Heroes having kids - Yes or No?

[The Darknight Detective]

Why wouldn't Robert Pattinson be a valid example? He is literally how DC/WB decided to portray Batman. The point I'm arguing is not that if a 50 year would be an effective running back in the real world (I don't even know what a running back is), the point I'm disagreeing with you is that "DC would never age the Trinity above age XX because of their iconic status". And for this, the underlying logic of professional high impact sports is not that important: yes, in American football specifically, or several kinds of martial arts, there's only so much abuse one can take before having to call it quits because it adds up. Batman doesn't have this concern, he can take infinite abuse and be healed next month. The very tiny amount of realism we have to take into account for is more on the line of "How strong/fast/good looking can a 40 or fifty year old be. How interesting a life can they lead?". And for those aspects, the social perception has changed radically, for a variety of reasons. Now, in the 80s, let's say, "40" evoked the image of a guy with a beer belly, receding hairline and screaming at kids to get off their yard. It was important for DC to keep their main properties under this hypothetical age because of this. Now, that's not so true anymore, and said fact may as well be reflected in comics as it already is in movies or animation.

Heh. Having actually lived during the '80s, we had the recently late Raquel Welch still a sex symbol in her forties. Paul Newman and Robert Redford were still considered highly attractive to the ladies, while Cary Grant in his eighties still was still considered handsome. Elizabeth Taylor by the mid-'80s regained her glamorous image once again, while Joan Collins was still still considered sexy. There are other examples, too, so this alternate Earth you speak of is different from the one I lived on.

But here's how a middle-aged Batman could thrive: he uses the Lazurus Pit judiciously or some other medical wonder to keep him still young, vibrant, and at his peak potential. Not that he couldn't be the latter, regardless, since we're talking about suspending-your-disbelief comics, but at least it would make a lot more sense with some sort of explanation. Though I suspect those wanting to push Bruce into middle age really don't want him to be at his best so a legacy can get the predominant Bat exposure, so that would cause a problem.

[Ascended]

But Clark and Bruce are not that old, regardless. DC won't allow it due to their iconic status.

DC hasn't said it straight out, but I feel like they *are* writing Clark and Bruce as being in their 40's. Clark's idea of a good night is staying home and watching tv with the family, then maybe putting the Warworld armor on after Jon leaves.

Regardless of what age the Kents and Waynes actually are, they're fathers to teenage sons. They're going to be written like they're in their forties even if "officially" they're still 29 or 35 or whatever arbitrary number DC settles on. Hard to feel young when you're scolding your kid for dinging up the fender on the family minivan.

As for the OP, I think it all boils down to the character. The best thing about Roy Harper is his single dad status. Without Lian, Roy isn't half as interesting or compelling. But I'm not cool with Superman having kids, I don't agree with the direction conceptually.

So it all depends on who we're talking about.

[The Darknight Detective]

DC hasn't said it straight out, but I feel like they *are* writing Clark and Bruce as being in their 40's. Clark's idea of a good night is staying home and watching tv with the family, then maybe putting the Warworld armor on after Jon leaves.

My parents were that way when they were still in their twenties, so it's not really a middle-age thing. Children usually pull you that way if you're a good parent. With that said, I can see DC trying to play to both sides of the age issue, which is why their ages are not revealed.

[mathew101281]

I don’t have a problem with heroes having kids if the kids go in a completely different direction from their parents, the problem with most kids in superhero comics is that most of the time they just turn into younger versions of their parents. They either start off as their parents only younger or they morph into pretty much a carbon copy of their parents over time. They have a similar problem to sidekicks that take on their mentor’s mantle.

[Fire Angel]

The point of having children in real life is to continue your gene pool and legacy by giving it to your offspring as you become old and later die.

Thats why big names like Batman and Superman shouldn't be allowed to have kids because their children grow up while they de-age them, the parents, because DC has no intent on letting Clark or Bruce go.

[The Darknight Detective]

I don’t have a problem with heroes having kids if the kids go in a completely different direction from their parents, the problem with most kids in superhero comics is that most of the time they just turn into younger versions of their parents. They either start off as their parents only younger or they morph into pretty much a carbon copy of their parents over time. They have a similar problem to sidekicks that take on their mentor’s mantle.

