Why prefer marvel over DC?

[Prof. Warren]

Really? Are you really making the argument that Bruce Wayne is NOT tortured and emotionally conflicted? Yes, he believes in his crusade, but at the same time, so does Steve Rogers, so does Peter Parker, so does Tony Stark.

You really think Bruce hasn't felt the sacrifices that he's had to make and wishes he didn't have to make them? Look at how he reacted to the death of Jason Todd, refusing to take on another Robin for a long time afterwards because of his guilt. Look at what happened with the Superheavy arc where Bruce had to choose between having a life with Julie Madison and being Batman. And again even as recent as Batman #50, look at how Bruce was going to finally choose happiness with Selina only to have that taken away from him. There are a lot of other examples.

There is absolutely a part of Bruce that loves being Batman and will place that over everything else, but then again, there's also a part of Peter Parker who loves being Spider-Man and will place his whole ideal of "with great power comes great responsibility" over everything else. Its a different kind of turmoil because Bruce is more driven by his mission than some other characters, but Batman still struggles with being Batman.

Batman is one of the least conflicted characters in fiction. He is dark and brooding in only the most superficial of ways. That's not a knock on him, it's only noting that any torment he suffers is no way ever going to actually represent a re-thinking of his goals. Not a failed romance, not the death of a partner. Nothing.

This is a character who made a vow on his parent's graves and devoted his life to fulfilling that vow, without wavering. He is the most laser focused, most driven human being on the planet. If he wasn't, he could not do what he does.

Or, as JK says:

Batman stories are not at heart character driven. The origin story defines him so completely there is very little that can bear questioning. This is why most of the stories that do challenge Batman’s character are outside of mainstream continuity.

And again, what I'm saying is that there is no monolithic approach that one can take to this. There are Marvel characters who, a lot of the time, don't doubt themselves or struggle with their choices or express a reluctance to be heroes. Steve Rogers hardly ever questions his decision to become Captain America nor have I really seen a lot of personal struggle and self-doubt built into the character.

Steve actually does question being Cap. He has given up being Cap at different times in his history because of disillusionment or self-doubt.

So, again, monolithic generalizations like this really shouldn't be relied upon because they are demonstrably false.

It's a good thing, then, that no one is making "monolithic generalizations."

Noting fundamental differences is not making the claim that in every single case, x must be true and y is never true.

What is even the point in trying to wave away or minimize - or outright deny - the key ways in which DC and Marvel differ? It seems like you somehow feel that acknowledging their unique qualities is some kind of terrible affront that must be discouraged at all costs, as if someone might get the wrong idea that DC is limited in some way. But that isn't the case. The ways in which Marvel and DC differ is what makes them interesting as separate entities.

To look at them both as being virtually the same because, well, similar stories can be told by both publishers is the most flat, reductive, incurious experience possible.

Similar is not the same. And it's the subtle ways in which they differ that are worth recognizing. It lends to a greater appreciation of both.

Well, actually there is. Silver Age Daredevil was pretty much as camp and silly and kid-friendly as you could get.



In fact, Waid's recent run on Daredevil (which I loved) was in many ways a return to the camp and lighthearted DD stories of the Silver Age.

Yes, I know how Daredevil was portrayed in the Lee/Wood/Romita Sr./Colan years.

The point would be that there isn't two or more versions of Daredevil being published today in order to accommodate the different versions that have appeared across different eras. You don't have comics with a grim n' gritty Daredevil and yet also others with a bright and bouncing Silver Age version making corny quips. You have one version of the character. One. And sometimes he'll have a lighter run, sometimes he'll have a darker one, depending on the creative team.

But Batman has only dark runs in the mainstream continuity today. There is no variance within the main run. Variety is provided in the side books, outside of the main universe, where you can have Batman '66 or Batman teaming up with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or you have a book like Damned, where it's even darker and more violent than the main continuity.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Batman is one of the least conflicted characters in fiction. He is dark and brooding in only the most superficial of ways. That's not a knock on him, it's only noting that any torment he suffers is no way ever going to actually represent a re-thinking of his goals. Not a failed romance, not the death of a partner. Nothing.

