Why prefer marvel over DC?

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No, it isn't. The way that Batman - the most motivated human being who's ever lived - has inner conflict and the way that neurotic Peter Parker does are just not the same.

If you don't perceive the differences, I really can't help you.

Of course I can perceive differences. They're different characters. But in the end, its still similar on at least some level. Again, self-doubt is self-doubt, whether its about "how can I be better?" or "why should I even continue on?" And also, I've already provided evidence of Bruce experiencing both, but again, you're just ignoring it.

If you think Barry and Hal are interesting in the same way that Peter and Reed are interesting, that explains everything.

It all looks the same to you. I understand.

No, it's not all the same to me. After all, they're very different characters. That doesn't mean they aren't able to experience similar emotions, though. I mean, is it really that mind-boggling to you that characters like Barry and Hal are able to experience emotional turmoil and uncertainty on the same level as characters like Peter and Reed?

After all, Hal did abandon being Green Lantern in order to try and make it work with Carol...more than once. In some ways, I guess you could say that Hal is at least a little like Peter, at least because they've both had to put being a hero before the women they love.

No, because while these characters experienced additional troubles as time went on, troubles that were plausible because of character traits previously established, they were flawed people from the start with elements of tragedy and irony woven into their origins.

That isn't true of Barry and Hal, who were very much blank slates, defined first and foremost by their powers.

Again, I'm struggling to think of how Steve Rogers was really all that flawed in the beginning. In fact, the basic premise of his character was that he allowed himself to be experimented upon (although that really worked out for him) all in the name of serving his country. It wasn't even born out of tragedy like Batman's origin, but out of a simple altruistic need to serve others. Doesn't that then make him a character in very much the same vein as Batman, since he wasn't conflicted in becoming Captain America? I mean, that is how you've defined non-conflicted characters, right?

And, that's the thing. That's not a bad thing or a knock against Captain America. Personal conflict was introduced into his story later on...just like how it was for Hal and Barry. I guess it just seems to me that, on some level, you're trying to say that Marvel characters are just naturally complex whereas DC's are all just trying to be complex.

But yeah, I think we've reached an impasse. Yes, I agree that they're different, but not in the way you're saying they are.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Not really a good example

1. X-men aren't generally putting young mutants out in the field on mission

Again, the O5 were all kids/teenagers when when they were first drafted to be the X-Men. That's not a knock against them, but its just what it was. Some of what you're saying applies (although Batman has training facilities like Xavier did), but honestly, you can't really condemn Bruce for drafting Robin but give Charles a free pass for sending five kids off to fight one of the most powerful mutants in existence, can you?

[Killerbee911]

Again, the O5 were all kids/teenagers when when they were first drafted to be the X-Men. That's not a knock against them, but its just what it was. Some of what you're saying applies (although Batman has training facilities like Xavier did), but honestly, you can't really condemn Bruce for drafting Robin but give Charles for sending five kids off to fight one of the most powerful mutants in existence, can you?

Clearly you didn't read what I said in the past they had those troupes(they are better ways to write those stories), The X-men aren't putting kids out in the field today in comics without circumstances. I can condemn it because comics have evolved to be able to tell better stories. The Nightwing got shot in the head, Jason Todd got killed, Batgirl got paralyzed,Alfred almost died. What are we talking about? Why in the world is Robin a good idea? Just to be clear I am just as annoyed with writers having students get killed on school grounds for the X-men which has happened way too much recently. Comics can tell better stories if we challenge them to tell better stories.

[Agent Z]

Clearly you didn't read what I said in the past they had those troupes, The X-men aren't putting kids out in the field today in comics without circumstances. I can condemn it because comics have evolved to be able to tell better stories. The Nightwing got shot in the head, Jason Todd got killed, Batgirl got paralyzed,Alfred got beaten with in inch of dying. What are we talking about? Why in the world is Robin a good idea? Just to be clear I am just as annoyed with writers having students get killed on school grounds for the X-men which has happened way too much recently. Comics can tell better stories if we challenge them to tell better stories.

