Why prefer marvel over DC?

[Rosebunse]

I don't mind that I Marvel and DC are very similar. There's plenty of competition if you want something different.

[Byakko]

It was my dad who hand-me-downed his original comic collection, which was all Marvel (had one Justice League Christmas special I think), so that influenced me from the get-go as my first exposure was to Marvel.

Story-wise, X-Men was something I could relate to, Power Pack as well. I remember Marvel comics being scary, funnily enough, because I had the Inferno saga books, and the Power Pack's confrontation with the Boogie Man really stuck with me. Off the bat I remember Simonson's run on Thor, which cemented my image of the quintessential Thor, as well as my preference for those myth-building stories that carried over to other books I became interested in. I remember a lot of morality lessons that I still mentally refer to now, over 20 years later. Like when Loki gave superpowers to a bunch of normal people, but only in exchange for their ability to be creative; but then the Norns rejected Loki because a gift with caveats is no gift at all. I don't know why, that has stuck with me for the longest time.

So it's just that first exposure was Marvel. I never actively chose one over the other when I was too young to buy comics myself.

But the impression I always got, which is probably very unfair, was that DC's lessons were 'softer'. All the morality lessons and stories in Marvel seemed to come from some kind of humbling experience to the hero, the villain, or the general situation of the world they lived in. Like I said, the only DC comic I had for the longest time was a Christmas special, where the Justice League go off into space to terraform some planet to make 3 species on the planet live happily together. It's a Christmas special, so something sappy and campy and 'simple' is expected, but even then the impression I had even as a kid was that the solution was too easy and didn't teach anything. If I had to compare, Power Pack had a story about the youngest trying to go on a treasure hunt involving some kids fad called Goo Gams. And that story was more down-to-earth and taught valuable lessons that were more relatable, because it was not a solution that could be purely solved by using superpowers to override any hardship.

So yeah, guess it's because in DC comics, I always think the solution presented is too simple, and usually just involves a lot of 'punching harder'. The impression I always get is that a lot of issues, real issues, that can't be solved like that, aren't really faced by the heroes or the people in the DC universe. And when they do try to broach it...it often falls flat because the writing just isn't good enough, and the heroes and situations too far removed from those issues from the start. Compared to X-Men, who were designed as an allegory of racist discrimination from the start, and even tho they tackle those issues fantastically with superpowers involved, there's still more personal and emotional pain involved in the stories that make me empathize with them more.

Edit: Plus things that hit closer to home. I'm Asian, and Jubilee was this cool (80s radical was cool once!) Asian-American that I could relate to. I may not be American, but my culture is just as Westernized as America's. When you compare to how Asians were depicted at that time, she felt so much more real. She had a father figure in Wolverine too, and I could relate to that. Plus she's right there in the 90s X-Men animated series too. Someone that was like me being in pop media like that, it felt good.

And I will add that I don't really care for many of current Marvel plotlines, and actually do gravitate to DC's 'simpler' situations and solutions now. I guess it's cos of the troubles in the real world, and if I want escapism, I think DC presents a more comforting place now. I also became a fan of the Authority some years ago, who are literally all about punching/murdering people they think are 'bad'. They're horribly edgy to me now, but I also see the value of resorting to 'punching harder' to solve problems instead of overcomplicating things.

[JKtheMac]

Uh...Bendis's Superman is very character driven. A good part of his run so far has been dealing with Clark's marriage, his grappling how to best raise his son, and him trying to assuage peoples' concerns at work about the state of his family life. How is that not character driven? Also, I read his Iron Man. The writing for his Iron Man as opposed to his Superman is really not different. Like at all.

You make a lot of excellent points. I think you are missing the crux of the argument but I don't read enough DC to comment.

I highlight this point because this isn't what 'Character Driven' means. It is a bugbear of mine that so many people including most of the people giving writing advice online these days, think 'Character Driven' is the equivalent of 'Primarily focused on character issues'. 'Character Driven' is to do with how you structure the obstacles in your story. If the story is about internal, inward facing, reflective obstacles and what the protagonist wants is to be a different person in some way, i.e. free of the inner issues or obstacles, then that is 'Character Driven'.

It is perfectly possible to have a story about character issues that is plot driven. Imagine a story all about a father struggling with his wayward family that isn't actually about whether he is a good father.

The point is, 'Character Driven' is a technical term to differentiate from 'Plot Driven' where the obstacles are primarily external and not related to the internal conflict of the protagonist.