This is a character who made a vow on his parent's graves and devoted his life to fulfilling that vow, without wavering. He is the most laser focused, most driven human being on the planet. If he wasn't, he could not do what he does.

You mean, like how Peter Parker made a promise to his dead uncle never again abandon his personal responsibility?

And that's the thing, though. Batman has wavered. Bruce has rethought his goals. In fact, we just had an entire arc recently that was focused on Bruce trying to bring more into his life than just his never-ending quest for vengeance. His whole engagement to Selina was prompted by his "father" (from an alternate reality, but still) telling him that he should try to be happy and to abandon being Batman.

Steve actually does question being Cap. He has given up being Cap at different times in his history because of disillusionment or self-doubt.

The only time I can think of is during his whole time as Nomad during the '70s following Watergate. But, even still, then how is Superman doubting his abilities, methods, and role in the world like how he does in Action 775 or Peace on Earth or any of the other stories I mentioned any different?

It's a good thing, then, that no one is making "monolithic generalizations."

Noting fundamental differences is not making the claim that in every single case, x must be true and y is never true.

Didn't you say this a little bit back, though?

The difference being that the personal problems of, say, Batman and Superman never ring as true as they do for the Marvel heroes. DC tries to humanize their characters but it never feels like a natural fit. They just weren't built for it. There isn't as much emphasis on the personality of the characters as there is at Marvel. At DC it's more about the powers and the costumed identity.

That is a monolithic generalization.

What is even the point in trying to wave away or minimize - or outright deny - the key ways in which DC and Marvel differ? It seems like you somehow feel that acknowledging their unique qualities is some kind of terrible affront that must be discouraged at all costs, as if someone might get the wrong idea that DC is limited in some way. But that isn't the case. The ways in which Marvel and DC differ is what makes them interesting as separate entities.

To look at them both as being virtually the same because, well, similar stories can be told by both publishers is the most flat, reductive, incurious experience possible.

Similar is not the same. And it's the subtle ways in which they differ that are worth recognizing. It lends to a greater appreciation of both.

Again, my original post said that Marvel and DC were "similar." I don't think I said they were the "same." They use the same tropes and same plot mechanics, but I know they're not the same. I've said how I don't think they're the same. Its only that the ways in which I think they're different differ from the ways you think they're different. However, DC and Marvel are similar enough that when I pick up a comic from either, I know I'm just as likely to get at least a few things, with the chief thing being flawed, dynamic, and engaging protagonists who experience growth and change.

Yes, I know how Daredevil was portrayed in the Lee/Wood/Romita Sr./Colan years.

The point would be that there isn't two or more versions of Daredevil being published today in order to accommodate the different versions that have appeared across different eras. You don't have comics with a grim n' gritty Daredevil and yet also others with a bright and bouncing Silver Age version making corny quips. You have one version of the character. One. And sometimes he'll have a lighter run, sometimes he'll have a darker one, depending on the creative team.

But Batman has only dark runs in the mainstream continuity today. There is no variance within the main run. Variety is provided in the side books, outside of the main universe, where you can have Batman '66 or Batman teaming up with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or you have a book like Damned, where it's even darker and more violent than the main continuity.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that has anything to do with what we're talking about. The reason that Daredevil doesn't have that is just because, well, Batman is just a bigger name than DD.

[JKtheMac]

No, OML does it in a way that's uniquely Mark Millar. It also wasn't the first time Millar had even done something like that with a popular character:

Again you are making arguments against points I didn’t make and choosing examples that don’t undermine my points.

[Prof. Warren]

You mean, like how Peter Parker made a promise to his dead uncle never again abandon his personal responsibility?

No, nothing like that. Peter Parker is about as different from Batman as you can possibly get.

Bruce Wayne saw his parents gunned down, an act which he was powerless to prevent. He made a vow to become someone who would not be powerless again, a protector. He selflessly devoted his life to that pursuit, at the cost of a normal life.