That's why the original Earth-2 was so great because the GA superheroes could age, have families, and even die. Yet, on Earth-1, you still had the Trinity young and not encumbered with kids. Best of both worlds (and both regularly seen), IMO!

[millernumber1]

Four.

But I agree 100% with your post.

yes, no Steph erasure!

[Ascended]

My parents were that way when they were still in their twenties, so it's not really a middle-age thing. Children usually pull you that way if you're a good parent. With that said, I can see DC trying to play to both sides of the age issue, which is why their ages are not revealed.

That's my point. If you're a parent, you're probably not doing a ton of "young person" things all the time. Clark and Lois could be 20, but if they have a kid to raise (and you want to show them being involved, good parents) then you've got limited page time for the Kents doing "20 year old" stuff, like hitting the club.

DC can say the characters are whatever age they want to say, but nobody is gonna *feel* young when they're raising kids old enough to wear capes. So what does the "official" age matter, when they're gonna act and feel 40 anyway?

[The Darknight Detective]

That's my point. If you're a parent, you're probably not doing a ton of "young person" things all the time. Clark and Lois could be 20, but if they have a kid to raise (and you want to show them being involved, good parents) then you've got limited page time for the Kents doing "20 year old" stuff, like hitting the club.

DC can say the characters are whatever age they want to say, but nobody is gonna *feel* young when they're raising kids old enough to wear capes. So what does the "official" age matter, when they're gonna act and feel 40 anyway?

For the ones with super powers, it doesn't matter as much. For the non-super, however, it matters far more.

[Forlorn]

I think it just depends on the character. I’ve never liked how introducing Jon affected Superman comics, but Damien never caused an issue for Batman in my mind- I think it comes down to Damien fitting into an established niche and Jon not, especially as modern Superman hasn’t really had a sidekick/Robin like figure.

I generally also think non-powered kids are better than powered kids, but that’s just personal feels.

[BohemiaDrinker]

Heh. Having actually lived during the '80s, we had the recently late Raquel Welch still a sex symbol in her forties. Paul Newman and Robert Redford were still considered highly attractive to the ladies, while Cary Grant in his eighties still was still considered handsome. Elizabeth Taylor by the mid-'80s regained her glamorous image once again, while Joan Collins was still still considered sexy. There are other examples, too, so this alternate Earth you speak of is different from the one I lived on.

Idk, did the earth you lived in aired the totally average 30 year olds from "Cheers"? Was the Hulk a strong guy who barely made 30 which looked not as strong as the 40 year old Aquaman of the 2020's? If so, same Earth.

But here's how a middle-aged Batman could thrive: he uses the Lazurus Pit judiciously or some other medical wonder to keep him still young, vibrant, and at his peak potential.

If you want to go that route, sure, they could do that; and Bruce has bathed in Lazarus pits at least twice in the last 20 years. But there's another way they could let Bruce be at his peak physical shape at 40 or even 50. He could "be Batman".

Not that he couldn't be the latter, regardless, since we're talking about suspending-your-disbelief comics, but at least it would make a lot more sense with some sort of explanation.

And that's exactly my point. You said that "since DC want to portray the at their peak" they'l will never be aged over some arbitrary age (40 in this case I think). You used some american football position as an example, I believe, of why an "older" Batman would not be realistic. Batman kicked a god in the face. He swings around the buildings of a fictional city using ropes and last month (or the month before) he fell from the moon to Earth and immediately went to fight a killer robot. I somehow don't think that realism as exemplified by a specific type of athlete is relevant here.

Though I suspect those wanting to push Bruce into middle age really don't want him to be at his best so a legacy can get the predominant Bat exposure, so that would cause a problem.

Sorry, but that's a dishonest presumption. I never said that I "want" Bruce to be older (because I don't really care), nor implied that I want someone else to take over as Batman (I don't). What I did say is that Dc "could" do it because perception of age has changed from 40 years ago to now, and it has. If you're reacting to anything else, you're reacting to nothing I said, meant or implied.

