Why prefer marvel over DC?

[Coin Biter]

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.

No you're quite right, it really is tangential Like yourself I find these areas interesting. I also agree that complicated messages regarding violence of the sort that Unforgiven raises are difficult in this genre.

I should correct myself - incidentally - Little Bill killing English Bob? Oops.

[Shinglepants]

Mostly, I think because the X-Men and Spider-Man cartoons were amongst my favourite as a kid. So, I started with Marvel and they’ve continuously put out enough good books to keep me.

I’ve read a few DC books recently, such as Mister Miracle and White Knight which we’re very good but few DC characters pique my interest in general.

[Killerbee911]

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.

.

You are trying compare fighting for survival and running around playing superhero. Okay whatever

[JKtheMac]

.

You are trying compare fighting for survival and running around playing superhero. Okay whatever

Indeed the entire premise of X-Men was that teenagers are suddenly thrust into a very dangerous world that hates them. Again very much a Marvel idea.

Yesterday I was listening to Timebubble and I was reminded of those dreadful Just Imagine... books at DC if only they had been written with integrity and not just a let's make a quick buck mentality. Not really DCs fault though, just a huge missed opportunity to explore these ideas in comic form that would mean something. If they had been done well we wouldn't even need to argue about what the differences between DC and Marvel are, we could just point at those books and say 'read these'.

[Frontier]

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.

Has he though?

[JKtheMac]

Has he though?

Plainly. I explained it above. He wasn't designed to be a man out of time. That's the main reason he exists in modern Marvel, to bring back a past sensibility and contrast that with everyone around him. That wasn't his original purpose. I am not talking about character change here.

[Frontier]

Plainly. I explained it above. He wasn't designed to be a man out of time. That's the main reason he exists in modern Marvel, to bring back a past sensibility and contrast that with everyone around him. That wasn't his original purpose. I am not talking about character change here.

But I don't think even as a Man out of time that his purposes has really changed that much, being a patriotic hero who rose from weakness to become a hero who upholds liberty and the American ideals in any situation.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

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.

But have you picked much DC outside of Batman. That's the issue. I just don't think you can really judge a whole publisher if you haven't read much of what they have to offer.

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.

Steve's core mission is exactly the same, though. His motivations are largely the same. There's a bit of an element of tragedy added by the fact that he's a man out of time, but...that hasn't really impacted the way he does what he does. He laments what he's left behind, but (a) he doesn't question being Captain America because of it and (b) he's adjusted pretty well to the modern era. I mean, I've read a lot of Captain America and I can't really remember the last time the fact that he was a "man out of time" really played that big a role in the story.

Cap didn't intend to be a man out of time and, yes, that is something that's haunted him. But by that logic, Bruce Wayne never intended to lose his parents or for Barbara Gordon to get shot by the Joker and Barry Allen never intended for Iris to be murdered by the Reverse Flash. These are all things that have happened to these characters and stayed with them for a long time, impacting their character.

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

I mean, hasn't this whole discussion been about the fact that you don't see a lot of personal conflict in a character like Superman? Well, there's at least a few examples of Superman's personal turmoil.

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.

Nobody ever said that. I don't think you not reading Superman or liking Superman means you're any less of a comic fan. But, it does make you at least a little unqualified to judge Superman and/or other DC characters if you haven't read much about them.

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.

Well, alright. In my opinion, that's more your loss than mine, but whatever...

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 it means is that writers don't feel as if they need to change their MO when moving between DC and Marvel. Again, there are are documented cases of stories that were written for one being published for the other. Kraven's Last Hunt was one such story.

The reason that writers move between the Big Two all the time is because the publishers want them to bring what they brought to the other's books to their own books. And, its not really "sometimes" either. Almost every single writer or artist at the Big Two over the past 30-40 years has written for both of them. Geoff Johns, Scott Snyder, Jeff Lemire, Charles Soule, Marv Wolfman, Kurt Busiek, George Perez, J.M. DeMatteis, Grant Morrison, Mark Millar, Denny O'Neil, Jack Kirby, and now Brian Michael Bendis. Writing for both of them is now very much the rule, and there are only a few exceptions.

