Why prefer marvel over DC?

[Coin Biter]

When I started reading comics in the UK in the early 80s most of the comics in local newsagents were Marvel comics. It’s never really been that much more complex than that Oh alright. I also loved the visual aspect of Spider-Man swinging through skyscrapers. But Marvel was just more creatively influential in those days.

Also, DC had teen sidekicks, or at least more of the blighters. Never been a fan of those.

It changed a bit in the late 80s/early 90s because DC were making a sequence of brilliant hires, and hiring people who made brilliant creative decisions, and because I was then getting older, I wanted to read more demanding fare. And also stuff which doesn’t really stand up to examination any more but which seemed very big then, such as The Cult. But frankly it seemed to me much more exciting than Marvel then.

The removal of comics (except 2000AD in the UK and young children’s comics) from newsagents hit my interest with the big two with superhero fare and I’ve only really been getting back into them with the advent of digital. Nowadays? I read whatever seems to me to be the most interesting from either publisher.

So interest in publishers for me, and for many others I suspect, go in cycles. Character-driven rather than plot-driven? I don’t know. This seems to me, when talking about the comics that have been published since my childhood and early adulthood, a false dichotomy. Now I’m getting older, I can see the appeal of little character progression and every story bounded by itself with a mostly fixed central character and a fixed supporting cast. But that’s not how superhero comics have been since I’ve been alive.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

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.

How can most of other peoples' definition of that term be wrong when that's just how most people, including people who actually write for a living, define that term? Either way, even under your definition, there are plenty of DC stories that are character-driven, where the obstacles are specifically geared around challenging the hero on a mental and psychological level or extend from a specific character flaw of the protagonist. Again, you could pick up almost any Batman story (and pretty much any other character) and see this.

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.

No, I understand what you're saying but it honestly seems like you're trying to move the goalposts here. Character-driven means that the personality traits of the protagonist are the main focus (though your definition seems to go beyond that, requiring that the foes/conflicts mirror personal demons). Plot-driven means that the objective or journey of the characters is the main focus. Superhero stories are, by their very nature, plot driven because the whole point is that the hero has a specific objective: stopping the bad guy.

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

Again, I really wouldn't say so. A majority of the Marvel stuff I read (and that's quite a lot) is focused on, well, plot. And, that's not a bad thing. Stories need both character and plot to succeed. That's kind of what makes them worth reading.

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.

You said something along the lines of "and the overall structure of the story would not be interchangeable with an analogous superhero like Superman." I'm simply saying that that's not the point I was making, which seems to be what you took away from my posts.

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.

Well, I could say something like "you could pick up pretty much any Superman comic", but if you need specific examples:

Superman #247
Up, Up, and Away (Superman #650-653, Action #837-840)
Death of Superman
Reign of the Supermen
What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way (Action #775)
Superman: Peace on Earth
For the Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11)
Wedding Album

There's a lot of other examples...

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.

Again, its not "in passing." And no, I'm not talking about daily life or a concept of realism.

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.

I don't find the actual writing of character driven stories annoying. I find the fact that writers seem to repeat the same lines like a broken record annoying. You have no idea how many times I've seen writers in interviews explain the ins and outs of Batman/Joker dichotomy. Like, we get it already.

Anyway, so yeah, you misinterpreted what it was I was saying.

Also, if Batman is one of the first ever superheroes, wouldn't that make any character that comes after him that mimics his style, Batman-like?

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.

Have you read the comic? Because its made very clear that Bruce is challenged on an emotional and psychological level all throughout that story. I mean, in Batman #489, there's an entire conversation between Bruce and Shondra Kinsolving concerning his emotional and physical fatigue. The entire point of Bane was to challenge Bruce on a fundamental level and make him question if he, as Bruce, can still handle the emotional and physical toll of being Batman. That is the definition of character-driven.

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.

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.

Well, how much DC stuff have you read? As someone who has read a lot of both, I can say that there's really not much of a difference. Again, they trade off in writers all the time.

The point that I'm making is that Marvel and DC have been telling similar enough stories for a long enough time now that their "standard modes" as you called it are essentially the same.

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.

Trust me, those criticisms have nothing to do with the perception that its more "Marvel-like." If anything, some fans are more concerned that HiC signals DC emulating itself, specifically the DC of the mid-2000s. Its not a criticism I agree with, but that is what they're so concerned about.