So take Thor: God of Thunder (because I am very familiar with it). Just about every external conflict Thor faces in the story is an analogy to an internal issue with the character. He is battling a villain that believes gods are not worthy of mortals' belief or even respect. It directly reflects Aaron's main theme for Thor, that he is a god who struggles with the idea of worthiness.

That is a 'Character Driven' story. The things happening, the obstacles Thor faces, and the overall structure of the story would not be interchangeable with an analogous superhero like Superman. You could tell a Superman story this way, but you would have to shift everything to map it onto Superman's internal issues.

That said, this is possible and there may be Superman stories that do this occasionally. Hell, even I can point to one that I suspect is and I haven't read a single Superman story with any real focus or attention: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. I really should get around to reading it sometime. I believe there is much more meta-commentary beside the Character Driven core, and I may be entirely wrong.

You tell me, has there been a four-five year run on a character, like Aaron on various Thor volumes, that has done this with any character in the DC universe?

It isn't rare at Marvel. They didn't do it much for a couple of decades in the dry period when Marvel pretty much turned into DC for misguided editorial reasons. DC possibly did it before Alan Moore wrote his most passive aggressive story and left.

A big trend in the culture wars at Marvel over #NotMy{insert_character_here} seems at least related to people not understanding that Marvel characters are often protagonists in Character Driven stories and therefore change quite often.

[JKtheMac]

But, again, you're not providing actual evidence to make the case that the Marvel and DC Universe are these polar opposites. I'm not positing that Spider-Man and Batman are identical as characters or anything of the sort. However, more often than not, the stories that Marvel/DC tell tend to mine similar territory. Take, for example, the current Heroes in Crisis event that DC is publishing. Couldn't you see something like Sanctuary, a mental health and rehabilitation center for superheroes, existing in the Marvel universe? I definitely could. In fact, I think I have seen a similar concept at some point in the MU. And couldn't you see the DC heroes going through a giant cosmic event like Secret Wars where, say, Lex Luthor seized godhood and used it to piece together a world in which he is god-king?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason so many people are complaining about this story already is that it is coming from a more Marvel direction and those complaining can't quite put their finger on that so they complain about specific dead characters or characterisations or how Booster Gold can't be bad etc.

I am actually reading this story primarily because I think it will illuminate differences in the fanbase.

[Prof. Warren]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason so many people are complaining about this story already is that it is coming from a more Marvel direction and those complaining can't quite put their finger on that so they complain about specific dead characters or characterisations or how Booster Gold can't be bad etc.

Yes, exactly. One of the problems that DC has had in the modern era is trying to emulate Marvel and re-fashion their universe to be more akin to Marvel.

Or, if not to be like Marvel specifically, than simply to escape the perception of DC as being corny, simplistic and old hat. Marvel, from the start, was always a grittier, more "real" place. And it's characters were created with real personal flaws and weaknesses, as opposed to DC whose characters had weaknesses only in relation to their powers - like Kryptonite or the color yellow.

To change with the times, DC has had to artificially graft on these qualities to their universe and it's never been natural. They've taken what was conceived as a bright, optimistic universe filled with uncomplicated heroes and dirtied it up. One of the most grievous missteps along these lines being the Identity Crisis mini. It's an effort to make characters whose inceptions were rooted in a naive appeal and apply adult complications to them. Whereas a character like, say, Daredevil can take on serious subject matter and still feel true to his conception, to do the same with DC characters feels like they're being clumsily retro-fitted to belong to a new world.

Marvel and DC are not the same and it's in trying to act as though they can be or should be only points out how different at the core they really are.

[MyriVerse]

Why do some people like Coke over Pepsi? It's all subjective and arbitrary based on flavour.

Why I don't prefer DC over Marvel: too much Batman and Superman. I cannot stand Batman, at all, and only tolerate Superman. This extends to almost everything connected to them, with the sole exception being Nightwing, who I tolerate only because Kori once saw something in him.

[JKtheMac]

Why do some people like Coke over Pepsi? It's all subjective and arbitrary based on flavour.

Why I don't prefer DC over Marvel: too much Batman and Superman. I cannot stand Batman, at all, and only tolerate Superman. This extends to almost everything connected to them, with the sole exception being Nightwing, who I tolerate only because Kori once saw something in him.