Peter Parker gained powers through an accident of science. As a bullied, unpopular kid he immediately used those powers for selfish gain and saw no need to give even the smallest aid to others. When that selfishness cost him one of the two people most important to him, his then realizes his mistake and vows to make up for it.

There is an element of original sin to Peter Parker's origin that colors his entire outlook. Bruce Wayne is an altruistic figure. Peter Parker is not and they way both grapple with their responsibilities is very different.

Bruce is striving to be the person he was once powerless to be. Peter is trying to atone for a personal sin.

When Bruce has doubts, it's about the effectiveness of his crusade. The outcome is that he redoubles his resolve.

When Peter has doubts, the outcome is that is he reminded that he is not done atoning for his mistakes. The burden of guilt is not lifted.

The only time I can think of is during his whole time as Nomad during the '70s following Watergate. But, even still, then how is Superman doubting his abilities, methods, and role in the world like how he does in Action 775 or Peace on Earth or any of the other stories I mentioned any different?

The difference is that Superman's doubts are generally about "How can I be a better Superman?"

Not "should I be Superman?" but "How can I be a better Superman?"

Superman would never ask himself "is this worth doing at all?". He asks "Am I doing enough?"

When we see Superman question himself, it's not about exploring the complex psychology of a person, it's about trying to humanize an iconic figure.

The same is true with Batman:

And that's the thing, though. Batman has wavered. Bruce has rethought his goals. In fact, we just had an entire arc recently that was focused on Bruce trying to bring more into his life than just his never-ending quest for vengeance. His whole engagement to Selina was prompted by his "father" (from an alternate reality, but still) telling him that he should try to be happy and to abandon being Batman.

Batman is an adult who lives in service of a childhood vow. Normal psychology does not apply. He is a mythic figure. Indeed, that's exactly what he strives to be and it is often argued that Bruce Wayne is the mask for Batman, not vice versa.

It's not the same as a character who struggles with guilt or pride. Like Superman, in the end it's always about "how I can be a better hero?"

That is a monolithic generalization.

I don't think the iconic DC characters, like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman are ever going to be "everyday people" in the way that Marvel's characters are.

Whatever personal dramas are applied to them doesn't negate or diminish their essentially mythic qualities.

As Superman says in The Dark Knight Returns, "We must not remind them that giants walk the Earth." These characters are legends of Olympian stature, not regular people riddled with personal hang-ups.

That's their strength, though, not a weakness.

You have characters created in the modern age, like Kyle or Wally, but they'll always be anomalies in a universe that has an underlying mythic quality.

They're real people living in a fantasy world (as much as it may be "real" to them) rather than real people living in a world that's as complicated and neurotic as they are.

And bringing deeper characterizations to Silver Age characters like Barry or Hal is like reverse engineering a complex person. They didn't start of as being interesting people. That wasn't even a consideration when they were conceived that Barry and Hal should be flawed and interesting in and of themselves. So writers have had to retro-actively find a way to make them interesting. And the ways in which that happens can change with any reboot.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that has anything to do with what we're talking about.

My initial point was about how DC deals with how Batman has changed over the years by having all these diverse incarnations of the character exist together but in different, continuity-free spaces. Hence, we can have the Adam West style Batman, a slightly darker mainstream current continuity Batman, and an even darker "mature label" Batman and any other Batmen they choose. DC does not do this with, say, Daredevil. There's not a darker and a kid-friendly Daredevil. There's just one.

DC seeks to carve out a continued space for their old-fashioned past in a way that Marvel doesn't. Because even though the Silver Age Marvel stories may have been more innocent by today's standards, they were never perceived as old-fashioned and corny at the time. Marvel's characters were simply of their time and continued to be of their times as the times progressed.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No, nothing like that. Peter Parker is about as different from Batman as you can possibly get...

Bruce is striving to be the person he was once powerless to be. Peter is trying to atone for a personal sin.

And here's the thing I don't get, though. How does the fact that Bruce wasn't responsible for his parents' death makes him less relatable or less prone to doubting himself? Yes, he's a bit more driven than Peter. That doesn't mean he doesn't experience similar emotions to Peter's.

