Why prefer marvel over DC?

[Rosebunse]

JLA/Avengers was based on a very shallow and outdated view of the DCU. Let's not forget that at the time of that story:

* Jason Todd had been murdered by the Joker.

* Barbara Gordon was crippled by the Joker.

* Hal Jordan turned evil and destroyed the Green lantern Corps.

* Barry Allen was dead.

* Qurac had been nuked.

* Wonder Woman's Amazons were now victims of rape and slavery which led to tensions between them and Man's World.

When DC goes dark, damn do they go dark and horrifically depressing. Marvel has its moments, but rarely is it ever that edgy dark.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

In reading the stories.

If you can't discern the differences between Marvel and DC, I wonder what possible value you can get from reading either.

Yeah, well I do read both Marvel and DC. Have being doing so for a looooooong time. My enjoyment comes from the different lore and the continuity. That is the element that differentiates the two.

There is variation in both. No one is saying there isn't.

But hasn't your whole point been to say that one is more able to tell certain kinds of stories than the other? Even when that's been proven false.

I don't know how I can explain this in a way you can actually comprehend, since you seem attached to the idea that two very different universes are interchangeable.

I didn't say they were interchangeable. You won't find Alan Scott or Wally West at Marvel just like you won't find Peter Parker or Tony Stark at DC. Their lore is different. Their character traits are different. And that's how I like those characters to be: different. I don't expect Superman to have the same personal struggles as someone like Wolverine. And that's why I can form an attachment to both. But both companies have a similar enough approach to the types of stories those characters star in that fans of either can appreciate the other.

Whatever Barry and Hal's flaws might be now were added on over time. At their core, they are simplistic characters who were originally defined by their powers. As people they were simply generic white guys from an uncomplicated era.

As Howard Chaykin succinctly noted when talking about developing and evolving the character of Barry Allen for the CBS Flash series, "For me, the beginning and the end of the Barry Allen character (in the comics) was that he had a crew-cut."

Point being that complexities have been added on to DC's classic characters but they were not part of their inceptions in the same way that Marvel's heroes were.

But you understand how that is an outdated view, don't you? Its operating off of the state of comics in the 1950s. Its not the 1950s anymore. Barry Allen has been more than just a "crew-cut" for, well, a long time. He was also someone who had to go through the murder of his spouse, someone who had to stand trial for killing one of his villains, etc. Those were all things that impacted him as a character, highlighting his grief, his anger, his guilt, etc.

Superman is a mythic figure that struggles with godlike responsibilities.

His struggles are not the same as Steve's idealism continually bumping up against real corruption and cynicism.

It certainly hasn't driven Superman's stories in the way that struggling with disillusionment and a complex modern world has with Steve.

Superman never has to question or doubt what he represents whereas Steve often does.

Oh my god, that is the point: Superman HAS dealt with questioning and doubting himself.

Many of the Superman stories I've mentioned in this discussion have him doing just that. Self-doubt is not only no stranger to Superman, its a regularly recurring theme in his comics. Your failure to acknowledge that is just willful blindness at this point.

It's been pointed out to you what the actual definition of "character-driven" is. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

No, I've acknowledged it. The issue is that I looked up how actual professional writers define "character-driven" and it conflicts with how other people here seem to have defined it. You can't create new definitions for terms to suit your narrative.

Not only could you not tell that story if both universes were treated as the same, you wouldn't even want to tell it because it's only through spotlighting and reveling in their differences that it actually becomes fun and interesting rather than just a generic team-up that would be commonplace in either universe. To see both universes as interchangeable and virtually identical is to fail to appreciate the value of either.

Simply saying "but, you know, kind of similar stuff happens in both!" is entirely missing the point and just glosses over the clear and fascinating ways in which they differ.

Again, not saying they're "interchangeable." I know they're not interchangeable. Again, the lore, the history, the heroes' character traits, etc. make them unique. I mean, if I thought that, I wouldn't prefer the Fantastic Four to the Challengers of the Unknown the way I do. I'm simply saying that there is no "set way" that one universe is that the other is not. The DC Universe is not just this happy, go-lucky place where nobody ever has any internal personal struggle, just like the Marvel Universe is not just this depressing, dark and gritty place where everyone is angry. And I know you're not characterizing them as that, respectively. Its just an exaggeration. Characters of all types exist in both universes, which means that both have the feel of realism, and yet at the same time, a feel of the fantastical.