And we are trying to define what that flavour difference is, because as you rightly point out, it is definitely there. I always find it strange how people try and deny it. I guess there are some that say they can't taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi. All I can say to that is clearly they don't particularly care about the elements of flavour that I discern.

[playrpro]

Honestly, the MCU is the only reason.

[Photon Torme]

Briiliant ideas like Hulkverine and Secret Empire.

[Cmbmool]

DC is too constantly changing given its shifty timeline changes, for example the new 52 and their lack of understand the term legacy. Marvel has a similar problem, but the previous it was more located within the X-men camp.

Now a day given titles like Ms. Marvel, Moon girl and Squirrel Girl shows unique storytelling that Marvel is willing to explore and shows success for the overall company given the growing fanbases that each titles creates.

Plus it helps having writers that CARE ABOUT THE HISTORIES OF THE CHARACTERS THEY WRITE as they try to expand upon their histories.

[Rosebunse]

Briiliant ideas like Hulkverine and Secret Empire.

I actually loved Secret Empire because of that long lasting Marvel history. So many characters and events have been influenced by WW2 and it was interesting to see that come together again.

And Ben Grimm fighting zombie Hulk was fun for us all.

I would also like to point out that while I agree Marvel's history and their keeping it is an illusion, it is an illusion that works. Let's take something like the Silver Surfer returning as Galactus's Herald or Eddie Brock reuniting with Venom. In each case, we knew it was going to happen, it was inevitable. But in the case of Silver Surfer, that inevitability and his past history with Galactus made it tragic. Since Galactus is also often treated as a tragic character in his own right, seeing him basically dragging the person he cares about the most back into the depths of Hell with him was also pretty damn disturbing.

At the same time, taking advantages of comic history and letting it flow means that when status quo is brought back, as in the case of Eddie Brought and Venom, it can take advantage of changes that occurs in previous runs and give us something special.

DC with its total resets just doesn't feel the same. To many a Marvel fan, we just don't know what's important and how.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

You make a lot of excellent points. I think you are missing the crux of the argument but I don't read enough DC to comment.

I highlight this point because this isn't what 'Character Driven' means. It is a bugbear of mine that so many people including most of the people giving writing advice online these days, think 'Character Driven' is the equivalent of 'Primarily focused on character issues'. 'Character Driven' is to do with how you structure the obstacles in your story. If the story is about internal, inward facing, reflective obstacles and what the protagonist wants is to be a different person in some way, i.e. free of the inner issues or obstacles, then that is 'Character Driven'.

It is perfectly possible to have a story about character issues that is plot driven. Imagine a story all about a father struggling with his wayward family that isn't actually about whether he is a good father.

The point is, 'Character Driven' is a technical term to differentiate from 'Plot Driven' where the obstacles are primarily external and not related to the internal conflict of the protagonist.

I think you're operating off of too strict a definition of "character-driven." So much so that I think you might have strayed a bit from what the term actually means. A character-driven story means nothing more than the simple fact that a facet of the protagonist's essential self leads to an action or event of the story. That's it. It doesn't even have to be something all that important in the story. And the term "plot driven" may make it sound like its a story where characters are simply puppets who perform simple tasks without any personal motivations simply because the author wills them to, but that's not true. "Plot-driven" simply means that the characters perform certain actions that result in a certain plot point. They are the stories where the characters have to achieve a particular goal. That's all it means. And what's more is that those two aren't mutually exclusive. A story can be both character-driven and plot-driven.

The purest form of character-driven story would just be a play/movie/TV show where nothing all that big happens, but is just a slice-of-life story focusing on the day-to-day routine of its protagonist. The purest form of a plot-driven story would be something like the Die Hard films.

Superhero comics are inherently plot-driven. After all, what is the most important goal of the hero if not to stop the villain from executing whatever evil plot he's cooked up?

So take Thor: God of Thunder (because I am very familiar with it). Just about every external conflict Thor faces in the story is an analogy to an internal issue with the character. He is battling a villain that believes gods are not worthy of mortals' belief or even respect. It directly reflects Aaron's main theme for Thor, that he is a god who struggles with the idea of worthiness.

That is a 'Character Driven' story. The things happening, the obstacles Thor faces, and the overall structure of the story would not be interchangeable with an analogous superhero like Superman. You could tell a Superman story this way, but you would have to shift everything to map it onto Superman's internal issues...

