Why don't Superheroes have kids?

the last son

Superhero
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
5,349
Reaction score
77
Points
33
In today's society where it seems everyone has kids, why haven't there been any superheroes with kids and raising families. The only ones I can think of in film were Superman in Returns and Punisher in 2004. Hellboy and his girlfriend are expecting, but other than that isn't that it? I understand that superheroes usually don't have time because of their dedication to their craft but still. I'm not complaining because I don't want to see that, but was just doing some thinking.
 
Because the people running the comic industry right now want the comics to reflect a perpetual adolescence they long to regain. Having kids and raising a family requires that the characters have emotional maturity and a solid, stable relationship, neither of which are compatible with a swinging single lifestyle.

Also, its not technically true. Reed and Sue have kids, and have had them for quite some time. They are a nigh-unique exception, though.
 
IN the books there are alot who have kids. F4, Batman, Wolverine, Cyclops and Jean Grey, Banshee, Inhumans, Odin, Loki etc

As far as films it's more limited cause I think it's extremely difficult to pull off and can come off lame. People want to see these guys kicking ass and and getting heart broken not showing their parenting skills in the short 2 hour span with whiney kids. To do that properly it takes time. With something like Incredibles it works perfectly cause thats the message and the tone is upbeat, but with Superman Returns I know that was a boring turn for me and alot of my friends. Parenting melodrama aint exactly whats getting most to the theatre for these characters.

Think there was a big issue with DC this year about just having characters getting married alone.
 
Last edited:
I think it's because there aren't many parental heroes in the comics.But I would hope to see Franklin in a FF movie someday.
 
I also just think it takes time to get around to something like that.

The examples Def listed above pretty much all took years to get to in the comics, so to cover enough ground to introduce children within, say, a trilogy of films, is a bit difficult to pull off. You have to be good and connected to these characters before they start introducing the Bat-family or Wolvie-Family or any others.

The FF could probably pull it off within a trilogy I suppose, and Wolverine's had enough films to introduce X-23 or maybe the Red Right Hand (as long as Daken gets introduced and killed off within the same film, god I hate that mutt)
 
Some have kids but very few are shown to be raising them.

Cable was sent to the future to be raised.
Damian Wayne wasn't raised by Bruce
Daken wasn't raised by Wolverine.

Not sure about the others. Though I think Reed and Sue we're shown raising Franklin and Valeria
 
Cause they like to focus on making stories and not be hindered by how to write children?
 
I think it's because most superheroes don't age and if you introduce a kid both characters have to age if you don't want to have a little kid every issue for for 400 issues.
 
In today's society where it seems everyone has kids, why haven't there been any superheroes with kids and raising families. The only ones I can think of in film were Superman in Returns and Punisher in 2004. Hellboy and his girlfriend are expecting, but other than that isn't that it? I understand that superheroes usually don't have time because of their dedication to their craft but still. I'm not complaining because I don't want to see that, but was just doing some thinking.

The target audience for most superhero films and comics is children and teenagers. 25 is the cut-off for Hollywood in their summer blockbuster target demographic. Sure there are exceptions, but that's the rule.

Most people under 25 don't (hopefully) have children. As it "ages" the character and gives them more of a paternal instinct. Ironically, that is why Robin was created for Batman in the '40s and simultaneously what Lee and Ditko were rebelling against when they created Peter Parker.

It is why neither Peter Parker nor Clark Kent stayed married in the comics and one reason to have reboots. Reed and Sue Storm are the only exception I can think of in comics. Rumor has it that in the next Fantastic Four movie reboot, they will be teenagers. So do not expect to see that crossover anytime soon.
 
On glorious exception from the 1990s and 2000s eras of comics.

tumblr_m5sqaoXZxu1qa6xpso1_1280.jpg

tumblr_mlml2gR18A1qk4ytno9_500.jpg


Sigh. Marvel erased Maday Parker and her universe just as much as they retconned her out of existence (and for all intents and purposes, her mother) in regular continuity. After all, they cannot have any interesting or unique iteration of Peter in any timeline these days.
 
DACrowe said:
It is why neither Peter Parker nor Clark Kent stayed married in the comics and one reason to have reboots. Reed and Sue Storm are the only exception I can think of in comics. Rumor has it that in the next Fantastic Four movie reboot, they will be teenagers. So do not expect to see that crossover anytime soon.

That would be a shame. The family aspect is what makes the Fantastic Four unique. Making Reed, Ben, and Sue into teenagers doesn't do justice to their characters.
 
Batman has figurative children. Robin, Batgirl, etc. They're his equals in some ways and his offspring in others.
 
