossible sell, and all I'm saying is that I don't think DC necessarily sees it this way.

You said it yourself, the guy has his spine broken and six months later (or something) was getting a Lady Shiva crash course. The reason Bruce, or Clark, or Barry never passed a certain age is not because it wouldn't be realistic. It's because said age ( I think it was 29 up to the late 90's, then Bruce is said to be over 35 around RIP) was the limit of being considered "socially" old. Sure, physical limitations have been used as a plot point more than once - and still are, sometimes - but they also have just as often been ignored.

Then why haven't DC brought him to middle age? Because once they state he's in his forties, then fans of other Bat-family characters will be bemoaning why he or she can't take Bruce's place. They would have a point, too, because those younger superheroes would haver bodies in better shape to take on crime in Gotham. There's even a precedent for it - the Batman of Earth-2 was semi-retired by the time he turned fifty, while Dick and Helena took over.

Bruce could be Batman well beyond middle age, IMO, and be enjoyable to read. But he wouldn't be the best of the Bat family long before that happened. It would be illogical to think Dick, Tim, Jason, Damien, etc. couldn't kick his butt by then and would be unfair to fans of those characters, IMO.

[BohemiaDrinker]

Then why haven't DC brought him to middle age? Because once they state he's in his forties, then fans of other Bat-family characters will be bemoaning why he or she can't take Bruce's place. They would have a point, too, because those younger superheroes would haver bodies in better shape to take on crime in Gotham. There's even a precedent for it - the Batman of Earth-2 was semi-retired by the time he turned fifty, while Dick and Helena took over.

Depends on what your threshold on middle age is. He was said to be over 35 in RIP, but after the New52 ages get iffy. And he still could kick the collective asses of his protegés excluding Cass. Not to mention, most characters that are on par with Bruce fighting wise are also on that age range: Shiva, Bronze Tiger, etc. The same argument you posit here was once used to heroes not turning 30, or having children. Perceptions change, and with them, the characters sometimes do as well.

Bruce could be Batman well beyond middle age, IMO, and be enjoyable to read. But he wouldn't be the best of the Bat family long before that happened. It would be illogical to think Dick, Tim, Jason, Damien, etc. couldn't kick his butt by then and would be unfair to fans of those characters, IMO.

Well, I wouldn't buy a 70 year old Batman, for sure. But a 40 something? I don't think it's a big deal at all, not today.

[The Darknight Detective]

Depends on what your threshold on middle age is. He was said to be over 35 in RIP, but after the New52 ages get iffy. And he still could kick the collective asses of his protegés excluding Cass. Not to mention, most characters that are on par with Bruce fighting wise are also on that age range: Shiva, Bronze Tiger, etc. The same argument you posit here was once used to heroes not turning 30, or having children. Perceptions change, and with them, the characters sometimes do as well.

Except nobody in my lifespan thought being in your thirties was middle aged. It was 40 that people started thinking you were over the hill. BTW, people were in better shape (at least in America) 40 years ago than they are today. It shouldn't be the case, but it unfortunately is.

[AJpyro]

Yes. Because if they're gonna reboot anyway, why not go al the way and go the distance of Grandkids and descendants.

[BohemiaDrinker]

Except nobody in my lifespan thought being in your thirties was middle aged. It was 40 that people started thinking you were over the hill.

But that's sort of my point. 40 used to be "over the hill", and it isn't anymore. Batman and Superman, at the same time, were perpetually 29, and aren't anymore. At least on movies, DC made a conscious to have some of its heroes start their careers a little later in life - and that's where Pattison or Cavill as examples are relevant, sorry if I wasn't able to express it clearly: it's not about either of them being able to actually take the damage Batman would (they're actors) or close to it. It's about how DC/WB decided to portray these characters.

BTW, people were in better shape (at least in America) 40 years ago than they are today. It shouldn't be the case, but it unfortunately is.

On average, I don't doubt that (It was not the case here 40 years ago, but 50 years ago, it was). Still, average age of marriage, life expectancy an all those "old people" indicators have gone up. Media reflects (and IMO even potentializes) that.

[protege]

My view is very similar: Unless part of the origin or the characters' early years by their creators (think Franklin Richards), kids are a mistake.

Batman should have no biological sons, only his adopted "sons."

Superman...no kids whatsoever.

I wasn't a fan of Superdad, until they aged Jon up a bit, but now Clark and Lois have two more super kids to deal with.

[Goldrake]

Definitely Yes.

Never understood why superheroes can't have a "normal" life or that heroes can't be happy.
If written well kids can give depth to these characters.
For example the best addition in Aquaman has had in the last years was giving him and Mera a daughter, Andy.

[Forlorn]

It depends on the hero. Damien works for me, because his origins and such make him fit the Robin niche well. I don’t like Jon(even kid Jon) because Super-dad doesn’t interest me. Wally having kids is fine, I just have mixed feelings about them having powers. I think it just totally depends on the character.

[TheRay]

Having kids just for the sake of a “legacy”, no.
But I definitely think heroes should have kids. If we’re doing a natural timeline, then it makes sense for children to be in there eventually. It’s

[Stanlos]

Then why haven't DC brought him to middle age? Because once they state he's in his forties, then fans of other Bat-family characters will be bemoaning why he or she can't take Bruce's place. They would have a point, too, because those younger superheroes would haver bodies in better shape to take on crime in Gotham. There's even a precedent for it - the Batman of Earth-2 was semi-retired by the time he turned fifty, while Dick and Helena took over.

Bruce could be Batman well beyond middle age, IMO, and be enjoyable to read. But he wouldn't be the best of the Bat family long before that happened. It would be illogical to think Dick, Tim, Jason, Damien, etc. couldn't kick his butt by then and would be unfair to fans of those characters, IMO.

Well isn't his whole thing is he's a regular guy with means and conviction born of early childhood trauma?

It is inevitable that should he miraculously not get killed he will age out or become physically unable to carry on. Sooooooooo the others will carry on. They aren't just going to up and quit.

[TheRay]

There’s nothing wrong with it in regards to timelines either. Regardless of the multiverse or Omniverse or whatever, you also have time travel built in to comics and you can always just have one book set in one point in time and another book set a different point. We’ve seen those types of things before, people have met each other, etc.