When Bruce has doubts, it's about the effectiveness of his crusade. The outcome is that he redoubles his resolve.

When Peter has doubts, the outcome is that is he reminded that he is not done atoning for his mistakes. The burden of guilt is not lifted.

Self doubt is self doubt. The end result doesn't make the doubt any less tangible or any less real. Batman redoubles his efforts, but still feels guilt and uncertainty. And, yes, he does feel regret over the things he believes he can never have. Again, this was shown even quite recently.

Whenever Peter doubts himself, he still ends up going back to being Spider-Man. He has chosen being Spider-Man over a normal life because of his feelings of responsibility. He knows that he could never really walk away from being Spider-Man, even when he's been presented with the chance to do so. Bruce has gone through similar experiences. Again, I've provided examples of such times.

The difference is that Superman's doubts are generally about "How can I be a better Superman?"

Not "should I be Superman?" but "How can I be a better Superman?"

Superman would never ask himself "is this worth doing at all?". He asks "Am I doing enough?"

When we see Superman question himself, it's not about exploring the complex psychology of a person, it's about trying to humanize an iconic figure.

The same is true with Batman:

Actually, there have been several times when Superman has actually expressed regret over the things that being Superman has cost him. In Up, Up, and Away, Clark, who started off the arc as powerless (because of Infinite Crisis) actually seems to lament his powers returning because, in his view, him being Superman puts strain on his marriage. Him and Lois even have a whole conversation about how the past year of him without his powers was good for their relationship.

So, I think the whole idea of "Superman is mythic" is something that only people who only have passing familiarity with the character espouse.

Batman is an adult who lives in service of a childhood vow. Normal psychology does not apply. He is a mythic figure. Indeed, that's exactly what he strives to be and it is often argued that Bruce Wayne is the mask for Batman, not vice versa.

It's not the same as a character who struggles with guilt or pride. Like Superman, in the end it's always about "how I can be a better hero?"

Well, again, self-doubt is self-doubt, whether the character asks "how can I be better?" or "should I even be doing this?" The effect is pretty much the same. It shows that the character has flaws. That they question themselves.

And again, I've provided examples where Bruce has doubted whether him being Batman is worth it and has lamented the things that his crusade has cost him. You're just refusing to acknowledge them.

Plus, if we're really talking about a character who constantly is just driven to be a better version of himself and fully and totally commits himself to his mission, even if it costs him the things he cares about, well hello, Reed Richards is kind of famous for that. Is he supposedly a god who walks among men?

I don't think the iconic DC characters, like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman are ever going to be "everyday people" in the way that Marvel's characters are.

Whatever personal dramas are applied to them doesn't negate or diminish their essentially mythic qualities.

As Superman says in The Dark Knight Returns, "We must not remind them that giants walk the Earth." These characters are legends of Olympian stature, not regular people riddled with personal hang-ups.

That's their strength, though, not a weakness.

Again, I think that is usually something people say when they only have passing familiarity with the characters and don't actually know them all that well. In-continuity, a huge part of Superman's character for decades has been how he views himself as Clark first, Superman second. For example, in Superman #651, when given a Green Lantern ring, he projects himself as Clark not Superman. Superman is something he does, but who he is, who he was raised as is Clark Kent. He even tells that to Lois later on in that issue, telling her how he just wants to live his life with her.

And bringing deeper characterizations to Silver Age characters like Barry or Hal is like reverse engineering a complex person. They didn't start of as being interesting people. That wasn't even a consideration when they were conceived that Barry and Hal should be flawed and interesting in and of themselves. So writers have had to retro-actively find a way to make them interesting. And the ways in which that happens can change with any reboot.

Well, that's your opinion. That doesn't mean its fact. And I fail to see how character traits introduced later on are somehow less part of a character than ones they have from their first appearance. I think Barry Allen and Hal Jordan are interesting just like I think Peter Parker and Reed Richards are interesting.