[dietrich]

They can't be. The Justice League has been active for 15 years at this point and Batman's a founder. He would've also had to be in his mid 20s already when he took in Dick, which he did very early in his career. And then there's Damian's age to consider, when did Bruce first meet his mother Talia? He's probably been Batman for nearly 20 years. Same goes for Clark being Superman, though of course he'll look young for some time anyway, his problem is avoiding aging Lois up too much. But her being in her 40s is fine. They had a will they won't they thing going on for years when she loved Superman rather than Clark, then she finds out they're one and the same, she marries him and they have Jon. Who was 11 years old pre-ageup. And bear in mind their wedding was after Death of Superman. Young Justice needs aging up to early 20s and Jon's origin needs tweaking, as he's five years too old for the timeline to work even before he went off with Jor-El (otherwise Conner is too young, but he shouldn't be aged up that far as Tim should be 21 which would make his age gap to Damian match how it was pre-Flashpoint). They probably need to have spent time in a pocket universe or something, which would age Clark up further.

I mean they can be. It depends on how individually we decide to prioritise everything you mentioned.

Bruce is around 35 to me. That's how I read him. That's what I see. I know his youngest is 14 and that he became a parent to an 8yr old early in his career as Batman [he would be in his early 20's]

I know that his 3rd Robin should be his 20's but I still read Batman as in his 30's. I know that the fact that Dick is in his 20's must make Bruce older than 30's yet I still interpret him as 30's.

The parts that don't make sense my mind ignores. I feel to some extent all comic fans do this. If we didn't then everything falls apart. Comic continuity doesn't make sense.

[The Darknight Detective]

Idk, did the earth you lived in aired the totally average 30 year olds from "Cheers"? Was the Hulk a strong guy who barely made 30 which looked not as strong as the 40 year old Aquaman of the 2020's? If so, same Earth.

If you want to go that route, sure, they could do that; and Bruce has bathed in Lazarus pits at least twice in the last 20 years. But there's another way they could let Bruce be at his peak physical shape at 40 or even 50. He could "be Batman".



And that's exactly my point. You said that "since DC want to portray the at their peak" they'l will never be aged over some arbitrary age (40 in this case I think). You used some american football position as an example, I believe, of why an "older" Batman would not be realistic. Batman kicked a god in the face. He swings around the buildings of a fictional city using ropes and last month (or the month before) he fell from the moon to Earth and immediately went to fight a killer robot. I somehow don't think that realism as exemplified by a specific type of athlete is relevant here.



Sorry, but that's a dishonest presumption. I never said that I "want" Bruce to be older (because I don't really care), nor implied that I want someone else to take over as Batman (I don't). What I did say is that Dc "could" do it because perception of age has changed from 40 years ago to now, and it has. If you're reacting to anything else, you're reacting to nothing I said, meant or implied.

Okay, since this is exactly a month later after I made my post, I had to figure out what the hell you're talking about. So I'll summarize: you asserted a middle-aged Batman could be still at his peak. Now I basically stated this was ridiculous without giving him some fictional help, so you began to talk about all these comparable (not) examples of actors and professional wrestlers following a script that haven't taken collectively remotely the pounding Batman takes in a comic.

Now I'm not going down these side streets that you try steering me anymore, so just answer this question please: can Batman be just as effective in his forties without editorial help? The answer seems pretty easy to me, but maybe you know of some people who have had as many broken bones (including their spines), concussions, etc. as Bruce has had in his fictional career, yet still are at his or her best. But if you're going to talk about Jason Momoa being stronger looking than Lou Ferrigno (what? ) or Robert Pattinson and the Rock as comparable to fictional Bats (not to mention the race of Supermen around now, despite the fact that there were guys like Arnold and Lou around 40 years ago), then you can bypass this post.

[Sandy Hausler]

When I was growing up, a lot of DC heroes had younger versions hanging around - Batman, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Arrow, and eventually Hawkman.

I think Aquaman was the first to have a child, who unfortunately died.

I kind of like the idea, although I wish they wouldn't rush the child into its teen years too quickly.

Wait, they'll bring him back as a villain with daddy issues.

[BohemiaDrinker]

can Batman be just as effective in his forties without editorial help?

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.

The answer seems pretty easy to me, but maybe you know of some people who have had as many broken bones (including their spines), concussions, etc. as Bruce has had in his fictional career, yet still are at his or her best. But if you're going to talk about Jason Momoa being stronger looking than Lou Ferrigno (what? ) or Robert Pattinson and the Rock as comparable to fictional Bats (not to mention the race of Supermen around now, despite the fact that there were guys like Arnold and Lou around 40 years ago), then you can bypass this post.

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.