[phantom1592]

Well, how much DC stuff have you read? As someone who has read a lot of both, I can say that there's really not much of a difference. Again, they trade off in writers all the time.

Exactly.

Brian Bendis isn't going to stop being Brian Bendis just because he moved to DC. Same with Grant Morrison, and Geoff Johns, and Peter David, Denis O'neil, Chuck Dixon, Roy Thomas, even Jack Kirby... All these writers that had deep fantastic fan-favorite writing on one company haven't changed their style moving to the other company.

If anything the other company does their best to drag them over for the sole purpose of grabbing those fans that they bring with them.

I remember an article talking about Kraven's Last Hunt was originally intended to be a Batman story. It didn't work out that way, so the writer switched a few characters around... and BAM. instant Marvel classic.

[Killerbee911]

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.

Which characters that are front and center shape what stories are told.

Marvel events Civil War 1 and 2,Secret Empire, Secret Wars, Infinity, Axis, Siege, Fear itself, Avenger vs X-men

DC Dark metal Nights, Forever Evil, Blackest Nights, Final Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Flash Point, Identity Crisis

It is not a accident that most of Marvel events tend to be earthbound involving one single dimension, While DC stuff multiverse cosmic stuff (and yes marvel has strong history with Infinity Gauntlet and secret wars which is that realm of those stories) . There is a clear reason why DC has more cosmic multiversal events,The characters who are upfront. And the characters who are upfront shape the universe and tone of stories. Civil War couldn't happen at DC because DC has different internal logic because who is front and center. Who is at front and center matters DC doesn't have Hulk, Wolverine, Deadpool or X-men.Dc doesn't have antihero culture as strong Marvel does and Justice League shine so much over every group that you can't think of other heroes stepping up saving the world outside of them. Those things affect how stories are written. Yes they can tell similar stories but even those will have different feel because of the universes cultures.

Chick Fil A and KFC are both fast food restaurant that sell a lot of Chicken products,Heck they both sell chicken sandwiches and fries therefore is real no difference right?

I will give you example Marvel has bunch of superman analogs but they never work.Why? Because the biggest reason Superman works is because he is" The Guy" at DC. At Marvel there is no "the guy" Spiderman is the guy,Captain America is the guy, Iron Man is the guy,etc. Marvel created Sentry and they smartly came with angle that let Sentry be "the guy". The thing is Marvel fans don't particular want "the guy" and that is one of reasons he failed to catch on. DC created a character called Damage(basically DC Hulk) recently and in one story Wonder Woman said damage is the strongest character she has faced which implies that he is even stronger than Superman. In a thread I was reading about that comic there was fairly large amount of people going he can't stronger than Superman. They created a strength monster but strength can't be stronger "the guy" .One of the thing that legitimize new characters is the amazingness of them and at DC there is a wall,You can't be faster than flash,Stronger than Superman,Smarter tactically than Batman. Saying you can tell the same story is misleading imo the characters who around set a tone.

[Rosebunse]

I must say, I'm jealous that DC gets a less bloodthirsty Bendis.

[Agent Z]

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.

That is a rather shallow take on why these stories are disliked. There are plenty of gritty DC stories that are enjoyed by the fans and plenty of gritty Marvel stories that are hated. Many fans actually welcomed the idea of DC's heroes having a trauma center. It was the story built around it (a murder mystery which killed off numerous characters with little to no fan fare) that they were bothered by. If this story were done beat for beat by Marvel, it would be face equal amounts of backlash. Hell, you mentioned Identity Crisis and Marvel has a story very similar to it. Evil That Men Do by Kevin Smith. And it's also been rather badly received especially for a certain plot element that was also used in Identity Crisis.

I mean it isn't like the following decisions were so easily embraced by Marvel fans:

Retconning Captain America into a Nazi

Spider-Man selling his marriage to Mephisto

Retconning Black Cat into being a rape victim

All the skeletons in Xavier's closet

Speedball becoming Penance

House of M/Decimation

and so on.

DC fans are more than capable of accepting gritty stories. Batman wouldn't be popular if they weren't. The issue is the excess and these stories just not being very good.

[darthblinx]

I always started as a Spider-Man fan and then just branched out into other Marvel characters. I do enjoy some runs of Batman (like Morrison), but the other heroes are kinda bland to me. I try to read a couple of DC things, but they constantly reset their universe and make drastic changes (too much too fast) and it's a turn off.