Many characters have their flaws revealed years after they've debuted. Tony Stark's alcoholism, for example, didn't become part of his character until the late 1970s, over 15 years after his original appearance. Before that, he was pretty much a typical run-of-the-mill comic book genius with the added layer of being a symbol of Cold War-era American exceptionalism. Does that mean that I see him being an alcoholic as any less integral to who he is as a human being? No. Of course not. Similarly, Steve Rogers debuted as an enthusiastic, gung-ho soldier who simply wanted to serve his country and that was his whole motivation. Any disillusionment with government institutions (though that is still few and far between with Cap) came waaaaay after his debut.

So, because those characters' personality foibles and "feet of clay" came long after their debut, does that mean that they're less relatable or that any self-doubt introduced for them would be "reverse engineering"?

My initial point was about how DC deals with how Batman has changed over the years by having all these diverse incarnations of the character exist together but in different, continuity-free spaces. Hence, we can have the Adam West style Batman, a slightly darker mainstream current continuity Batman, and an even darker "mature label" Batman and any other Batmen they choose. DC does not do this with, say, Daredevil. There's not a darker and a kid-friendly Daredevil. There's just one.

Except that has pretty much nothing to do with the underlying traits of the characters. Batman is a mega-franchise, so of course there are multiple iterations. There are actually alternate versions of Matt Murdock, just not as many. If Daredevil was as much a standalone franchise as Batman, then he would probably have a few more different iterations running around.

Look at all the different versions of Spider-Man they have running around: the main 616 Spider-Man, Renew Your Vows Spider-Man, Spider-Ham, Ultimate Peter Parker, Marvel Zombies Spider-Man, Spider-Man Noir, Spider-Man: Reign, Spider-Man 2099, Spider-Man 1602, etc. I mean, they have published multiple series now about all the different iterations of Spider-Man:



Spider-Man and Batman are mega-popular characters. That's why they have all those different versions of themselves running around. It has nothing to do with what Marvel or DC think of their respective psychological underpinnings.

[LifeIsILL]

There was the kid-friendly Marvel Superhero Squad, if you wanna get technical:



If Punisher was on there, I'm sure Daredevil shows up for a few issues.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Never mind.

[okiedokiewo]

Look at how he reacted to the death of Jason Todd, refusing to take on another Robin for a long time afterwards because of his guilt.

I mean...Bruce had a new Robin within a year of Jason's death, but all right.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I mean...Bruce had a new Robin within a year of Jason's death, but all right.

But Bruce was incredibly reluctant to take him on is the point because he was still traumatized by Jason's death and would be for a long time afterwards. He even says to Alfred "one boy died wearing that costume...I'm not taking that risk again."

[Rosebunse]

There was the kid-friendly Marvel Superhero Squad, if you wanna get technical:



If Punisher was on there, I'm sure Daredevil shows up for a few issues.

This show was amazing! The Punisher scenes were the best TV version of the Punisher ever!

[Prof. Warren]

Look at all the different versions of Spider-Man they have running around: the main 616 Spider-Man, Renew Your Vows Spider-Man, Spider-Ham, Ultimate Peter Parker, Marvel Zombies Spider-Man, Spider-Man Noir, Spider-Man: Reign, Spider-Man 2099, etc. I mean, they have published multiple series now about all the different iterations of Spider-Man:



Spider-Man and Batman are mega-popular characters. That's why they have all those different versions of themselves running around.

Yes, but the difference is that they don't have many different versions of Peter Parker Spider-Man. And certainly when they do have more than one, it's not so there's a "retro-Spidey" and a grim n' gritty Spidey. Any version of Peter Parker Spider-Man they have is meant to appeal to more or less the same audience. Or at the very least, they're appropriate in tone for the same audience. You can't say the same for Batman '66 and Batman Damned.

There was the kid-friendly Marvel Superhero Squad, if you wanna get technical:



If Punisher was on there, I'm sure Daredevil shows up for a few issues.

As far as those comics go, they're meant for a younger reading level altogether - not so much to appeal to nostalgia or to preserve an earlier era's version of these characters.