Of the ones you mentioned, only one of them was a kid when that happened. Dick wasn't a kid when he got shot in the head and Barbara wasn't one she was paralyzed. Not only is Alfred not a kid, he isn't even a field operative normally.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Clearly you didn't read what I said in the past they had those troupes(they are better ways to write those stories), The X-men aren't putting kids out in the field today in comics without circumstances. I can condemn it because comics have evolved to be able to tell better stories. The Nightwing got shot in the head, Jason Todd got killed, Batgirl got paralyzed,Alfred almost died. What are we talking about? Why in the world is Robin a good idea? Just to be clear I am just as annoyed with writers having students get killed on school grounds for the X-men which has happened way too much recently. Comics can tell better stories if we challenge them to tell better stories.

Exactly what Agent Z said. Only Jason was a kid at the time of his death. All the rest of what you mentioned happened to adult characters. And again, Jason's death was something Bruce carried with him for a long time.

Also, there are still instances of kids being drafted into the X-Men. Didn't Cyclops literally start recruiting teenage mutants into his X-Men team post-AvX all to train them for what he thought was the upcoming revolution? That's literally like training child soldiers.

[Killerbee911]

Of the ones you mentioned, only one of them was a kid when that happened. Dick wasn't a kid when he got shot in the head and Barbara wasn't one she was paralyzed. Not only is Alfred not a kid, he isn't even a field operative normally.

I am pointing out it is dangerous "job" why does "a kid" need to be doing when adults are nearly dying doing it. What kind a person puts teenager not even 16 year old in that situation period after those things happen. The fiction could be written better

Didn't Cyclops literally start recruiting teenage mutants into his X-Men team post-AvX all to train them for what he thought was the upcoming revolution? That's literally like training child soldiers.

They were child soldiers but their lives were on the line, If the enemy is coming to kill you yes put gun in teenager hands to protect them. They weren't running out playing superhero Purifiers, Sentinels and other threats are coming after them. Not training them fight makes them sitting ducks. It is why X-men is a bad example Giant murder robots aren't coming to kill Robin and teen titans.

[JKtheMac]

You first mentioned that OML was a deep insight into the protagonist and questions his nature as a killer, in the fashion of a dystopian old western road-trip, while briefly reflecting on the character's past and his struggles. And what immediately came to my mind was DC's Jonah Hex and All Star Western comics. That's the perfect picture of what you described. And that was what I was responding to.

Now, if you're talking about something else, about how Marvel was able to repeatedly (in reality...only sometimes) de-construct and rebuild their most popular character, and that this is an area that DC doesn't frequently cross with their most popular characters, then you may have a sound argument.

Because my point is not that easy to express then you may be missing the key element. You are much closer with your second point but that isn't quite it either.

OML wasn't originally about breaking down and rebuilding Wolverine. Or rather it came from a direction that sought to show how Wolverine was an old-fashioned concept that shouldn't really be written in that way any more. It had a certain abashed sensibility because it didn't actually do what its key inspiration did.

Unforgiven technically argues against the lone gunslinger operating outside of the law with a code of conduct to guide him. It called that idea out in a way that is hard to argue with. Eastwood's movie is far more strident and coherent than OML. Unforgiven isn't just a story about a gunslinger hanging up his guns and eventually pulling them back down off the hook. It is an examination of the personal and social impact of ever having worn those guns, and it seeks to strip away the romanticism completely.

The Revisionist Westerns of the 60s and 70s still clung to a romantic notion, but it wasn't the same romantic notion of Shane. The only guiding principle was this personal code of conduct. This is often compared to samurai and ronin concepts of honour, or knightly chivalry. Unforgiven calls this out as a kind of lie. It is shown to be a construction of the surrounding culture which protects the innocent from the truth. Munny knows that by pulling down his guns he will step out of that protected world of civil behaviour and belief in moral certitude and back into a violent world with no rules and raw visceral murder. He knows, even if everyone else around him believes it, that he had no code of conduct, no moral compass, that these things don't exist outside of cultural ideals.


So what we got with OML was an examination of Wolverine as an analog of Munny. That was the most compelling thing about OML. It is technically a deconstruction but it is not one that can truely rebuild the character. It suggests Wolverine is forever broken, but importantly it suggests he was always broken even before the time he was used by the villain uprising. That he was lying to himself and he can never forget that. It effectively colours every mainstream Wolverine story and undermines it in a way that it can never fully escape.