At this point in time, the companies are more similar than you may want to acknowledge.

And that is my final say on the issue.

[My Two Cents]

I loved Marvel Comics for decades.
The people running Marvel Comics
managed to turn me off to the characters
and books.
I was managing my Marvel appetite with
Soft and Hard Cover collections
But even that they have managed to
sully with poor physical quality lately.

I am confident Marvel Comics will never be what I
loved, but still have hope they fix there problems
with the people making there trades so I can
continue to buy them.

Even with the much bad, there is always gems and
I want to get them in collected form in the future.

[LifeIsILL]

The point was-DC actually did have these wandering anti-heroes who was not as NUTTY as Punisher but were around. Hex as one and so was Scalphunter. A case could be made for Grave Digger-who was told as a black man he couldn't fight in WW 2 and end up becoming a secret weapon for the USA.

It wasn't even about Anti-Heroes specifically. It was him claiming that DC doesn't have stories in the vein of Old Man Logan. But they did have these kind of stories, even back in the 70s. And I didn't have to beat the Frank Miller Dark Knight dead horse to make a point. It was really as simple as that.

And speaking of Jonah Hex, his stories have always been about mainly two things: bounty hunting and redemption. He was a loner, a wanderer, a killer in a desolate wasteland. Much like a lot of later Wolverine stories.

If anyone wants to read more about Jonah Hex, Conan and their influence in DC and Marvel anti-heroism. This discussion here is very interesting.

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/top...age-anti-hero/

Hex, regardless of how much his first appearance cost up until the 1990s, is a very important character in the greater comics scheme. He's not the first anti-hero in comics. But, his first appearance came before the Punisher and Wolverine, so you can't deny that it probably had some effect on their creation. I mean, here's DC, which never broke the traditional super-hero mold, especially not with their western characters, publishing a western bounty hunter who actually shot and killed villains, rather than letting the law take them into custody.

Michael Fleisher, who wrote Jonah Hex, also wrote the Spectre series in Adventure Comics that caused quite a stir for its brutal scenes of criminal punishment.

ASW 10 and Hex are a progression of DC trying the same thing, stemming from the initiatives taken in the GL/GA series and influenced by the Spaghetti westerns.

Each charater has elements of Anti-hero, but different elements. IMO Conan is closer the "heroric" end of the spectrum, sure he kills but there is still a lot of Flynn and Samurai in him. Hex on the other hand has the brooding demeanor of the loner, but does this equate to more anti-hero, if he is then less heroic?

Jonah Hex may not have sold as many books as Avengers or X-Men during the 1970s or 1980s, but that doesn't mean the book was mediocre. As one who read Avengers AND Jonah Hex in the 1980s, I can say that Hex was the far superior book. (Better than Conan in the 1980s also.) It maintained its quality throught its run. That's a hard act for many other books to follow.

[Lee Stone]

When DC goes dark, damn do they go dark and horrifically depressing. Marvel has its moments, but rarely is it ever that edgy dark.

It's something they're remarkably very good at.

They're also good at destroying past fandoms and demolishing epic runs to make the modern stuff 'look better'.
If you look at any non-Batman franchise that has ever gained enough prestige to be Big, they've been systematically ripped to shreds in the last ten to twenty years.
Titans, Legion, JLI, Young Justice, JSA...
Even the Satellite Era of the JLA wasn't safe.
Beloved characters violently killed off, or tortured (and then killed off), or turned evil (and then killed off).
It's now a DC tradition.

[CuteClops]

Don't have a preference. I like them both.
Actually, in the last five years I've bought more DC than Marvel.
Currently these are the numbers:
DC - 10 books
Marvel - 3 books

[WebLurker]

I like the Marvel characters more then the DC ones; they literally have most of my favorites. Outside of Green Lanterns, the only DC stuff I've really liked has been other media (e.g. the TV shows, some of the Batman cartoons, the Wonder Woman movie, and the like).

Can't really explain it, but I find that Marvel's characters just resonate more for some reason.

[JKtheMac]

Really? You don't get my point? You're asking if DC ever did a story about an anti-hero protagonist and delve deep into their nature. And I just answered your question that they did.....way before Wolverine.

Get it now? Or are you just blind to what I said when I just presented the evidence right in front of you?

