Why Are Super Heroes So Young?

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are living in the age of the super hero. Over the next year we are going to see on average one super hero movie every month between November of 2013 and December of 2014. We are also going to see a huge increase in super hero based television shows, joining the ranks of Arrow on the CW and Agents of SHIELD on ABC. And as I look at all the many actors that are being cast as these masked men and women, a question keeps screaming in my mind: Why are they all so young?

The question first came to me when I saw the actor who had been cast as Barry Allen on Arrow, a character who will be spun off into his own series, The Flash. The actor in question is Grant Gustin, whose previous roles were on Glee and 90210 (not the original, the reboot). How is he able to be on such shows? BECAUSE HE’S 23! And not a mature 23 since he’s played teenagers. A very boyish 23. My problem with this is that Barry Allen is supposed to be a Police Scientist (like a CSI). And as the Flash, he is one of the core heroes of the DCU. George Eads, who looks like a young guy, was 33 when he started on CSI (and voiced the character of Barry Allen/ The Flash on the cartoon show Young Justice). And that’s what I expect from both a cop and a super hero. An older individual. (To be fair, they do make fun of his age in the episodes of Arrow, but still, he should be older).

Maybe it’s just that I perpetually feel a sense of immaturity, but I have always pictured super heroes as being older than me. Hell, Batman and Superman could be my dad. The idea of a young super hero seems to take away some of the authority they should portray as emblems of justice. A super hero who can barely shave (something you’d notice since most of them don’t cover their mouths with a mask) seems impossible to intimidate a world conquering super villain. The few super heroes who are young, tend to have to disguise that fact in order to maintain their super hero identity. Spider-Man had to wear a full-face mask to hide his youth. Certainly I have discussed the issue of sidekicks before (see here) and while many sidekicks are just as heroic as their mentors, they do suffer from the handicap of youth.

"Hey! I'm in costume. How come
he doesn't have his costume?"

A large problem with the trend of young super heroes can be blamed on Hollywood. When a super hero film is being launched, Hollywood executives are both introducing the audience to the hero so they are showing us an origin story, AND hoping to jump start a major film franchise. So initially the character is young because he or she is new to being  a hero. They are also young because it takes a long time to make a big budget film (sometimes two or three years) and Hollywood wants to make many of these films. A young actor is more likely to be willing to do a fifth or sixth film, as opposed to a more elderly actor who may only be willing to do two or three (Robert Downey Jr. being the exception as he has done three Iron Man movies, an Avengers movie, and is signed on for many more future films with Marvel).

If Hollywood truly wanted to portray heroes as they are in the comics, they would definitely skew older. Heroes are always more powerful as they age and gain more experience. Although I hate to use this as a reference for anything, Smallville is an excellent example of this. Clark Kent has barely mastered any of his powers when the show starts. He’s a little strong and can run fast but most of the classic powers are not present. His most iconic power, flight, doesn’t show up at all (well it does a little, but not with regularity). An experienced Superman is more powerful. Which is why in the sequel to Man of Steel (a Superman origin story where he has mostly mastered all his powers by the end of the film) they are bringing in a more mature Batman (played by Ben Affleck, which I talk about here) to supposedly do battle with him (the working title is Batman vs. Superman, but of course that doesn’t mean they won’t team up eventually). The point being that the only way Batman can defeat Superman is if Batman’s experience is equal or superior to Superman’s powers.

Of course while I am vey happy about Ben Affleck being cast as Batman it just reminds me of the young super hero problem because Henry Cavill was cast as Superman. Henry Cavill is barely 30. Again, I understand the Hollywood logic, but personally I would have much preferred seeing Jon Hamm as Superman. Like I said before, Superman is like my dad, whereas Henry Cavill could be my little brother (well not MY brother, but somebody’s little brother).

Killing With A Code

I’ve already dabbled with this particular idea (see here) that heroes don’t kill. It’s one of the big rules of being a super hero. You wear tights and you don’t kill. Those seem to be the only requirements. But as I stated before, sometimes heroes DO kill. And it finally occurred to me as I watching The Walking Dead. Killing is okay if you have a code of honor.

What is a code of honor? Well to put it simply it’s a set of rules for your behavior. A bit of a simplistic explanation, but I think that sums it up pretty well. And it is because of a code of honor that you can kill and still be considered a hero. The problem with killing comes mostly in comic books. The Super Hero code of conduct says “No Killing.” And yet it is done and it is considered okay. If done within a code of conduct.

To best exemplify killing with a code I go to one of my favorite characters to embody morally justified murder, The Punisher. The Punisher kills all the time. He mows downs entire ballrooms full of people. But he still has a code. Everyone the Punisher kills is themselves a killer. He only targets criminals, people who have a lengthy record of murder without any sort of moral code guiding them to pick and choose their targets. The Punisher, when possible, avoids excessive casualties when he can. He also refuses to kill women or children, despite their connections to organized crime.

So the Punisher is not different than our own justice system. While there are states in America that do not apply the death penalty, some do. The citizens of those states have elected officials to enforce punishment by death for severe crimes. In essence they have condoned the killing of undesirable members of society. The Punisher merely takes it one step further, enforcing his own personal brand of justice.

As I said at the beginning, this blog entry was inspired by The Walking Dead. Specifically by watching the character of Darryl. Darryl is often described as a man with a code. Unlike his brother Merle who most definitely does not have a code, Darryl will act with a level of respect towards his fellow survivors. And Darryl has killed, not just the roaming walkers (I wish they would call them zombies, but that ship has sailed), but Darryl has killed other humans. But in defense. Merle kills people for sport and fun, but Darryl has only ever killed to defend himself and the other members of his group.

And I think if you asked most people they would agree that killing in self-defense is justifiable. Humans are hard wired with a strong survival instinct. We will do what we need to in order to preserve our own existence. We almost look down on people who do not fight to live. And that is because it takes strength to live. It’s easy to just give up and waste away to nothing. To actively achieve something needed for survival is difficult.

There is also something noble in that most killing that is justified in fiction is done not just to save one’s self but to save the lives of others, either their own loved ones or a larger community in general. In essence, it is okay to kill the wicked in order to preserve the innocent. There seems to be a moral scale on which the lives of those being killed are measured against the lives of those being saved. Of course the moral argument comes into question when you ask who is ultimately making said judgment, but no one seems to argue the actual question itself. To quote the great Animal Farm “Some animals are more equal than others.”

Our society tries to teach us that killing is wrong. And yet at the same time it presents so many instances where killing is accepted. Soldiers killing on the battlefield are hailed as heroes when they come home. A District Attorney who advocates for the death penalty is seen as tough on crime. A cop who shoots a criminal in a hostage situation is commended by his department. All sorts of instances are given where “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is not an absolute. The only  thing we can ask of our fellow citizens is that when they do feel the need to kill that they try and do so with some sort of code of conduct.