Now this was an abashed version. It didn't go that deeply into these ideas, it relied on the reader being familiar with the now infamous movie, and it potentially will allow a reading that feels very much like every other Wolverine story. But at the end of the story we are not left with a feeling that Wolverine has anywhere to go. Just as at the end of Unforgiven we know Munny is a broken man in grief and trauma and that he technically was before the movie started.

For me, the most disappointing thing about Logan was that it didn't go there. It skirted around these issues and was even more abashed than OML. It seemingly wanted to be something else but I haven't ever quite worked out what it wanted to be. It isn't the most coherent of movies.

[JKtheMac]

Again, I'm struggling to think of how Steve Rogers was really all that flawed in the beginning. In fact, the basic premise of his character was that he allowed himself to be experimented upon (although that really worked out for him) all in the name of serving his country. It wasn't even born out of tragedy like Batman's origin, but out of a simple altruistic need to serve others. Doesn't that then make him a character in very much the same vein as Batman, since he wasn't conflicted in becoming Captain America? I mean, that is how you've defined non-conflicted characters, right?

I agree with one thing here. You are really struggling to understand the concepts behind Captain America. You are focusing on all the wrong things about him. I can't say I blame you. Superhero culture naturally does this. Everyone is encouraged to see the characters in simplistic ways and minimise the differences because then we can all be a happy family and focus on protecting ourselves from the outsiders that don't get superheroes. Unfortunately this is always a dangerous way to think. It leads to all sorts of received wisdoms and lazy assumptions. It comes to bland conclusions.

In reality like any big subject we need to study to understand superheroes. We need to put aside recieved wisdoms because they are mostly wrong. Look at 'Hey Kids Cimics'. That book exists because everyone in this hobby has conjured up a false narrative of what happened over the decades. A cosy geek history that doesn't reflect reality.

So let's look at the origin of Captain America. What book do we imagine that is in? Is it perhaps 1941 in Captain America #1? In some ways yes, but in a very real way no. That isn't the character we see in modern Marvel. We get much closer to it in Avengers #4. In that we suddenly have this new character 'A man out of Time' as we like to call him. And here the essence of what Lee and Kirby wanted was born. They didn't want the old character back, they wanted to challenge and confront. They clearly liked the idea of having the wartime icon in Avengers as a contrast and balance to their new superhero team. Immediately he acts very differently to the characters around him. He is now defined not just by his origin but by his new rebirth. A Second Genesis to steal a catchy phrase from X-Men.

This was only one small part in a total revolution that Stan Lee almost singlehandedly brought to comics in this time period, and I say this as a huge Kirby fan. Suddenly the stories were not about maintaining a single tone and keeping the characters essentially the same for years on end. Suddenly they were about 'Now what! Let's see how this guy fares against somebody that can really challenge him...' We can all hear Lee's voice in that sensibility. From that point on all comics including DC were different, but because DC wasn't born with this sensibility it is not as comfortable for them. Even now it is an ill-fitting coat.

This entire thread has contained descriptions of where that coat doesn't quite fit right and how sometimes a slightly different coat fits better. We shouldn't be focusing on the fashion of the coat. In every era the fashions are merely a reflection of the times. DC and Marvel have always had to keep up with the same fashions and not stand out. But we are not talking about those ephemeral issues. We are arguing over whether the coat that fits DC is the same one that fits Marvel, and I think it is pretty clear to many readers and almost all of the writers that the coats are different.

[JKtheMac]

These discussions do make me wish we could still have DC and Marvel crossovers. I know Bendis is still plugging away at the idea.

Just imagine Clark Kent turning up to work at a new paper and being taken under the wing of a grizzled reporter we have never seen before and looks a bit like Kirby, who says 'Listen here son, let me tell you the difference between working at the Planet and the way we do things at the Bugle'. It would be a great way to explore these things.

I know it has been done before, but based on this discussion it feels like it might be high time to do it again.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

They were child soldiers but their lives were on the line, If the enemy is coming to kill you yes put gun in teenager hands to protect them. They weren't running out playing superhero Purifiers, Sentinels and other threats are coming after them. Not training them fight makes them sitting ducks. It is why X-men is a bad example Giant murder robots aren't coming to kill Robin and teen titans.