I mean...Bruce had a new Robin within a year of Jason's death, but all right.

Bruce taking on another Robin after Jason's death was the jump the shark moment for Batman.

But Bruce was incredibly reluctant to take him on is the point because he was still traumatized by Jason's death and would be for a long time afterwards. He even says to Alfred "one boy died wearing that costume...I'm not taking that risk again."

After your child partner has been bludgeoned with a crow bar and then blown up, you should be more than "reluctant" to ever put another child in harm's way.

Killing Jason was a horrible move on DC's part. I don't care what the poll results were (and having a poll in the first place to decide a character's fate was dumb, but whatever), they should have not had him die. Certainly not in the brutal way he did. But having done that, it should have marked the end of Batman having a junior partner.

The idea of Robin only works if you have a DC universe where it's ok to put a child in harm's way because it's not a place of real violence. Robin might frequently be in danger but you know that he'll survive every scrape either by his own wits or by having Batman be there to protect him. But once you say, "no, this is a place where real, permanent harm can come to this character and a child can be savagely murdered" well, then, the gig is up. Of course because of the huge amount of revenue there is to be had from Robin merchandise and so on, there's no way that DC can let that character stay dead so Batman has to get a new Robin. The problem now is that once he goes down that road again, no matter how "reluctantly" he might do so, Batman is now a bad parent and, basically a psycho. There's no good reason for him to keep working with kids once one of them gets killed.

But that's a whole other discussion.

[Prof. Warren]

And here's the thing I don't get, though. How does the fact that Bruce wasn't responsible for his parents' death makes him less relatable or less prone to doubting himself? Yes, he's a bit more driven than Peter. That doesn't mean he doesn't experience similar emotions to Peter's.

Self doubt is self doubt.

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.

And I fail to see how character traits introduced later on are somehow less part of a character than ones they have from their first appearance. I think Barry Allen and Hal Jordan are interesting just like I think Peter Parker and Reed Richards are interesting.

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.

Many characters have their flaws revealed years after they've debuted. Tony Stark's alcoholism, for example, didn't become part of his character until the late 1970s, over 15 years after his original appearance. Before that, he was pretty much a typical run-of-the-mill comic book genius with the added layer of being a symbol of Cold War-era American exceptionalism. Does that mean that I see him being an alcoholic as any less integral to who he is as a human being? No. Of course not. Similarly, Steve Rogers debuted as an enthusiastic, gung-ho soldier who simply wanted to serve his country and that was his whole motivation. Any disillusionment with government institutions (though that is still few and far between with Cap) came waaaaay after his debut.

So, because those characters' personality foibles and "feet of clay" came long after their debut, does that mean that they're less relatable or that any self-doubt introduced for them would be "reverse engineering"?

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.

Anyhow, I think we've come to the end of this discussion. At least I know I have.

Exploring the ways that Marvel and DC differ is - to my mind - simply a way to better enjoy and appreciate both, not to diminish them.

[Jokerz79]

Yes, but the difference is that they don't have many different versions of Peter Parker Spider-Man. And certainly when they do have more than one, it's not so there's a "retro-Spidey" and a grim n' gritty Spidey. Any version of Peter Parker Spider-Man they have is meant to appeal to more or less the same audience. Or at the very least, they're appropriate in tone for the same audience. You can't say the same for Batman '66 and Batman Damned.



As far as those comics go, they're meant for a younger reading level altogether - not so much to appeal to nostalgia or to preserve an earlier era's version of these characters.



Bruce taking on another Robin after Jason's death was the jump the shark moment for Batman.



After your child partner has been bludgeoned with a crow bar and then blown up, you should be more than "reluctant" to ever put another child in harm's way.

Killing Jason was a horrible move on DC's part. I don't care what the poll results were (and having a poll in the first place to decide a character's fate was dumb, but whatever), they should have not had him die. Certainly not in the brutal way he did. But having done that, it should have marked the end of Batman having a junior partner.