I don't believe I said that Thor and Superman were in essence "interchangeable" and that you could plug either into the other's stories. I believe what I was implying with my posts was the simple fact that you are just as likely to see character-driven story elements in a comic from either publisher. Superman stories don't only examine or rely on Clark's character to drive a story "occasionally," they do it often. Using the external conflicts to mirror the protagonist's internal conflicts is pretty much a staple of superhero storytelling. So much so that, at this point, it may even strain credulity. After all, how often do the problems you run into in your life perfectly match up with any internal conflict you may be going through on a given day?

You tell me, has there been a four-five year run on a character, like Aaron on various Thor volumes, that has done this with any character in the DC universe?

It isn't rare at Marvel. They didn't do it much for a couple of decades in the dry period when Marvel pretty much turned into DC for misguided editorial reasons. DC possibly did it before Alan Moore wrote his most passive aggressive story and left.

Yes, absolutely. I mean, just looking at Batman alone, pretty much every Batman writer ever has used his villains as a way to mirror the internal weaknesses, issues, or wants of Bruce Wayne. Some of them even broadcast it in interviews (sometimes to the extent that it gets annoying). Bane's arrival during the Knightfall arc was meant to show Bruce's insecurity and worry that he'd lost his edge and could no longer perform as Batman as he once had. Ra's al Ghul's introduction during Denny O'Neil's run was targeted at Bruce's want for a family and a father figure that he'd been missing. The whole Green Lantern/Green Arrow run during the 1970s was an examination of the clashing personalities of Hal Jordan and Oliver Queen and how they viewed the world and the issues they ran into mirrored that. There are numerous other examples from all over. Again, this is a pretty standard element of comic book storytelling.

And see? This is what I'm talking about. Anyone who thinks that any sort of basic element like this is inherent to one publisher but not to the other just probably hasn't read enough of the other to really know what's there.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason so many people are complaining about this story already is that it is coming from a more Marvel direction and those complaining can't quite put their finger on that so they complain about specific dead characters or characterisations or how Booster Gold can't be bad etc.

I am actually reading this story primarily because I think it will illuminate differences in the fanbase.

I can guarantee you with almost 100% certainty that your suspicion is wrong. People don't have an issue with what type of story HiC is. They're just upset at the fact that spoilers:

Wally West and Roy Harper

end of spoilers, two fan-favorite characters, have been killed off so unceremoniously, especially when one of them just recently came back from comic book limbo.

[phantom1592]

I like Marvel better because it has Daredevil


I like DC better because it has Green Lantern.


That pretty much sums it up for me. I think the differences between the companies is negligible at best. Back in the silver age/Stan Lee days there were pretty solid lines between 'realistic' characters and 'super-gods'.... but now? The writers at DC are the same writers at Marvel and they flip and flop back and forth and tell the same the stories. They're both the same.

It all boils down to what characters you like. For me, I was raised on Superfriends and Spider-man and his Amazing Friends.... so they were my introductions. Didn't matter who was signing the paychecks... it was Superman vs. Hulk... who did I like better.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I like Marvel better because it has Daredevil


I like DC better because it has Green Lantern.


That pretty much sums it up for me. I think the differences between the companies is negligible at best. Back in the silver age/Stan Lee days there were pretty solid lines between 'realistic' characters and 'super-gods'.... but now? The writers at DC are the same writers at Marvel and they flip and flop back and forth and tell the same the stories. They're both the same.

It all boils down to what characters you like. For me, I was raised on Superfriends and Spider-man and his Amazing Friends.... so they were my introductions. Didn't matter who was signing the paychecks... it was Superman vs. Hulk... who did I like better.

EXACTLY!! Thank you. There is really no difference between Marvel and DC in terms of what types of stories they tell. The ONLY difference really is which characters are front and center.

[JKtheMac]

I think you're operating off of too strict a definition of "character-driven." So much so that I think you might have strayed a bit from what the term actually means. A character-driven story means nothing more than the simple fact that a facet of the protagonist's essential self leads to an action or event of the story. That's it. It doesn't even have to be something all that important in the story. And the term "plot driven" may make it sound like its a story where characters are simply puppets who perform simple tasks without any personal motivations simply because the author wills them to, but that's not true. "Plot-driven" simply means that the characters perform certain actions that result in a certain plot point. They are the stories where the characters have to achieve a particular goal. That's all it means. And what's more is that those two aren't mutually exclusive. A story can be both character-driven and plot-driven.

