Heroes having kids - Yes or No?

[dornwolf]

And adopting young kids after what they did with their own bio kid is, rather concerning as well.

But if the Jon age up HADN'T happened, I wouldn't mind the adoption.

No unasked for (and unneeded) huge age ups, just let them progress normally.

Let’s be honest if Jon wasn’t aged up the twins wouldn’t exist. They are only there because Jon has been aged up and DC doesn’t want bad PR for deaging the bi-Superman to 10 years old.

Keep in mind I say all that while acknowledging that Superman and Lois as adoptive parents makes a crap ton of sense

[Factor]

I’m fine with some of them having kids.
But I do think they’re overdoing things now. I think they should focus on the families they already have rather than introducing even more legacies.
I can’t think of any character that NEEDS a kid right now.

[Jackalope89]

Let’s be honest if Jon wasn’t aged up the twins wouldn’t exist. They are only there because Jon has been aged up and DC doesn’t want bad PR for deaging the bi-Superman to 10 years old.

Keep in mind I say all that while acknowledging that Superman and Lois as adoptive parents makes a crap ton of sense

Under other circumstances, I would agree. But their decisions with Jon when Bendis took over raise some major red flags.

[married guy]

Kids are fine if there's a natural aging of all of the characters. However, since the Big Two are IP farms and the Trinity prohibits real aging at DC, they kind of cause a logjam that will need to be cleared sometime down the road.

And THIS is a MAJOR issue!!
For Jon to be even 10 years old would mean Lois and Clark are at LEAST in their mid 30s. (Both are shown to have a history as reporters and Pulitzer prize winners)
Yet I think both are portrayed as being in their 20s.

Bruce is say, 30. Yet he's had 6 Robins and has a kid who's not yet a teenager. How could you drop out of several universities and learn at the feet of masters of fighting & detective skills, have a history as a costumed vigilante and still be as young as he's portrayed??

Don't even get me started on the Barry/Wally/Iris/Linda dynamic. What a mess. The once kid sidekick is portrayed as being older than his uncle & aunt!!

Yes, it's comics. Shrug and go along for the ride. But I'd rather see the characters aging (not so much Savage Dragon real-time, but...).

[Lightning Rider]

Some should have kids. Some should adopt kids. Some of those kids should become heroes in time, some not. Some others should never have kids. An homogenous universe is boring.

This.

I'm kinda fearing a corny kids team where everyone has a kid but it hasn't happened...yet.

[Lightning Rider]

Jon Kent, that one does NOT make sense. He was born after the wedding, which was after Death of Superman. The problem is that Conner Kent debuted in Death of Superman, and therefore Jon being 11 already before his age up means that Conner should be 11 years older than when he debuted too - and he isn't, he and the other three main Young Justice kids are five years older than when they debuted at the most. Jon and Conner's backstories are incompatible, Jon needs his origin revising.

Oh ****. Lol. That is a mess.

[Incognito]

I don't mind heroes having children whether they are biological or adopted especially if it's set in an else world but in the main continuity only a very limited amount they should focus on the families they already have.

[Zero Hunter]

The problem with kids is writers are usually so lazy they go with one of 3 plots with them. Kill them, age them up, or give them powers. Giving Wally kids and then aging them up and giving them powers RUINED the Flash book for a very long time. Sometimes kids work like Jon Kent before Bendis came in and ruined him, but these new orphan kids are not going to stick around long because no one cares about them because everyone can see they are just trying to fix the mistake they made with aging Jon up by adding new characters.

[Eskana]

Personally, since I'm a fan of actually aging superheroes and ending their stories (if feel like having an ACTUAL ending makes the previous stories have more value), I do like the idea of kids. But as others have mentioned, it has to be the right way. Not just as a whiney brat who constantly needs to be saved, stops the hero from ever being themselves, or inherits the powers and is somehow more powerful than their parent(s).

But, on the other hand, I NEVER thought I wanted to see Superman with kids until I saw "Superman and Lois" and realized he can be a great dad. But that show also helped by skipping the little-kid years. I like Wally having kids. I also like how some heroes have younger kids, who did become a target once (was it in "Event Leviathan"? Or "Checkmate"?) when the villains discovered the playdate being held at one of the heroes' house, such as the home of Scott and Barda Free. I also free that having a "daughter" helped bring Booster Gold more towards the older, more mature time-cop role. Even though Rani could be annoying and wasn't a popular choice.

So, overall, I guess I am in favor, while it has to serve a story purpose and not distract from who the hero is. Build them up, don't tear them down!

I’m fine with some of them having kids.
But I do think they’re overdoing things now. I think they should focus on the families they already have rather than introducing even more legacies.
I can’t think of any character that NEEDS a kid right now.

I would agree with this as well. I don't want them to introduce NEW kids. Just stick with the ones they have. I wouldn't want them to introduce kids just to try to diversify things and try to replace the heroes à la 5G.

[Stick Figure]

Having kids is fine but I agree there has to be some gradual aging of everyone involved. As Damien matures, we’ve got to see changes in Batman. He can’t just jump off rooftops forever. There are so many good character stories if writers let the characters truly evolve.

[Jim Kelly]

Children are like putting an alarm clock on board a rocket ship sent into space, then checking the time on that clock against your watch when it gets back to Earth. The time on the clock is always off.

[The Darknight Detective]

Having kids is fine but I agree there has to be some gradual aging of everyone involved. As Damien matures, we’ve got to see changes in Batman. He can’t just jump off rooftops forever. There are so many good character stories if writers let the characters truly evolve.

But since Bruce is always going to be at his peak, then what is the point of trying to do this stilted way of aging the characters via children? It would have been one thing if the aging of the characters was ingrained starting in 1938, but that's a moot point now.

[Marvel Wars]

The body of Bruce regenerated at the end of Snyder's run is no more in continuity ?

[Timber Wolf-By-Night]

Off-topic, but at this point all the roof-top jumping he's done should have left Bruce with arthritis everywhere below the waist. (As well as all the rooftop humping, thank you not one bit Judd Winick and Bruce Timm for those images....)

[BohemiaDrinker]

But since Bruce is always going to be at his peak, then what is the point of trying to do this stilted way of aging the characters via children? It would have been one thing if the aging of the characters was ingrained starting in 1938, but that's a moot point now.

While I'd say that most of the silver age guys are in some sort of "perpetual 35" at the age department, there's the simple fact that we humans changed a little along the way. We look younger, live longer and are generally healthier. People can and do sustain their "peaks" for a longer time now, and as that societal view changes, comics can reflect them.

Sure, to someone who started reading in the 60s, 70s or even 80s, a 30 year old Superman may seem old. But a 30 year old in 2023 barely stepped out of his teens, in comparison.