ERB allowed Tarzan to marry and have children. Of course, ERB also had Tarzan as a British lord who did not have a 9-5 job. (Prior to the Green Hornet, fewer heroes had jobs to balance with their adventures-the Green Hornet worked as a newspaper publisher. Since 1936, more heroes seem to have 9-5 jobs instead of just independent wealth.)
http://lorendiac.livejournal.com/4207.html

(I mentioned in Part 1 that when Edgar Rice Burroughs wanted to give Tarzan a son almost 80 years ago, he introduced the existence of the “baby” at the start of one novel, and then simply jumped forward at least ten years before the start of the next novel, so that we quickly reached the point where “Jack,” now a young adolescent in superb physical condition, could get lost in the African jungle and prove he was a chip off the old block by living off the land and acquiring the catchy nickname of Korak the Killer. But ERB’s characters stayed “creator-owned” during his lifetime, and his family has maintained the final say on Tarzan-related matters ever since. As a general rule, writers of the Corporate-Owned big names in superhero continuity aren’t allowed to skip ahead so fast and furious between installments unless they want it labeled Elseworlds or something. After all, in John Byrne’s first Superman/Batman: Generations storyline, he was able to skip ahead a decade at a time for reasons similar to ERB’s . . . but just try and get away with that in “mainstream continuity” with characters who are supposed to be perpetually twentysomething or thirtysomething years old!)

http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showthread.php?123027-Superhero-Reproduction-Part-1-quot-We-can-t-follow-the-normal-timetable!-quot&highlight=Tarzan
“Continuity within a larger universe of superheroes” and the consistently slow passage of time are the main culprits here. Those are problems previous “action heroes” in other mediums didn’t have to cope with. As an example of how easily raising a child worked out for another Big Name in the action hero business, let us consider the example of one of the earliest and best of the classic “pulp heroes” of the early 20th Century – Tarzan of the Apes, created by Edgar Rice Burroughs. (ERB for short.)
The first four Tarzan novels are:
1. Tarzan of the Apes
2. The Return of Tarzan
3. The Beasts of Tarzan
4. The Son of Tarzan
In #1, Tarzan was born, grew up, met Jane and fell in love with her, and started to get more-or-less integrated into Western culture. (He learned to speak French and English, for starters.)
In #2, Tarzan married Jane at the very end of the book.
#3 started out about two years later, with Tarzan receiving word that their baby son Jack had just been kidnapped. This was mainly a plot device to give Tarzan and Jane ample excuse to run all over the place, seeking revenge on the master villain who had arranged the kidnapping. Eventually the kid turned up, safe and sound, of course, having basically spent the entire novel “offstage” where he wouldn’t slow down the action of the plot by needing his diapers changed or a fresh bottle of milk heated for him every few hours.
#4 started out by re-introducing a villain who had been the sidekick of the master villain in #’s 2 and 3, stating that the master villain had now been dead for “ten years” (ever since the final scenes of #3). Jack ended up being abducted and living in the jungle (following in his father’s footsteps, of course) for awhile as an incredibly strong and resourceful adolescent boy. After all, he was the title character this time!
See how neatly it worked? All that messy stuff about nine months of pregnancy, followed by the actual delivery, followed by at least the first few months of Jack’s life as an infant before his kidnapping, magically occurred when we weren’t looking, somewhere in between the final chapter of #2 and the opening chapter of #3. But ERB simply skipped right over those “two years” because there was nothing breathtakingly exciting about them from his point of view. And after the loving parents got the baby back, the next decade or so of his life was skipped between #3 and #4! No details about dirty diapers, teaching him to talk, teaching him to read and write, etc., were ever provided. ERB wasn’t interested in telling us all that “mundane” stuff that we could just as easily see and hear and smell at home taking care of our own children or younger siblings, so he skipped ahead to when the Son of Tarzan was old enough to conceivably take care of himself during adventures of his own! (Meanwhile, of course, there was absolutely no sign that the passage of time was reducing Tarzan’s own strength and stamina in any noticeable way that would prevent him from starring in other adventure stories later.)
ERB could do that simply by typing his manuscripts that way. Who was going to stop him? But as a general rule of thumb, the writers on the monthly titles about Superman and Batman and Spider-Man and the X-Men can’t. Why not? Because of this thing called Continuity, and the associated concept of Very Slow Aging in order to keep characters from getting “too old” too fast.
ERB didn’t mind a bit if Tarzan must logically have been aging from his late teens, to his twenties, to his thirties, to his forties, etc., as time went by. He could have Tarzan and his son both fight in World War I; he could have Tarzan (a grandfather by then) fighting again in World War II. ERB could get away with that because he created and owned his own characters, and nobody could second-guess him and “force” him to throw away a story idea because of “continuity problems” it would create regarding the passage of time “in continuity” for dozens of other writers working on a hundred other heroes who were supposedly all living in the “same universe” with Tarzan and all aging at the “same rate.”
Edgar Rice Burroughs (ERB) was one of the first writers of “action hero” material to feel the need to retcon something like this into his leading man’s life. Tarzan fought German soldiers in East Africa in World War I; and it was also established that his son Korak the Killer was old enough to wear a military uniform during that war (airman in the RAF, I believe). A few decades later, ERB had Tarzan wearing a colonel’s uniform in Southeast Asia during World War II. With various of his stories being closely tied to actual historical events, he should have been getting pretty long in the tooth by the 1940s, and even his son Korak should have been pushing fifty or more . . .
But Tarzan, as described in the novel, did not have gray hair and wrinkles, nor had he lost any of his incredible strength and stamina over the years. Toward the end of this novel — Tarzan and the Foreign Legion — Tarzan told some new friends a story about his saving the life of a witch doctor way back when, with the result that the witch doctor had gratefully dosed him with a secret potion that allegedly made the patient “immortal” — in the sense of “ageless — although not “unkillable.”
 