Ah yes, because anyone who's ever had a child knows that the best way to ensure their protection is to hand them a gun. If Cyclops was so concerned with the safety of these new mutants, then he should have drafted adult mutants to fight the battle, while keeping the minors in a safe haven. Same thing applies to Charles Xavier. Technically what they did, regardless of the circumstances, is a crime against humanity. Literally. Drafting children for military use is one of the things that international law defines as either a war crime or crime against humanity.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I agree with one thing here. You are really struggling to understand the concepts behind Captain America. You are focusing on all the wrong things about him. I can't say I blame you. Superhero culture naturally does this. Everyone is encouraged to see the characters in simplistic ways and minimise the differences because then we can all be a happy family and focus on protecting ourselves from the outsiders that don't get superheroes. Unfortunately this is always a dangerous way to think. It leads to all sorts of received wisdoms and lazy assumptions. It comes to bland conclusions.

In reality like any big subject we need to study to understand superheroes. We need to put aside recieved wisdoms because they are mostly wrong. Look at 'Hey Kids Cimics'. That book exists because everyone in this hobby has conjured up a false narrative of what happened over the decades. A cosy geek history that doesn't reflect reality.

So let's look at the origin of Captain America. What book do we imagine that is in? Is it perhaps 1941 in Captain America #1? In some ways yes, but in a very real way no. That isn't the character we see in modern Marvel. We get much closer to it in Avengers #4. In that we suddenly have this new character 'A man out of Time' as we like to call him. And here the essence of what Lee and Kirby wanted was born. They didn't want the old character back, they wanted to challenge and confront. They clearly liked the idea of having the wartime icon in Avengers as a contrast and balance to their new superhero team. Immediately he acts very differently to the characters around him. He is now defined not just by his origin but by his new rebirth. A Second Genesis to steal a catchy phrase from X-Men.

This was only one small part in a total revolution that Stan Lee almost singlehandedly brought to comics in this time period, and I say this as a huge Kirby fan. Suddenly the stories were not about maintaining a single tone and keeping the characters essentially the same for years on end. Suddenly they were about 'Now what! Let's see how this guy fares against somebody that can really challenge him...' We can all hear Lee's voice in that sensibility. From that point on all comics including DC were different, but because DC wasn't born with this sensibility it is not as comfortable for them. Even now it is an ill-fitting coat.

This entire thread has contained descriptions of where that coat doesn't quite fit right and how sometimes a slightly different coat fits better. We shouldn't be focusing on the fashion of the coat. In every era the fashions are merely a reflection of the times. DC and Marvel have always had to keep up with the same fashions and not stand out. But we are not talking about those ephemeral issues. We are arguing over whether the coat that fits DC is the same one that fits Marvel, and I think it is pretty clear to many readers and almost all of the writers that the coats are different.

You're kinda showing that you probably haven't picked up much DC. Everything you just said about Captain America is applicable to Superman, to Wonder Woman, to Batman, etc. How many Superman writers have played up the "last survivor of Krypton" angle to introduce personal conflict? Same thing with the "your ideals are outdated, Superman" trope. Superman and Captain America are actually remarkably similar characters. One is just far more powerful than the other. Multiple Wonder Woman writers have also played up the aspect of her being a stranger to man's world and a fish out of water the same way Captain America is.

And I don't think it is so clear that the coats, as you say, are all that different. People here have provided multiple examples of stories that showcase how the characters between the companies have gone through similar internal conflicts. I've provided such examples myself. You just refuse to acknowledge that. I mean, even by your own admission, you haven't read all that many of the stories I've mentioned.

Again, writers jump back and forth between the two all the time. There are numerous cases of writers adapting a story meant for one to be published by the other. Kraven's Last Hunt, a Spider-Man classic by all accounts, was one such story. DeMatteis meant for it to be a Batman story.

What you're espousing here is similar something that uber fans of one say in order to justify their preference without doing much investigating of the other. Marvel and DC may have once been very different in terms of how they approach their respective characters, but many of those difference have since faded away in the decades since the 1960s.

[Prof. Warren]

Of course I can perceive differences. They're different characters. But in the end, its still similar on at least some level. Again, self-doubt is self-doubt, whether its about "how can I be better?" or "why should I even continue on?" And also, I've already provided evidence of Bruce experiencing both, but again, you're just ignoring it.

Just to clarify: not ignoring your examples, I just don't think they constitute the proof that you think they do.

