Why prefer marvel over DC?

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

No, it remains true. If you want to take a myopic view of Marvel and DC as being virtually the same, it's your choice but they are very different.

Whoa, whoa, I'm not saying DC and Marvel are "the same." I'm not saying that they have the same characters or that their lore is the same. Of course not. Different characters have different lore.

However, what my main point has been is that there is no difference in the capacity of writers to tell a certain type of story at one as opposed to the other and any assertion that there is is disingenuous. You can tell dark and gritty stories at DC just as easily as you could tell dark and gritty stories at Marvel, just like you could tell uplifting and inspiring stories at Marvel as easily as you could at DC. You can tell grand space operas at Marvel just as easily as you could tell those same stories at DC and you could tell small-scale, down to earth adventures at DC as easily as at Marvel.

Any preference just depends on which lore you are more attracted to.

Those characters are not the norm. They were add-ons and DC typically defaults back to favoring the most iconic versions of their heroes.

When those characters are so prevalent and play a large enough role in the universe, they are the norm. Wally West and Kyle Rayner aren't some C-listers. They're kind of big deals in the DCU.

The bare bones of a story can be transplanted but the final story will not be the same.

Had Kraven's Last Hunt been told as a Batman/Joker story, it would have been fundamentally different in tone.

Which is the entire point here. Surface similarities can exist but the universes are not identical or interchangeable.

Of course it would have been a different story just by virtue of it dealing with different characters, instead dealing with the personal circumstances surrounding Batman as opposed to Spider-Man. However, I fail to see how it would have been different in terms of tone. The original pitch to DC was about Joker finally killing Batman. That's not very light or optimistic in terms of subject matter or tone.

So, not only did DeMatteis feel comfortable pitching that not once, but twice to DC but they rejected it because they already had a very tonally-similar story already in development. Doesn't that at least suggest that that type of story is no more out-of-place at DC than it is at Marvel?

He is. And he is often shown to be and many stories regarding Cap revolve around the fact that his values are in conflict with a harsher, more cynical world.

Not from what I've seen. People idolize him in the Marvel Universe. In fact, that's part of why Secret Empire played out the way it did: because people did love Cap so much that he was able to use that capital to deceive and conquer in the name of Hydra. Cap is beloved, just like Superman is beloved. And not only that, but that "fish out of water" theme is prevalent in both their comics.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Never mind.

[JKtheMac]

The Captain America argument really confuses me. Cap is in no way the type of character that would be at DC. Yes his origins and his early concept might have fitted DC’s sensibilities, but he has evolved in and with the MU. This isn’t just a lore and background thing anymore. He is defined by his struggles and his outlook in a way that characters at DC are not. If anything he is the perfect example of the difference of DC and Marvel, which is exactly why I used him to contrast with Superman much earlier in the discussion.

In the same way that Moon Knight is a character that would once have been easy to transfer from one universe to the next but is now totally divergent and uniquely Marvel, so is Cap. These characters, and that processs of evolution is the very essence of why there is a tonal difference between the big two.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

The Captain America argument really confuses me. Cap is in no way the type of character that would be at DC. Yes his origins and his early concept might have fitted DC’s sensibilities, but he has evolved in and with the MU. This isn’t just a lore and background thing anymore. He is defined by his struggles and his outlook in a way that characters at DC are not. If anything he is the perfect example of the difference of DC and Marvel, which is exactly why I used him to contrast with Superman much earlier in the discussion.

And, as many of us have been saying, any DC character are just as likely to be defined by their struggles and outlook as Captain America is. Again, look at Batman. I agree, Captain America is at home in the Marvel Universe. But he would also fit into the DC Universe, because in the end, there is no limit to the types of stories or types of characters that could exist in either universe. Any contention that there is is just untrue. The only difference between the two is their respective lore.

[skyvolt2000]

Those characters are not the norm. They were add-ons and DC typically defaults back to favoring the most iconic versions of their heroes.

