If the Marvel and DC universes could just remove all references to what in-character year it is (say, by having Lex Luthor be president instead of someone real, for example) then the Superman story from 3 years ago real time could easilly have been 3 months ago story time.

Lets say that Daredevil begins an involved story arc. A story arc so detailed that events that happen to DD, Matt Murdock, Kingpin, etc., etc. all get “camera time” in every issue. Lets say that this story arc shows every significant event in a one week period, and takes up 15 issues of Daredevil’s life. Why should we, the readers, expect Daredevil to celebrate Christmas twice in that week? Why should we expect Daredevil’s life to otherwise be event free for the next 14 months to catch up?

The original topic, however, had to do with children. And, I firmly believe that the reason we don’t see a lot of child characters in comic books is because everyone has a different definition of how they expect a “real” child to act and behave. And, so, the writers and editors begin to second guess what is or isn’t “realistic”. And, then the whole thing falls apart.

Anyone else remember the fan letter in an early issue of Power Pack where a reader claims that Katie, a 5 year old, should be speaking pidgeon-talk? The editor explains that Katie is five, not two.

Anyone else remember Franklin wearing the 4 1/2 uniform while crying and needing his diaper changed? (I, personally, think that Franklin was only really done “right” when he was Tattletale.)

I think that the reason children aren’t in comic books isn’t because they aren’t interesting, or because the writers don’t know how to write them, but because the writers and editors don’t trust the readers to relate to them.

Theno

Aging doesn’t mean development and development doesn’t mean aging, whether it is in comics or real life, and is silly to say otherwise. Have Aunt May die for good (again, I know) and Peter have his I.D. public (again), for example, would develop him much more than suddenly having grey hair and being as old as J.J.J, and it all could have done in a few issues.

I was a DC and Marvel reader in those days and I will admit that I was one who disliked the Earth-2 scenarios, not that I was philosophically against it (aging etc.), but rather trying to read a DC comic was an exercise in sorting out the spaghetti lines of continuity… Batman is dead, no he’s not; thats Wonder Woman’s daughter, no she doesn’t, yes she has etc.

So yeah, the young me just disliked the continuity sorting needed to read DC comics back then. Of course, its not politically correct to admit that you like continuity and consistent “universes” these days – but thats how it was for a 15 year old reader back then. I definitely preferred the Marvel Universe to the DC universe back in the early 80s/late 70s. Things were just that much neater and straight in the MU back then. So yeah, I was one of the fans confused by this and I would have written in if there was an internet back then.

Of course, the irony of it (and the fashion fad as it would seem), continuity is a dirty word now. And Marvel is king of the alternate realities (Cable – explain lineage and history – in a concise sentence – unpossible). And the Ultimates bla-bla-bla etc.

Yes, you’re right. DC already had that, once upon a time: It was called Earth-2. That was a nifty place where Batman married Catwoman and begat the Huntress, and Wonder Woman married Steve Trevor and begat the Fury, and Clark married Lois (though they didn’t begat anybody), and they had adventures in Justice Society and Infinity Inc. And it was good. And meanwhile on Earth-1, Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman could remain younger and single and have exciting adventures without growing older. And fans weren’t confused by this at all, but somehow this bizarre meme creeped throughout the DC offices that we were confused, and that they needed to do something about it. And then …

Well, you know the rest. [shrugs, rolls eyes]

Rene, I understand what you mean about that silly stuff being reversible but it’s really about ALL of it being reversible. Think about it: we are on the cusp of BOTH mainstream companies doing a major reboot (Final Crisis) and a massive retcon (Secret Invasion). In the end, that isn’t going to bring in new readers and I highly doubt that anything being done in those stories will stick no matter how high profile events may be. It’s a way to say to the long term fans: “Hey, all that stuff you’ve been reading doesn’t count” because they’ve stepped on their own privates too many times and it’s getting harder to mash all that stuff into “continuity”.
Hell, one of the biggest moments in Spider-Man’s history in the last decade (the public unmasking) was retconned just months after, taking away any impact it had for fans as well as unexplored avenues of storytelling stemming from it.

There are 40-60 years of “iconic” stories sitting on the bookshelves of your local comic shop or even Barnes & Noble’s. The material is there for anyone who wants it.