The idea of Robin only works if you have a DC universe where it's ok to put a child in harm's way because it's not a place of real violence. Robin might frequently be in danger but you know that he'll survive every scrape either by his own wits or by having Batman be there to protect him. But once you say, "no, this is a place where real, permanent harm can come to this character and a child can be savagely murdered" well, then, the gig is up. Of course because of the huge amount of revenue there is to be had from Robin merchandise and so on, there's no way that DC can let that character stay dead so Batman has to get a new Robin. The problem now is that once he goes down that road again, no matter how "reluctantly" he might do so, Batman is now a bad parent and, basically a psycho. There's no good reason for him to keep working with kids once one of them gets killed.

But that's a whole other discussion.

How many New Mutants have had funerals? Training mutants fine but why would the X-Men still have teens fight supervillains? Because its a comic book and teen characters bring in younger readers you can't apply real world logic to superheroes or it all falls apart.

Personally I love both companies end of story.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Yes, but the difference is that they don't have many different versions of Peter Parker Spider-Man. And certainly when they do have more than one, it's not so there's a "retro-Spidey" and a grim n' gritty Spidey. Any version of Peter Parker Spider-Man they have is meant to appeal to more or less the same audience. Or at the very least, they're appropriate in tone for the same audience. You can't say the same for Batman '66 and Batman Damned.

Uh, yes, they are different versions of Peter. A lot of the versions I've mentioned are just Peter geared to different audiences.

And Batman '66 is basically just meant for fans of the TV show from the 60s because the show was a cultural phenomenon. Marvel has also published different versions of Spider-Man to tie into other media and appeal to other audiences as well.




I doubt those were geared toward the same audience that reads the main-universe ASM comic

After your child partner has been bludgeoned with a crow bar and then blown up, you should be more than "reluctant" to ever put another child in harm's way.

Killing Jason was a horrible move on DC's part. I don't care what the poll results were (and having a poll in the first place to decide a character's fate was dumb, but whatever), they should have not had him die. Certainly not in the brutal way he did. But having done that, it should have marked the end of Batman having a junior partner.

The idea of Robin only works if you have a DC universe where it's ok to put a child in harm's way because it's not a place of real violence. Robin might frequently be in danger but you know that he'll survive every scrape either by his own wits or by having Batman be there to protect him. But once you say, "no, this is a place where real, permanent harm can come to this character and a child can be savagely murdered" well, then, the gig is up. Of course because of the huge amount of revenue there is to be had from Robin merchandise and so on, there's no way that DC can let that character stay dead so Batman has to get a new Robin. The problem now is that once he goes down that road again, no matter how "reluctantly" he might do so, Batman is now a bad parent and, basically a psycho. There's no good reason for him to keep working with kids once one of them gets killed.

But that's a whole other discussion.

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.

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.

[Killerbee911]

How many New Mutants have had funerals? Training mutants fine but why would the X-Men still have teens fight supervillains? Because its a comic book and teen characters bring in younger readers you can't apply real world logic to superheroes or it all falls apart.

Personally I love both companies end of story.

Not really a good example

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

2. Mutants are being attack for being who they are, It is more self defense and self preservation than hey I am going to be super hero

3. The X-men have functional system school system for training.

You can apply real world logic to it and X-men and My hero academia(Young Justice is pretty solid as well) have logical systems for handling teenage heroes. The genre doesn't need bad storytelling just to use fun concepts I hate when people say just go with it because comics to apply bad troupes. X-men may have handle it badly in past but they have put in more logical limiters now in stories today. KGBeast is out here sniping Nightwing head and Batman is going out patrolling with Robin his 14 year old son and that is not stupid ? I rather read a "Justice League Academy" where the story tries to put in some limits on teenage heroes to where it makes more sense.

Now Marvel has Champions as better example of WTF( and they had New Warriors) but comics can do better if we let them. Marvel actually had "The Intivative" where heroes actually had to register and be trained, Heroes in every state,Government oversight and logical rules set up. And they were still telling fun stories so lets not pretend it is some impossible task to tell stories and make more sense.