To say "You know, Batman sometimes gets sad too!" isn't really evidence that Batman is a character-driven book. You continually misunderstand what "character-driven" means. I do get that it is a hard point to grasp, though.

They were never going to get rid of Robin. Its too popular of a mantle, too engrained into the Batman mythos. And, for what its worth, Tim essentially donned the Robin mantle without Bruce's permission and he only accepted it once Alfred and Dick basically told him that he should accept Tim.

Also, by that logic, Captain America should have never accepted Bucky as a partner, since Bucky was also a child when he became Cap's sidekick. Likewise, the original 5 X-Men were all teenagers when they were originally drafted by Charles Xavier and the guy would just send them off to fight the likes of Magneto. I mean, there's a difference between providing a safe space for them to learn how to control their powers and essentially using them as tools to further his agenda without concern for their safety. So, if Batman's a psycho, then so is Professor X. In the end, its comics.

Well, first of all - Bucky was Steve partner before he entered the Marvel universe proper.

It was in being re-introduced into modern Marvel that Stan introduced the idea of Bucky being dead. And that death haunted Cap for years. If anything, the guilt he carried over it was one of his defining traits. So much so that the idea of bringing him back under Brubaker's watch was initially seen as something that would undermine Steve's character.

And as for the X-Men, you're talking about teens but teens with the ability to shoot laser beams out of their eyes. So, not just defenseless kids. Or kids with some martial arts training going against criminals with guns.

But the real difference is portraying violence and the consequences of it. Had Marvel done a story where Steve got another junior partner only to have that new Bucky be savagely murdered by the Red Skull and then, after moping about it for a year or so, decided it was time to put another kid in that costume - that's what I would have a problem with.

And its actually ironic that that's something you apparently don't like because its another way that Marvel and DC have become more similar, especially in recent years. Look at things like the Avengers Academy, where Hank Pym essentially trained up a team of kid Avengers. Look at Tony Stark, Peter Parker, and Carol Danvers apparently endorsing the actions of Riri Williams, Miles Morales, and Kamala Khan. And of course, Reed Richards and Sue Storm are in essence putting a whole slew of minors (including their own children) in constant danger by operating the Future Foundation and just being who they are. In fact, there have been at least a few times when social services have come knocking on their door in regards to Franklin and Valeria, even though the kids always end up back with the FF. I mean, part of me thinks that if Reed and Sue had any iota of common sense, they'd probably have made the choice to give their kids up for adoption a long time ago.

Again, if you're talking about Avengers Academy or Champions we're talking about kids with extraordinary powers. That's fine. I have no problem with The Teen Titans, for example (and yes, I know Robin is traditionally a part of that team but you can't have a teen superhero group in DC without the classic DC teen hero).

Bottom line is that I wouldn't even have a problem with Robin if DC hadn't crossed such a line with the character. That character was fine for decades. But if you're going to have kid sidekicks, just understand that once you slaughter one of them in cold blood it kind of sours the whole concept and makes the adults in the room look bad to keep the tradition going.

These discussions do make me wish we could still have DC and Marvel crossovers. I know Bendis is still plugging away at the idea.

Yes, I would love that. Don't think it'll ever happen again, sadly.

Oh my god, again, you're showing that you probably haven't picked up much DC. Everything you just said about Captain America is applicable to Superman, to Wonder Woman, to Batman, etc. How many Superman writers have played up the "last survivor of Krypton" angle to introduce personal conflict? Same thing with the "your ideals are outdated, Superman" trope. Superman and Captain America are actually remarkably similar characters. One is just far more powerful than the other. Multiple Wonder Woman writers have also played up the aspect of her being a stranger to man's world and a fish out of water the same way Captain America is.

No, not the same. But I'm not getting back into this whole thing, really.

What your espousing here is similar something that uber fans of one say in order to justify their preference without doing much investigating of the other. Marvel and DC may have once been very different in terms of how they approach their respective characters, but many of those difference have since faded away in the decades since the 1960s.

I think this is why you keep trying to argue that "DC and Marvel aren't really that different!"

I think you believe that people are making statements about DC in ignorance, and stating a preference for Marvel but that if they actually read DC and gave it a fair try, they'd see that there are great characters and stories there too.