WHO did Static replace?? Static had his own universe unlike those others.

So it's not normal for a kid to get powers, make his own suit and gadgets, get his own rogue gallery and have his own adventures? I guess Peter Parker never got that memo. Nor Moon Girl or Ms Marvel. Nor the New Warriors.

And Marvel doesn't go back to so-called iconic versions? One major difference is Marvel at least TRIES to give the replacement a new ID and focus. Instead of erasing them, replacing them with racist stereotypes and calling them pitch toxic like DC.

She Hulk, War Machine, Winter Solider, Falcon, X-23, Thunderstrike, Ms Marvel, Jane Foster, Sam Alexander, Riri, Doom, Ghostrider, Brother Voodoo, Carol Danvers, Shuri, Ben Riley, Miguel O'Hara, May Parker, Rayshuan Lucas, Various Venoms, Scott Lang, Nadia, Moon Girl, Cho Hulk, Samuel L Fury Jr, Spider-Women and others have fared better than ALL of the guys at DC who replaced someone.

Green Lantern, Batman family & Flash fan wars have been legendary.

One thing that Marvel did BEFORE Jane Foster as Thor was to make sure who you saw in those films MATCHED who was in the comics. So there was no confusion on who was who (even if it didn't work at times).
DC-it was either or when it came to outside media-with guys NOT on Batman's level. See the Young Justice cast or 2000 Justice League.

I am going to presume that’s a joke, because otherwise I am not sure what your point is.

The point was-DC actually did have these wandering anti-heroes who was not as NUTTY as Punisher but were around. Hex as one and so was Scalphunter. A case could be made for Grave Digger-who was told as a black man he couldn't fight in WW 2 and end up becoming a secret weapon for the USA.

My point isn't that DC can't tell gritty stories and that only Marvel can, it's that - because both universes are different in their core conceptions - telling gritty stories takes on different forms. Grittiness in the DC universe is an add-on whereas that element was baked into Marvel from the start.

DC's issue is they want a one size fit all Batman gritty universe that we saw annoy folks with New 52. Marvel has been able to do it without much issue.
Batman was never this gritty. We saw him balance his Bruce Wayne and Batman life for decades. Now he's Batman 24/7 and we barely see Bruce. We get nutty Batman and not the World's Greatest Detective who could solve a crime as Bruce Wayne OR Batman.

[Sutekh]

I enjoy Omega Men and Legion of Super-Heroes more than just about any Marvel cosmic stuff but I don't think DC cares for those two teams.

Same for me with the Legion and Justice Society/All-Star Squadron.

I'd be a DC fanboy for life, if they'd publish books about characters (and teams) I'm a fan of, and didn't push out 73,000 Bat titles. We can get a book about one of Batman's villains' *girlfriend.* Meh. Still, it's selling for them, so good for them. It's a business. It just means that I'll be reading more Marvel, although Marvel can also spend a little too much time focusing on their 'iconic' bench (movie synergy!) and less on teams of characters like Alpha Flight and the New X-Men and the Agents of Atlas.

It's hard to generalize about DC does this or Marvel does that, because so many creators come and go between companies, and their styles and preferences tend to swap back and forth, so while I may like X-Men, Fantastic Four, Iron Fist and Alpha Flight stories by Byrne one decade, the next he's over at DC doing Man of Steel and the feel is unsurprisingly similar, making generalizations kind of specious.

[LifeIsILL]

I am going to presume that’s a joke, because otherwise I am not sure what your point is.

Really? You don't get my point? You're asking if DC ever did a story about an anti-hero protagonist and delve deep into their nature. And I just answered your question that they did.....way before Wolverine.

Get it now? Or are you just blind to what I said when I just presented the evidence right in front of you?