No I wasn't. I was pointing at OML as an example of a story that examined the whole idea of anti-hero's inspired by the movie that did so in an even more direct manner. At no time was I suggesting that the antihero was a uniquely DC thing. I was suggesting that OML was a uniquely Marvel book because of the way it examined a major and highly popular character in a way that could be considered undermining and critical of the loner antihero archetype.

[JKtheMac]

JLA/Avengers was based on a very shallow and outdated view of the DCU. Let's not forget that at the time of that story:

You keep using this 'old fashioned' argument, apparently with no sense of the irony in that claim. Part of what some of us are saying is that DC is essentially rooted in an earlier era, and that is a strength that DC always need to consider when they adopt changes.

To shift to an entirely Marvelesque approach would be a huge mistake. It would disenfranchise the audience. Take the earlier comment from Byakko that they moved from Marvel to DC when they had more desire for escapism. That suggests something important and different. I would never claim that DC is entirely escapism, and I doubt Byakko would either.

We are all aware that at certain times in the history of both companies there has been cross-pollination. There are times Marvel tried to adopt the "illusion of change" mantra in an overly rigid manner that undermined the immediacy of the character focus that Marvel relies upon. There are times DC has tried to challenge and bring edge to their characters in a way that doesn't suit their unreconstructed roots.

[JKtheMac]

Maybe it would help the discussion to look at Astro City. That universe is an amalgamation of the big two, indeed it is a love letter to them both and it's strength is it's emotional honesty. The comic most likely to make me emotional, both nostalgic and 100% character driven.

The way Busiek tackles both the Superman and the Batman arcetype or indeed any other DC based inspiration differs substantially from DC. His approach to those characters both highlights their core strengths but pulls out interesting nuances that would not always sit squarely in the DC universe. Overall, the world Busiek creates feels like a combination of an optimistic Marvel and a more character focused DC without the grittyness of either.

[Gurz]

I believe DC and Marvel has no difference. The companies try to fool you that we are so different but they are not. They are the same thing, super heroes, that's it. What works for the one, works for the other as well. But i prefer DC 'cause Batman. Batman is my favorite character. Other then that I follow both companies without seperation actually. I actually have more Marvel omnibus books than DC when i take a look at my library... But only characters which i follow out side of Omnibus books is Batman books.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No I wasn't. I was pointing at OML as an example of a story that examined the whole idea of anti-hero's inspired by the movie that did so in an even more direct manner. At no time was I suggesting that the antihero was a uniquely DC thing. I was suggesting that OML was a uniquely Marvel book because of the way it examined a major and highly popular character in a way that could be considered undermining and critical of the loner antihero archetype.

So, I'm confused. Are you saying that alternative takes on popular characters that examine their innermost thoughts, flaws, and motivations while also providing meta-commentary on what they represent is uniquely Marvel?

[Prof. Warren]

JLA/Avengers was based on a very shallow and outdated view of the DCU. Let's not forget that at the time of that story:

* Jason Todd had been murdered by the Joker.

* Barbara Gordon was crippled by the Joker.

* Hal Jordan turned evil and destroyed the Green lantern Corps.

* Barry Allen was dead.

* Qurac had been nuked.

* Wonder Woman's Amazons were now victims of rape and slavery which led to tensions between them and Man's World.

You keep using this 'old fashioned' argument, apparently with no sense of the irony in that claim. Part of what some of us are saying is that DC is essentially rooted in an earlier era, and that is a strength that DC always need to consider when they adopt changes.

We are all aware that at certain times in the history of both companies there has been cross-pollination. There are times DC has tried to challenge and bring edge to their characters in a way that doesn't suit their unreconstructed roots.

Not to jump back in but I simply wanted to say, thanks JK, for further clarifying a point that many don't seem to understand.

When people say "But DC does gritty stories, too!", they're missing, or simply not grasping, the point that to do so means something different at DC than it does at Marvel.

DC's superheroes were very "pure" in their origins and remained true to that conception for decades. Marvel, on the other hand, was - from the start - a deconstruction of superheroes, which instantly separated it from DC's long established, old-fashioned approach to the genre.

To change with the times, DC introduced more mature themes and greater levels of violence to their books and more psychological complexity as well. But in doing so, no matter how much time passes, they're continually deconstructing the innocent origins of their own universe and deliberately challenging long-held notions of what the DC universe is and challenging the perception of their characters.