Well, I have read DC. A lot of DC, over the course of several decades, so I don't just have a "passing familiarity" with that universe. I'm not an "uber" fan of Marvel in that I've read them to the exclusion of all else. At different points in my collecting life, my pull list has actually been more heavily stacked to DC. It isn't anymore, for various reasons. Mostly because I feel that the people who've been running DC for awhile now have lost sight of what makes their characters and their universe great.

But I do finally get, and am sympathetic to, why you want to argue the point so hard. You really love DC and think that the reasons that people think Marvel and DC are different and why some people believe Marvel is better just aren't applicable anymore and that, if people would just take the time to read both, they'd see that the two publishers are really more alike now than they are different.

To that I can only say that, as a fan of both and as a longtime reader of both, that they aren't alike. Nor should they be. Their value lies in their respective differences. DC is absolutely filled with great characters and great stories but they just have a distinctly different flavor than the great characters and stories at Marvel.

Ok, that's it. Honest! I keep saying I'm dropping out of this discussion so hopefully third time's the charm!

And here's hoping that, as unlikely as it may be, that a great Marvel/DC crossover will happen again one day!

[Coin Biter]

Because my point is not that easy to express then you may be missing the key element. You are much closer with your second point but that isn't quite it either.

OML wasn't originally about breaking down and rebuilding Wolverine. Or rather it came from a direction that sought to show how Wolverine was an old-fashioned concept that shouldn't really be written in that way any more. It had a certain abashed sensibility because it didn't actually do what its key inspiration did.

Unforgiven technically argues against the lone gunslinger operating outside of the law with a code of conduct to guide him. It called that idea out in a way that is hard to argue with. Eastwood's movie is far more strident and coherent than OML. Unforgiven isn't just a story about a gunslinger hanging up his guns and eventually pulling them back down off the hook. It is an examination of the personal and social impact of ever having worn those guns, and it seeks to strip away the romanticism completely.

The Revisionist Westerns of the 60s and 70s still clung to a romantic notion, but it wasn't the same romantic notion of Shane. The only guiding principle was this personal code of conduct. This is often compared to samurai and ronin concepts of honour, or knightly chivalry. Unforgiven calls this out as a kind of lie. It is shown to be a construction of the surrounding culture which protects the innocent from the truth. Munny knows that by pulling down his guns he will step out of that protected world of civil behaviour and belief in moral certitude and back into a violent world with no rules and raw visceral murder. He knows, even if everyone else around him believes it, that he had no code of conduct, no moral compass, that these things don't exist outside of cultural ideals.


So what we got with OML was an examination of Wolverine as an analog of Munny. That was the most compelling thing about OML. It is technically a deconstruction but it is not one that can truely rebuild the character. It suggests Wolverine is forever broken, but importantly it suggests he was always broken even before the time he was used by the villain uprising. That he was lying to himself and he can never forget that. It effectively colours every mainstream Wolverine story and undermines it in a way that it can never fully escape.

Now this was an abashed version. It didn't go that deeply into these ideas, it relied on the reader being familiar with the now infamous movie, and it potentially will allow a reading that feels very much like every other Wolverine story. But at the end of the story we are not left with a feeling that Wolverine has anywhere to go. Just as at the end of Unforgiven we know Munny is a broken man in grief and trauma and that he technically was before the movie started.

For me, the most disappointing thing about Logan was that it didn't go there. It skirted around these issues and was even more abashed than OML. It seemingly wanted to be something else but I haven't ever quite worked out what it wanted to be. It isn't the most coherent of movies.

That's if you see Logan (the movie) as in the tradition of the revisionist western. But it clearly wasn't. It was explicitly in the tradition of Shane, which appeared and was quoted in the film itself, in that Logan is a protagonist who may have used violence for ambiguous or ugly purposes in the past, but in the context of the film itself, either uses them in self defence or to protect others who need protection. Granted, Logan isn't the prettiest of protagonists in the movie, unlike Alan Ladd Granted, Xavier brings destruction on an innocent family by seeking refuge. Granted also, that Logan is set in a post apocalyptic world in which the ideals and the family that Wolverine appeared to fight for are long since gone, and even mutants are almost gone. But the film ultimately ends on an idea of hope, that although individuals may die, not all is lost, and that hope can be rebuilt through sacrifice. It may not have been a message that you were interested in seeing in a film purportedly inspired by OML, but it was far from an incoherent movie.