[JKtheMac]

Exactly.

Brian Bendis isn't going to stop being Brian Bendis just because he moved to DC. Same with Grant Morrison, and Geoff Johns, and Peter David, Denis O'neil, Chuck Dixon, Roy Thomas, even Jack Kirby... All these writers that had deep fantastic fan-favorite writing on one company haven't changed their style moving to the other company.

If anything the other company does their best to drag them over for the sole purpose of grabbing those fans that they bring with them.

I remember an article talking about Kraven's Last Hunt was originally intended to be a Batman story. It didn't work out that way, so the writer switched a few characters around... and BAM. instant Marvel classic.

Except these differences are quite subtle and the feedback loops exist from editorial, fellow creatives, the readers themselves, existing characters, tent pole story assumptions etc. etc. Writing tends to soak up everything you do and everything around you.

Also, nobody has said that the difference is huge, or that the stories are never similar. Those of us that discern a difference are talking about subtle things like flavour and tone, and referring to a difference in outlook. The argument is rapidly turning into a divide between those who would point at the difference and those that seek to minimise the difference.

[JKtheMac]

I must say, I'm jealous that DC gets a less bloodthirsty Bendis.

Give him time.

[JKtheMac]

@Zeeguy
I need to break up the points for my sanity.

How can most of other peoples' definition of that term be wrong when that's just how most people, including people who actually write for a living, define that term? Either way, even under your definition, there are plenty of DC stories that are character-driven, where the obstacles are specifically geared around challenging the hero on a mental and psychological level or extend from a specific character flaw of the protagonist. Again, you could pick up almost any Batman story (and pretty much any other character) and see this.

No, I understand what you're saying but it honestly seems like you're trying to move the goalposts here. Character-driven means that the personality traits of the protagonist are the main focus (though your definition seems to go beyond that, requiring that the foes/conflicts mirror personal demons). Plot-driven means that the objective or journey of the characters is the main focus. Superhero stories are, by their very nature, plot driven because the whole point is that the hero has a specific objective: stopping the bad guy.

I am not moving the goalposts I am trying to be much more specific. By taking a broad definition you and many others remove any meaning from the idea of Plot vs Character Driven. If we are to have any form of discussion at all we need to agree on my definition. You can call it something different if it helps but it is a specific and tangible thing. What I am not talking about is plot or character in the way you are. This is precisely where the definitions get confused and people give poor advice or misunderstand the differences.

Of course every story contains plot and character. The difference between Plot Driven and Character Driven has nothing to do with this. It isn’t about whether the character is impacted by events, or whether they have emotions. Any properly written character in any story has emotions and an inner life.

It can also cause frustration when someone like myself hammers on about it in a way that doesn’t actually map onto most people’s experience of stories. Especially when character driven stories are actually quite rare in genre fiction. I would encourage anyone to write a few short stories with these ideas in mind, as opposed to just reading the bland definitions on paper. As soon as you begin to structure a story with these issues at their core it becomes clear how radically different a plot driven story is to a character driven one. It is also a difference that not every writer can clearly express when they discuss their stories. Many writers are self taught and write to their instincts not to theory.

Look at your definition of Plot Driven: “Plot-driven means that the objective or journey of the characters is the main focus.”

This definition says nothing at all about whether the story is plot or character driven. Character driven stories still have an objective or journey. The difference is that in a character driven story the writer actively structures that objective and the journey as internal and not external. Obviously things happen externally to the characters and they are elements of plot, but that isn’t what I am talking about. Indeed sometimes a story needs to be analysed before it is even clear which type of story it is.

Take the classic Old Man Logan. That story was inspired greatly by Unforgiven (1992). Unforgiven is structured as a character driven story. The internal struggle of William Munny is the entire focus of the story. It has external antagonists and much external threat, but they are not what the story is about. One might imagine that OML would also be character driven. At first sight it has lots of angst ridden focus on Logan and his reflections on his bloody past, and is all about his focus on family and a quest that takes him away from them. But essentially the story never really places the emphasis on this internal struggle. Or rather it is emphasised but only occasionally and not centrally. Importantly, the wasted landscape of the post villain apocalypse is not a reflection of Logan, instead it is just a cool backdrop and plot driver for a road trip story.