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.

Again, I just really don't think there are too many fundamental differences left. I'm not the only person who thinks that. Many posters have said this and presented evidence as to how DC and Marvel are now incredibly similar in many ways. I'm not saying they're the same, but when I read a DC or Marvel comic, I know I'm going to have a similar experience at least in a few key regards. And one of those regards is the type of protagonist I will be seeing in the book.

...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.

The only thing I agree with is the difference in which they handle long-form continuity. There are several examples of mainstream characters in the DCU that followed the "Marvel approach," from Wally West to the Question and beyond. The presence of personal tragedy and inner turmoil in a comic book character is now so commonplace that its basically become a cliché. Their ways that they handle characters now is so similar. And so is their idea of what makes a good comic book story. Again, that's evidenced by the constant revolving door of talent.

I mean, its your prerogative as to whether you actually follow up on what other posters, including myself, have told you.

[gurkle]

It's never a good idea to generalize about the whole companies' output. There are lots of DC characters who could be Marvel characters and vice versa. Marvel has lots of fine upstanding heroes and DC has lots of angsty heroes with lots of confusing continuity.

It is true that there is some difference if we look at the very biggest, most popular characters. Spider-Man is a bigger loser than Superman or Batman have ever been allowed to be, and "let's create a character in journalism, like Superman, only he has a terrible boss and no job security" is part of the concept. The Marvel public is also consistently nastier and more likely to turn on heroes than the DC public (though with some exceptions). These things do bleed into the way we see the universe as a whole, but that's a general feeling of what the universes are like, it doesn't mean Bruce Wayne is less angsty than Tony Stark. Sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't.

[JKtheMac]

It's never a good idea to generalize about the whole companies' output. There are lots of DC characters who could be Marvel characters and vice versa. Marvel has lots of fine upstanding heroes and DC has lots of angsty heroes with lots of confusing continuity.

It is true that there is some difference if we look at the very biggest, most popular characters. Spider-Man is a bigger loser than Superman or Batman have ever been allowed to be, and "let's create a character in journalism, like Superman, only he has a terrible boss and no job security" is part of the concept. The Marvel public is also consistently nastier and more likely to turn on heroes than the DC public (though with some exceptions). These things do bleed into the way we see the universe as a whole, but that's a general feeling of what the universes are like, it doesn't mean Bruce Wayne is less angsty than Tony Stark. Sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't.

It would be impossible for me to have spent more effort not to generalise about the whole DC output. At every step I tried to make it clear that both companies do things similarly with overlap.

[JKtheMac]

But I don't think even as a Man out of time that his purposes has really changed that much, being a patriotic hero who rose from weakness to become a hero who upholds liberty and the American ideals in any situation.

Maybe that’s because you don’t spend a lot of time analysing how characters are being used or how stories are structured. I just happen to do that because it’s a passion of mine, not because it is part of the normal reader role.

[Frontier]

Maybe that’s because you don’t spend a lot of time analysing how characters are being used or how stories are structured. I just happen to do that because it’s a passion of mine, not because it is part of the normal reader role.

I mean, as an aspiring writer, I feel I do the same in my own way .

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

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.

I don't really wanna get into this again, either, but I think there's a few things that should be clarified. Jason's death haunted Bruce for years to come as well. Just because Tim came along doesn't mean Bruce was completely over what happened to Jason. Also, Bruce didn't decide it was time for a new Robin. Tim decided that. Tim was the one who insisted on being Robin. Bruce was against it until Alfred and Dick insisted on it too.

And just because those kids have powers doesn't mean they are anywhere near mature enough to be fighting powerful mutant threats and the government sanctioned killing machines. And I don't mean this as a knock against the X-Men because I love the X-Men franchise, but if teenage heroes is a problem, then why didn't Xavier find some adult mutants to fight for his cause?

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.

I mean, again, there have been several younger characters in the MU who have died in the line of duty: Cassie Lang, Red Raven, Bolt, Cypher, most of the New Warriors at the beginning of the first Civil War, etc. So, if this is supposed to be a red line, then pretty much all the adult heroes of the MU should be putting the kibosh on any teenagers becoming heroes whatsoever, regardless of whether they have powers.