Logan, I agree, borrowed very little from Old Man Logan apart from the idea of an old and declining Logan engaging once more in violence. But that's fair enough, because I am not convinced that Old Man Logan borrowed that much from Unforgiven except for a tradition of violent aging badassery either. Logan as a character who cannot escape his past doesn't colour every portrayal of Logan since his use in the X-Man... that has been in Logan since he featured in the X-Men, after his brief appearance as a Hulk antagonist. At the end of the story, he rides off to kill more villains - and it's not as if the killings he has already committed in the story weren't portrayed as being justified or cathartic. (OML incidentally has some beautiful art, but it's not Millar's best story for DC or Marvel, which in the context of this debate would in American comics arguably be Red Son, which indeed has some interesting things to say about Superman )

And justified violence, for what it's worth, is the key difference between Unforgiven, and Logan and OML. All the violence in that film is shown as being corrupting and futile, even when purportedly righteous (such as when Little Bill beats* English Bob). I wouldn't quite accept the idea that Unforgiven deromanticised Westerns, though, but it's possible that we may understand different things by that word. While Munny wasn't a morally admirable outsider he was still, in the end, portrayed as an unstoppable force of mythic violence, the genuine "Bad Man" who the writer in the movie had been searching for. In getting rid of Shane in short, Unforgiven still had a place for Jack Wilson.

That idea, as interpreted by Ennis and Millar and many others, is perhaps the true legacy of Unforgiven - and a somewhat ironic one at that. An earlier revisionist Western, Dirty Little Billy from 1972, went much further than Unforgiven, in that everyone involved was portrayed as a squalid imbecile. But I have to admit it wasn't a particularly entertaining film - or even accurate to the historical figure of William Bonney, by all accounts.

[JKtheMac]

You're kinda showing that you probably haven't picked up much DC.

Bear in mind I am not an exaggerator. If I haven't read two thousand issues I won't claim to be an expert. I have read just as little captain America as I have read Batman, and don't claim to be an expert in either. I have read a lot of both characters. My introduction to the big two was Detective Comics #455 "Heart of a Vampire" and Weird War Tales #38 which I bought together off of a spinner rack at a seaside resort in the summer of 1976. I am not unread in DC, I just haven't read anywhere near as much DC as Marvel. Both very dark comics BTW, especially for a eight year old.

Everything you just said about Captain America is applicable to Superman, to Wonder Woman, to Batman, etc.

I was explaining why Captain America is not defined by his origin in the same way as Batman or for that matter any of the DC trinity. Batman has never totally changed his entire reason to even be in main continuity. Captain America has.

How many Superman writers have played up the "last survivor of Krypton" angle to introduce personal conflict? Same thing with the "your ideals are outdated, Superman" trope. Superman and Captain America are actually remarkably similar characters. One is just far more powerful than the other. Multiple Wonder Woman writers have also played up the aspect of her being a stranger to man's world and a fish out of water the same way Captain America is.

Yes absolutely. Did I ever suggest there were no similarities?

And I don't think it is so clear that the coats, as you say, are all that different. People here have provided multiple examples of stories that showcase how the characters between the companies have gone through similar internal conflicts. I've provided such examples myself. You just refuse to acknowledge that. I mean, even by your own admission, you haven't read all that many of the stories I've mentioned.

I haven't no. Because I am not a fan of Superman. Geek culture would demand that I can't possibly be a true comics fan if I am not a fan of Superman. They would be wrong, but really Geek Culture is a myth. It is a collection of self defeating rules and behaviours that most people that identify as fans only pay lip service to.

I offered to read one of your list but that offer is now off of the table because you were just arguing without listening so I have no guarantee that the investment would be worth it. It would be a chore for me. I was only offering to help explain the difference between Character Driven and Plot Driven which is a tangential but related issue, but you have made it perfectly clear that you have no interest in listening to someone that actually writes stories and understands the difference through application and craft.

Again, writers jump back and forth between the two all the time. There are numerous cases of writers adapting a story meant for one to be published by the other. Kraven's Last Hunt, a Spider-Man classic by all accounts, was one such story. DeMatteis meant for it to be a Batman story.

You have made this point before and we have all accepted it to be true. You seem to believe it means something more than the fact that sometimes writers work for both and write similar stories.