[Prof. Warren]

Whoa, whoa, I'm not saying DC and Marvel are "the same." I'm not saying that they have the same characters or that their lore is the same. Of course not. Different characters have different lore.
However, what my main point has been is that there is no difference in the capacity of writers to tell a certain type of story at one as opposed to the other and any assertion that there is is disingenuous. You can tell dark and gritty stories at DC just as easily as you could tell dark and gritty stories at Marvel, just like you could tell uplifting and inspiring stories at Marvel as easily as you could at DC. You can tell grand space operas at Marvel just as easily as you could tell those same stories at DC and you could tell small-scale, down to earth adventures at DC as easily as at Marvel.

Yes. The point isn't that you can't tell a certain type of story at one publisher and not at the other but that those similar stories will have different flavors and tones because at their core, both universes are different. Writing for DC is not the same as writing for Marvel. Never has been, never will be.

When those characters are so prevalent and play a large enough role in the universe, they are the norm. Wally West and Kyle Rayner aren't some C-listers. They're kind of big deals in the DCU.

They were big deals at certain points. And they were developed as very Marvel-esque characters.

But who's the Flash right now? And who's going to be Green Lantern in Grant Morrison's book?

Wally and Kyle are ultimately expendable to DC in a way that Barry and Hal aren't.

Of course it would have been a different story just by virtue of it dealing with different characters, instead dealing with the personal circumstances surrounding Batman as opposed to Spider-Man. However, I fail to see how it would have been different in terms of tone. The original pitch to DC was about Joker finally killing Batman. That's not very light or optimistic in terms of subject matter or tone.

So, not only did DeMatteis feel comfortable pitching that not once, but twice to DC but they rejected it because they already had a very tonally-similar story already in development. Doesn't that at least suggest that that type of story is no more out-of-place at DC than it is at Marvel?

Again, it's not that you can't tell a similar story in its underlying architecture but that any story will emerge with a noticeably different tone from one company to the other - and not just because it features different characters. We don't know what form DeMatteis' story would have ultimately taken had he told it at DC but it would certainly have not been, in any way, a carbon copy of KLH.

Not from what I've seen. People idolize him in the Marvel Universe. In fact, that's part of why Secret Empire played out the way it did: because people did love Cap so much that he was able to use that capital to deceive and conquer in the name of Hydra. Cap is beloved, just like Superman is beloved. And not only that, but that "fish out of water" theme is prevalent in both their comics.

The public often loves Cap. But sometimes they don't. And the real difference is Steve's internal struggles. From the start, Stan reintroduced Steve into the MU has a man out of time. He was a man who was forged in a different era and had to contend with a more complex world. And most of his most notable stories have to do with him becoming disillusioned with the government and the institutions that he stands for, going back to Steve Englehart's original Secret Empire. He's had to struggle with the ongoing cynical realities of the world in a way that Superman typically hasn't.

[Prof. Warren]

And, as many of us have been saying, any DC character are just as likely to be defined by their struggles and outlook as Captain America is.

But they aren't. They are more acted on by external forces. The complications in their lives more often come from without than within.

You seem to be taking the superficial fact that, you know, stuff happens to characters in both universes as proof that they're basically the same, when they're not.

Again, look at Batman. I agree, Captain America is at home in the Marvel Universe. But he would also fit into the DC Universe, because in the end, there is no limit to the types of stories or types of characters that could exist in either universe. Any contention that there is is just untrue. The only difference between the two is their respective lore.

No. Not true.

Batman would be out of place in the Marvel universe, just like Captain America would be out of place in the DC universe.

Whatever stories you would tell with them occupying those other universes would be about how their differences stand out.

You seem to think that people are arguing they're limits on what type of stories can be told in either universe and that's not the case.

The point is that any story told in either universe will be informed by the unique properties of that universe.

If you haven't read it already, seek out Kurt Busiek's JLA/Avengers mini, as it nicely illustrates how different both universes are.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Yes. The point isn't that you can't tell a certain type of story at one publisher and not at the other but that those similar stories will have different flavors and tones because at their core, both universes are different. Writing for DC is not the same as writing for Marvel. Never has been, never will be.