One reason I mention this story is because it is still a story that clearly belongs at Marvel. Not because it is dark and gritty, but because even though it isn’t really a character driven story it takes a very critical look at the protagonist and asks deep questions about their nature and the whole premise of Wolverine as an anti-hero. Unforgiven is considered by many to be the last word on the anti-hero and OML seeks to turn these ideas back onto Marvel's most famous anti-hero. Could this have been written at DC? Perhaps, but it wasn’t, and I think that is telling.

[phantom1592]

One reason I mention this story is because it is still a story that clearly belongs at Marvel. Not because it is dark and gritty, but because even though it isn’t really a character driven story it takes a very critical look at the protagonist and asks deep questions about their nature and the whole premise of wolverine as an anti-hero. Could this have been written at DC? Perhaps, but it wasn’t, and I think that is telling.

How about Dark Knight Returns? I would describe that a lot of ways like Old Man Logan with Bruce determining with a critical look and deep questions about what it means to be Batman and the premise of Super heroes in general...

[JKtheMac]

How about Dark Knight Returns? I would describe that a lot of ways like Old Man Logan with Bruce determining with a critical look and deep questions about what it means to be Batman and the premise of Super heroes in general...

Presumably you mean the movie? If so I am not sure it illuminates this debate. If I was going to point to a comic I might look at Arkam Asylum, but not having read my copy recently because I don’t want to overstress the already stressed binding, I am not sure how much it delves into Batman’s psychology.

EDIT
Hang on, as soon as I moved from my phone to my iPad it was suddenly apparent that you had the word 'returns' in there, and that immediately suggests you are not talking about movies to me. I need better glasses. I would also need to think about it, but it is probably a rough analogy yes. It is also an anomaly at DC from my perspective. Importantly, it had the opposite effect on the main comics, and pushed Batman into an even more iconic and rigid character.

DKR is a hard story to analyse. I am not sure I have the patience to reread it.

It is also one of those stories that impacted me in a negative manner as comics turned a corner into gritty and 'meaningful'. I absolutely hated everything about DKR and didn't even read it when it first came out. It was so annoying to me that suddenly the world was using it to contrast with the 'silliness' of caped costumes. It and Watchmen effectively kicked off a really damaging form of positive feedback in the industry. I wasn't able to seperate the idea of the book from that movement.

When I finally read it outside of the original context, I realised that like Watchmen it wasn't actually the driving force of this change. It was the culture surrounding the direct market.

[JKtheMac]

Well, I could say something like "you could pick up pretty much any Superman comic", but if you need specific examples:

Superman #247
Up, Up, and Away (Superman #650-653, Action #837-840)
Death of Superman
Reign of the Supermen
What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way (Action #775)
Superman: Peace on Earth
For the Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11)
Wedding Album

OK, which of these would you define as both 'in main continuity' and very obviously character driven. Bear in mind I haven't read any of them, so I will need time to purchase, read and analyse the story. But I am prepared to do so if it helps illuminate the issues.

[JKtheMac]

I will give you example Marvel has bunch of superman analogs but they never work.Why? Because the biggest reason Superman works is because he is" The Guy" at DC. At Marvel there is no "the guy" Spiderman is the guy,Captain America is the guy, Iron Man is the guy,etc. Marvel created Sentry and they smartly came with angle that let Sentry be "the guy". The thing is Marvel fans don't particular want "the guy" and that is one of reasons he failed to catch on.

I would take this further. Usually, when Marvel use direct analogs from DC they are doing so to examine them in a uniquely Marvel manner. They are mostly deconstructions or at least contain a big 'what if?' They often seek to examine how such characters would impact the MU and how they themselves would be changed.

It is telling how many times fans seek to draw direct parallels between characters at Marvel and DC, and how dissatisfying these comparisons often feel. Take the controversy the MCU is stirring up over Captain Marvel being Marvel's Superman. As comic book fans we inherently know this isn't true. Why this is controversial is very much part of this wider issue of the differences between the big two.

[JKtheMac]

if Batman is one of the first ever superheroes, wouldn't that make any character that comes after him that mimics his style, Batman-like?

Batman was a derivative of The Spirt, does that make every superhero the same as this pulp character? Batman was an evolution of The Spirit and as such he is different. It is perhaps illuminating to consider the different directions Batman and Moon Knight went in. Especially as they continue to diverge in modern comics. Moon Knight is almost entirely an inward facing character these days, where once these characters were very similar they are now almost unrecognisable as being derived from the same pulp origins.