What you're espousing here is similar something that uber fans of one say in order to justify their preference without doing much investigating of the other. Marvel and DC may have once been very different in terms of how they approach their respective characters, but many of those difference have since faded away in the decades since the 1960s.

The differences are still there, they were not always as obvious. For a while there were very few differences in the late eighties through to the mid noughts. We had lots of good intentions that lead to bad decisions at both companies. Luckily comics are finding their feet again. Both companies are starting to play to their strengths again.

You should always be very careful not to categorise someone that makes a point you don't agree with as being in a group that all see things the same way. I don't agree with everything Prof. Warren says for example. I don't think there is a big difference between Spider-Man and the characters of the DC trinity. He clearly does. But what we agree on is something multiple writers have also claimed over decades. That Marvel and DC are not the same. Their ethos is different, their main character focus is different and the way they deal with long form continuity is different. The writers that successfully move between the two understand the difference. Some of the more challenging writers don't really belong at either company.

[JKtheMac]

That's if you see Logan (the movie) as in the tradition of the revisionist western. But it clearly wasn't. It was explicitly in the tradition of Shane, which appeared and was quoted in the film itself, in that Logan is a protagonist who may have used violence for ambiguous or ugly purposes in the past, but in the context of the film itself, either uses them in self defence or to protect others who need protection. Granted, Logan isn't the prettiest of protagonists in the movie, unlike Alan Ladd Granted, Xavier brings destruction on an innocent family by seeking refuge. Granted also, that Logan is set in a post apocalyptic world in which the ideals and the family that Wolverine appeared to fight for are long since gone, and even mutants are almost gone. But the film ultimately ends on an idea of hope, that although individuals may die, not all is lost, and that hope can be rebuilt through sacrifice. It may not have been a message that you were interested in seeing in a film purportedly inspired by OML, but it was far from an incoherent movie.

Logan, I agree, borrowed very little from Old Man Logan apart from the idea of an old and declining Logan engaging once more in violence. But that's fair enough, because I am not convinced that Old Man Logan borrowed that much from Unforgiven except for a tradition of violent aging badassery either. Logan as a character who cannot escape his past doesn't colour every portrayal of Logan since his use in the X-Man... that has been in Logan since he featured in the X-Men, after his brief appearance as a Hulk antagonist. At the end of the story, he rides off to kill more villains - and it's not as if the killings he has already committed in the story weren't portrayed as being justified or cathartic. (OML incidentally has some beautiful art, but it's not Millar's best story for DC or Marvel, which in the context of this debate would in American comics arguably be Red Son, which indeed has some interesting things to say about Superman )

And justified violence, for what it's worth, is the key difference between Unforgiven, and Logan and OML. All the violence in that film is shown as being corrupting and futile, even when purportedly righteous (such as when Little Bill kills English Bob). I wouldn't quite accept the idea that Unforgiven deromanticised Westerns, though, but it's possible that we may understand different things by that word. While Munny wasn't a morally admirable outsider he was still, in the end, portrayed as an unstoppable force of mythic violence, the genuine "Bad Man" who the writer in the movie had been searching for. In getting rid of Shane in short, Unforgiven still had a place for Jack Wilson.

That idea, as interpreted by Ennis and Millar and many others, is perhaps the true legacy of Unforgiven - and a somewhat ironic one at that. An earlier revisionist Western, Dirty Little Billy from 1972, went much further than Unforgiven, in that everyone involved was portrayed as a squalid imbecile. But I have to admit it wasn't a particularly entertaining film - or even accurate to the historical figure of William Bonney, by all accounts.

I think you make a lot of very valid and interesting points, many of which I agree with, that I would love to dig into and work through. Unfortunately it would be majorly tangential to the thread. I admit I started that tangent wanting to explain my earlier points.

I believe Millar would make the connection with Unforgiven, and I strongly believe he intended to ask the hard question of Wolverine. I agree that the actual result is nowhere near as straightforward or coherent as Unforgiven, but Millar isn't as good a creator as Eastwood and OML hasn't been granted special place in the Library of Congress. That isn't for the want of trying on Millar's part, he is a pretty good writer. It is also a hard lesson for comics to take on board, so I am not sure Marvel editorial would want to overplay this hard question either.