At the risk of plugging my own web site, it was about 1968 for the Fatastic Four as well. http://www.enterthestory.com/realtime_marvel_1960s.html

In iconic storytelling, the characters don’t age or change over time, and there’s little or no continuity between tales. Examples would be DC comics in the ’60s, ‘Beetle Bailey,’ and ‘The Simpsons.’ Continuity-driven storytelling features characters who move through time, growing, changing, aging, and dying, and we follow their lives from story to story. Examples would be Marvel in the ’60s, ‘Gasoline Alley,’ and ‘The X-Files.’

Either approach works fine and provides satisfying entertainment. What doesn’t work is trying to have it both ways, which Marvel & DC have been trying to do for decades. Mixing the two approaches doesn’t completely satisfy anybody, as evidenced by discussions like this one.

Having two separate lines (one iconic, one continuity-driven) doesn’t necessarily mean one must be primary and one secondary. They’re just two distinct product lines. Fans would decide which was primary and which secondary to them, based on their individual preferences.

Let’s pretend Marvel adopted this strategy. In the iconic line, the focus would be on the characters — Spider-Man, Hulk, etc. — who would remain essentially static while having exciting adventures every month. In the continuity-driven line, the focus would be on the Marvel Universe itself. It would have a consistent history, verisimilitude (if not “realism”), and move forward in real-time with new generations replacing the old, real character change and development in an interconnected, deep-continuity framework.

Then, as Chris says, readers would have the choice of which kind of storytelling they prefer. Creators would have more freedom, too, to tell different kinds of stories.

The “classic” stuff would be preserved for all future generations to enjoy, while new ideas would have a place to flourish. With two clear approaches, everybody wins. With one muddled approach, nobody wins.

Clones, werewolves, psycho replacements, all of them can be easily undone. But once you decide to age your entire line of comics, there is no going back, except for another universe-wide reboot to make them all younger again and erase all the stories in the “aging” period.

For Marvel, this ship has sailed circa 1968 or even before, when Spider-Man’s first year of college started to take forever. Anyone here knows what exact year it was when it got screwy?

It’s a bit strange to demand that Marvel age the characters now, when they’re been doing the non-aging thing for 40 years now.

Is the market for aging heroes now so much more profitable that Marvel should suddenly age their characters in the main comics and keep the Ultimate Universe as the non-aging universe?

Seems to me it’s the other way around: a small portion of the aging fandom that wants the characters to age. It’s more logical to have a secondary line of comics to appeal to these fans than to gamble their main universe into this.

How many people reading and commenting this thread were alive in the 1960s? And no matter how old the comic book readership may be, the Spider-Man and X-Men movies were commercial successes, and they weren’t watched only by 40-year olds.

And, by that token, do the big three DC characters belong to the 1930s and 1940s? These characters are timeless. And bigger than me, you, or any one single fan.

Sometimes it’s not the characters that are in the wrong, or even the publishers. These characters ave been in this no-aging/slow-aging weirdness for decades now. That some fans get turned off by this only at certain points in their lives doesn’t seem to be the fault of Marvel/DC…

A fan starts to get old, a fan now has a wife and kids, and then now he wants the characters to get old too, when before it didn’t bother them? Sorry, but it does sound selfish.

Also, it sounds somewhat selfish. These characters are bigger than me and bigger than any of us. It shouldn’t matter if I’m getting physically older than some of them, let the new generations enjoy them too. As wonderful as I may be, it isn’t about me.

Selfish and hypocritical too. I mean, I started reading comics when? 1989? The non-aging thingie was already in effect back there. I don’t understand why I should want Peter Parker to get old now just because I’m getting old too.

Back in 1989 Peter was already younger than he had any right to be, and back then I thought it was a cool thing, I didn’t want to read about a 42-year old Spidey in 1989, and I didn’t want to read about Peter’s son, I wanted to read about the same guy from the cartoons and TV show.

People starting reading comics now deserve the same consideration, don’t they?

Anyone here started reading comics by 1962? I suppose most people here in this thread got into comics when the non-aging weirdness was already in effect.

Just my three cents.

But yeah, it does also happen on TV series, as well, such as Family Ties, Growing Pains, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and others.

Rarely do you see something like Full House or Everybody Loves Raymond, where they kept the same actors from babies to children.