I am operating from the only definition that makes any sense as a mutually exclusive form of story. And I did say that most online definitions are wrong.

The point is that my definition gets much closer to the paradigmatic difference between DC and Marvel and as such it is not important if you agree so much as you can understand what my definition actually refers to. By seeking to define it in a way you are comfortable with suggests to me you are not actually engaging with my point.

The purest form of character-driven story would just be a play/movie/TV show where nothing all that big happens, but is just a slice-of-life story focusing on the day-to-day routine of its protagonist. The purest form of a plot-driven story would be something like the Die Hard films.

Absolutely not. You are looking at genre here. Specifically kitchen sink and action. That is totally tangential to this issue. I am unconvinced you understand what I am referring to.

Superhero comics are inherently plot-driven. After all, what is the most important goal of a superhero story aside from stopping the villain from executing whatever evil plot he's cooked up?

DC superhero stories are mostly exactly this. Marvel Superhero stories are only occasionally this.

I don't believe I said that Thor and Superman were in essence "interchangeable" and that you could plug either into the other's stories.

That isn’t what I said. What are you trying to assert here? I was talking about a specific story. My points are not all about your points.

I believe what I was implying with my posts was the simple fact that you are just as likely to see character-driven story elements in a comic from either publisher. Superman stories don't only examine or rely on Clark's character to drive a story "occasionally," they do it often.

Really? I asked for specifics. I remain to be convinced. But as you seem to define Character Driven in a totally different way I am not sure we can possibly come to an agreement on individual stories.

Using the external conflicts to mirror the protagonist's internal conflicts is pretty much a staple of superhero storytelling. So much so that, at this point, it may even strain credulity. After all, how often do the problems you run into in your life perfectly match up with any internal conflict you may be going through on a given day?

Two issues here. Doing this in passing is not the same as structuring the story this way.

I honestly believe you misunderstand what I am referring to if you think it has anything to do with daily life or any concept of realism.

Yes, absolutely. I mean, just looking at Batman alone, pretty much every Batman writer ever has used his villains as a way to mirror the internal weaknesses, issues, or wants of Bruce Wayne. Some of them even broadcast it in interviews (sometimes to the extent that it gets annoying).

And I already stated that Batman is the most Marvel of DC characters. It is also quite telling that you find it annoying. That suggests you don’t actually like character driven stories in the way I would define them. There is no reason you should, but you seem to imply that writing Character Driven story in the way I define it is doing it wrong. I rest my case.

Bane's arrival during the Knightfall arc was meant to show Bruce's insecurity and worry that he'd lost his edge and could no longer perform as Batman as he once had. Ra's al Ghul's introduction during Denny O'Neil's run was targeted at Bruce's want for a family and a father figure that he'd been missing.

When I was composing my last post I almost quoted Knightfall. But I didn’t because it isn’t really Character Driven. It is in the movie to some extent, but in the comic Bruce is not actually challenged internally. Indeed, it was at DC editorial insistence that he even appears in the arc. It is a compare and contrast story but it isn’t really about Bruce Wayne’s inner conflicts, so it is still Plot Driven.

The whole Green Lantern/Green Arrow run during the 1970s was an examination of the clashing personalities of Hal Jordan and Oliver Queen and how they viewed the world and the issues they ran into mirrored that. There are numerous other examples from all over. Again, this is a pretty standard element of comic book storytelling.

I know nothing about Green Lantern so I can’t comment, but I didn’t ever say DC never did this, I said it wasn’t the standard mode. You keep insisting this is standard, but you seem to be referring to a different definition to the one I think differentiates DC from Marvel.

And see? This is what I'm talking about. Anyone who thinks that any sort of basic element like this is inherent to one publisher but not to the other just probably hasn't read enough of the other to really know what's there.

I didn’t make this assertion. But until we agree on a definition and until we find a story that actually conforms to this definition then I still assert there is a tangible difference in approach as a generalisation.

I can guarantee you with almost 100% certainty that your suspicion is wrong. People don't have an issue with what type of story HiC is. They're just upset at the fact that spoilers:

Wally West and Roy Harper

end of spoilers, two fan-favorite characters, have been killed off so unceremoniously, especially when one of them just recently came back from comic book limbo.

I have listened to and read a number of criticisms that suggest that there is much more to it than this. I read it with ongoing interest.