When DC does a story like The Killing Joke, or even the recent Batman Damned, it's always going to be an act of provocation (the kind that gets "look what they're doing to Batman now!" attention in the mainstream) in a manner that has no parallel at Marvel. In every era from the '60s on, Batman has been pushed to darker extremes in order to stay relevant to modern audiences and to continually refute or combat the notion that he is, at heart, a childish creation of a more naive time. Marvel doesn't do the same with characters like Wolverine or Punisher and so on. You don't get the "darker" versions of those characters because they're already as dark and cynical as the Marvel universe needs them to be.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Not to jump back in but I simply wanted to say, thanks JK, for further clarifying a point that many don't seem to understand.

When people say "But DC does gritty stories, too!", they're missing, or simply not grasping, the point that to do so means something different at DC than it does at Marvel.

DC's superheroes were very "pure" in their origins and remained true to that conception for decades. Marvel, on the other hand, was - from the start - a deconstruction of superheroes, which instantly separated it from DC's long established, old-fashioned approach to the genre.

To change with the times, DC introduced more mature themes and greater levels of violence to their books and more psychological complexity as well. But in doing so, no matter how much time passes, they're continually deconstructing the innocent origins of their own universe and deliberately challenging long-held notions of what the DC universe is and challenging the perception of their characters.

When DC does a story like The Killing Joke, or even the recent Batman Damned, it's always going to be an act of provocation (the kind that gets "look what they're doing to Batman now!" attention in the mainstream) in a manner that has no parallel at Marvel. In every era from the '60s on, Batman has been pushed to darker extremes in order to stay relevant to modern audiences and to continually refute or combat the notion that he is, at heart, a childish creation of a more naive time. Marvel doesn't do the same with characters like Wolverine or Punisher and so on. You don't get the "darker" versions of those characters because they're already as dark and cynical as the Marvel universe needs them to be.

I'm sorry, but again that's a wild misconception. Golden Age Batman and Superman were literally going around shooting, threatening, intimidating, and in some cases killing people to accomplish their missions.




They were both, to an extent, born out of the pent up anger of their creators and the general public at the time at what they saw as injustices. They were intended to represent displeasure at the status quo and were agents against it. Superman was a populist crusader who regularly expressed contempt for those in power. Batman's inspiration came from the growing anxiety over urban street crime which, at that time, was still relatively new to American society. It was only in the Silver Age that DC tempered their edge in order to appease the more conservative mindset of America in the 1950s. And, IMO, they did need a bit of tempering because I'd rather not my protagonist go around intimidating an maiming people, but this mindset that those heroes were always or even originally conceived as "childish creations of a more naive time" is just wrong.

Batman has been doing dark and gritty since he first appeared. The reemergence of that element in the late '60s and afterwards was just a return to form. And Superman, while losing the more violent tactics, has maintained that role of being a champion of the oppressed against those who took advantage of them.

[Prof. Warren]

I'm sorry, but again that's a wild misconception. Golden Age Batman and Superman were literally going around shooting, threatening, intimidating, and in some cases killing people to accomplish their missions.




They were both, to an extent, born out of the pent up anger of their creators and the general public at the time at what they saw as injustices. They were intended to represent displeasure at the status quo and were agents against it. Superman was a populist crusader who regularly expressed contempt for those in power. Batman's inspiration came from the growing anxiety over urban street crime which, at that time, was still relatively new to American society. It was only in the Silver Age that DC tempered their edge in order to appease the more conservative mindset of America in the 1950s. And, IMO, they did need a bit of tempering because I'd rather not my protagonist go around intimidating an maiming people, but this mindset that those heroes were always or even originally conceived as "childish creations of a more naive time" is just wrong.

Batman has been doing dark and gritty since he first appeared. The reemergence of that element in the late '60s and afterwards was just a return to form. And Superman, while losing the more violent tactics, has maintained that role of being a champion of the oppressed against those who took advantage of them.

The initial Batman and Superman tales were not the norm for the characters as they evolved.

The Batman originally used guns, something that would be anathematic to the character in time, as seen in Denny O'Neil's "There Is No Hope in Crime Alley."

And despite the violence of the earliest books, they were naive creations in that they offered simple solutions to problems and did so via characters that represented uncomplicated power fantasies. They're pure in that they inhabit a very black and white world.

Batman and Superman were not conflicted, neurotic characters. They were sure of who they were and where their strength was needed.