Obviously, though, that's not gonna happen.

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.

Well, thank you for that, but I have no problem with people having preferences. I mean, of course people do. I do. I am probably more likely to read Spider-Man than Wonder Woman just as I'm probably gonna pick up a Superman comic before a Daredevil comic. But I know the reasons for why I do have such preferences aren't grounded in a misconception of the other franchise. For me, its always just been about the lore and which mythology I gravitate more towards. I think Spider-Man is very much a mythic figure in his own right. Dan Slott's last issue of ASM (#801) was a good illustration of that. IMO, that issue showed how Spider-Man is as much a mysterious and awe-inspiring figure to the average New Yorker in the MU as Batman is to the average Gothamite in the DCU. Captain America and the FF can claim some of that same status.

I just genuinely think that DC and Marvel are at the point where, in at least some key aspects of what they are, they're more similar than different. Comics is not this giant industry. Its quite a small-knit community and it kind of always has been. The constant revolving door of writers and artists has allowed for the type of stories told and the way the characters are handled by either to be incredibly similar. Superman and Spider-Man may not be similar characters, but a Superman story isn't less likely to feature aspects of his private, personal life than a Spider-Man story. At least not anymore. I mean, Superman comics for over 20 years have been just as much about his marriage to Lois Lane as his super-heroics. And now they have a son on top of that, too.

Anyway, signing off of this discussion now.

[JKtheMac]

I mean, as an aspiring writer, I feel I do the same in my own way .

Well if you listen to what writers have to say about it in interviews and podcasts it is quite illuminating. Also the conflicting theories around genre and dramatic fiction give a much wider perspective that this industry often glosses over or has set views about. This is why a new writer can sometimes shock and surprise, because they come from an entirely different background with different understandings of the craft.

[JKtheMac]

iI feel like I need to remind people of my early statement because it is still relevant and gets lost in the argument.

The thing that can't be ignored is that there are very different flavours to the two companies. Some comic fans seem to want everyone to love all comics, and consequently they minimise the differences, but the differences are real. Because they are different flavours some people will just have tastes that are suited to one or the other.

Having a major argument about the difference in flavours with people that seek to minimise the difference is relatively pointless. At every step they will just deny the difference. Essentially this is a taste issue. But it ends up provoking some quite dysfunctional statements and assumptions like ‘if you haven’t read as much of this character as me you cant judge’.

When you don’t like strawberry ice cream and occasionally revisit strawberry ice cream and still don’t like it then clearly your tastes are telling you something is inherently different between that flavour and say chocolate. To then be confronted by an ice cream fan that demands that every one must love all ice cream from all suppliers or they just don’t understand ice cream suggests an agenda.

I don’t have any time to discuss things about my personal taste when at every step I am being told I am wrong to even discern a difference. Asking for more evidence just ends up being a way to seek to undermine the taste difference through logic. That isn’t how taste works.

Now being both a relatively successful writer in a completely separate field, and having been a student of cultural criticism for many years I know my own tastes and I understand them very clearly. I can explain them to people receptive to the ideas, but if people want to argue against these ideas this isn’t the arena. The correct arena is peer reviewed journals or a university course, where you will be forced to learn and listen and not just use received wisdom from a less informed cultural perspective.

So having laid out the flavour differences that I perceive from my personal experience and background there is nothing else to say. It is pointless seeking to restate over and over that if only I read yet another Superman story or one more Wonder Woman story that I will suddenly change my mind. I do read them, I have always read them sporadically and I have always recognised that they are not to my taste.

On a closing note everyone should just go and read Astro City. Busiek is a genius that has more to say about comics in his stories than anyone alive and working today. He is carrying the torch and will be looked back on as a giant of comics. All of these issues and many more have been turned into stories. That takes amazing talent and it is an example for us all. We can achieve so much more if we just stop arguing about things and actually contribute to the literary conversation.

This panel says it all:

Digital Astro 25.jpg