I would say that in general at least in terms of the films, most heroes simply do not have time for families. They are usually portrayed to be overwhelmed with work/ their duty to protect that they simply do not have the time to have a family especially kids.

Plus a huge theme/ plot ploy used in many of the movies thus far is the struggle between a normal life and a superheroes life. The balance of having a girlfriend is one that causes enough inner conflict that throwing in a child into the mix wouldnt make much sense. Especially when most of the issues with having a significant other in the comic movies is how do i protect what means most to me when I know my enemies will target them.

Finally, most of the heroes as I already said are either too busy or too worried to have a real relationship, so introducing a child that they would inevitably neglect is not very heroic and makes cheering for them, especially in today's society difficult when you know that continuing a life of a superhero potentially puts their family and child in constant danger.
 
I would say that in general at least in terms of the films, most heroes simply do not have time for families. They are usually portrayed to be overwhelmed with work/ their duty to protect that they simply do not have the time to have a family especially kids.

Plus a huge theme/ plot ploy used in many of the movies thus far is the struggle between a normal life and a superheroes life. The balance of having a girlfriend is one that causes enough inner conflict that throwing in a child into the mix wouldnt make much sense. Especially when most of the issues with having a significant other in the comic movies is how do i protect what means most to me when I know my enemies will target them.

Finally, most of the heroes as I already said are either too busy or too worried to have a real relationship, so introducing a child that they would inevitably neglect is not very heroic and makes cheering for them, especially in today's society difficult when you know that continuing a life of a superhero potentially puts their family and child in constant danger.

To Nolan's credit, he goes that route for the first two movies...and then chooses to end the third with the hero retiring and having time for what symbolically would be a family (as emphasized by Alfred saying, "Seeing you with your wife. Maybe a couple of kids." Albeit, him actually fully settling down with Selina Kyle is wisely left up to the viewer given their...distinct personalities.

However, fans really also hate that ending. :hehe:

I do think there is the classic "balancing act" struggle that Raimi actually depicted very well in Spider-Man 2 (the less said about SM3, the better). A lot have copied that approach to lesser success. I actually like the Iron Man movies for just being different. Tony and Pepper have a fantastic relationship when he is not fighting some world threatening plot. They basically are married. But of course Marvel would never allow him to cross that line, as it makes an older character appear even older.
 
It is a matter of preference; generally speaking, I do not want to read about kids in my comics. The only exception is Damian Wayne; but, since he is dead, the point is moot. Do not get me wrong: I enjoy reading about kids in a different vestige of the pulps--namely, the Hardy Boys books, which I own almost all of the original run (didn't care for the Case Files or the rebooted James Patterson-y take on them.)
 
On glorious exception from the 1990s and 2000s eras of comics.

tumblr_m5sqaoXZxu1qa6xpso1_1280.jpg

tumblr_mlml2gR18A1qk4ytno9_500.jpg


Sigh. Marvel erased Maday Parker and her universe just as much as they retconned her out of existence (and for all intents and purposes, her mother) in regular continuity. After all, they cannot have any interesting or unique iteration of Peter in any timeline these days.
At least this run stayed, and was endorsed by Joey Q
 
I never got why so many geeks don't like kids, when in many ways our interests has their basis in kid stuff.

Personally, I love kids!

I can't wait for my daughter to get older (she's only 7 months), then I can show her all of the comics, cartoons and movies I grew up with:yay: hope she'll like it!:woot: If she's not interested, I can always give some of my comics to my nephew.
 
because being a superhero is very a dangerous, and time consuming job... not only do most heroes not have time to raise a family, but, fear the consequences of the enemy find out about their kids

also a lot of superheroes were orphans them self(s) at a young age, and wouldn't want to have to put their own kids through that if anything were to happen to them

I never got why so many geeks don't like kids, when in many ways our interests has their basis in kid stuff.

Personally, I love kids!
thats exactly the problem all they want to do is play with my toys, and get there sticky little hands all over my comics...
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,554
Messages
21,759,170
Members
45,594
Latest member
evilAIS
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"