But where is the concrete evidence of this? Other posters, including myself, have pointed out tangible examples of how Marvel and DC have mined almost the same territory for decades. However, you have just brushed those off without really engaging with them. Having the same tone doesn't mean they're the same story or that nothing differentiates them. It just means that Marvel and DC are capable of creating a similar feel to their respective universes. After all, neither universe is a monolith. There is and should be variation in both.

They were big deals at certain points. And they were developed as very Marvel-esque characters.

But who's the Flash right now? And who's going to be Green Lantern in Grant Morrison's book?

Wally and Kyle are ultimately expendable to DC in a way that Barry and Hal aren't.

No, they're expendable to certain current editorial influences at DC, but the DC Universe noticeably feels as if its missing something without Wally or Kyle. After all, why do you think there was this huge fan backlash to Wally's absence during the New 52?

But at the same time, what makes you think that Barry and Hal aren't introspective, flawed characters? And that's the point. Nowadays, every character has flaws. Every writer touches on aspects of their personal lives and their internal struggles.

Again, it's not that you can't tell a similar story in its underlying architecture but that any story will emerge with a noticeably different tone from one company to the other - and not just because it features different characters. We don't know what form DeMatteis' story would have ultimately taken had he told it at DC but it would certainly have not been, in any way, a carbon copy of KLH.

Again, evidence? I know it wouldn't have been a carbon copy just by virtue of the lore. However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have explored the same tones or themes.

The public often loves Cap. But sometimes they don't. And the real difference is Steve's internal struggles. From the start, Stan reintroduced Steve into the MU has a man out of time. He was a man who was forged in a different era and had to contend with a more complex world. And most of his most notable stories have to do with him becoming disillusioned with the government and the institutions that he stands for, going back to Steve Englehart's original Secret Empire. He's had to struggle with the ongoing cynical realities of the world in a way that Superman typically hasn't.

You mean just like Superman has had to struggle with being the last survivor of his race and his role as "torchbearer" of Kryptonian culture? And also, how Clark has had to struggle with the notion that his ideals of "truth, justice, and the American way" may not be as embraced by the rest of the culture as or with the reality that he can't be the ultimate savior that everyone wants him to be? A lot of Superman stories explore these themes. Just right off the top of my head, Action 775, Peace on Earth, For the Man Who has Everything, etc.

So, again, see? Every character has personal and character-driven issues that are explored in their stories. That's the point I have been making. That, while the exact personal struggles are different, the likelihood that you would see personal struggles in a character's series is the same.

[Rosebunse]

With everything that has happened in tge past few years, wouldn't it be fun to see another Marvel/DC crossover? It'll never happen, but it would be fun.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

But they aren't. They are more acted on by external forces. The complications in their lives more often come from without than within.

But, again, where is the evidence to back up this assertion? I provided evidence to back up my point.

You seem to be taking the superficial fact that, you know, stuff happens to characters in both universes as proof that they're basically the same, when they're not.

I'm saying that the fact that they've mined similar themes, have employed almost identical storytelling tropes, have similar character-driven narratives, etc. make them both incredibly similar in terms of tone and storytelling. Of course the lore between the two is different, but lore is not the same as tone or theme.

No. Not true.

Batman would be out of place in the Marvel universe, just like Captain America would be out of place in the DC universe.

That's the thing, though. I don't think Batman would be out of place in the Marvel universe. After all, Marvel has a lot of Batman analogues like Moon Knight and Nighthawk. And, while not really a Batman knockoff, Wolverine shares several of the same personality and character traits of Batman in that they are both stubborn, brooding no-nonsense loners with dark pasts who are driven by those pasts.

Whatever stories you would tell with them occupying those other universes would be about how their differences stand out.

You seem to think that people are arguing they're limits on what type of stories can be told in either universe and that's not the case.

Well if you're not saying that a certain type of story can't be told or feels out place at one of the Big Two, then I'm confused. What exactly is your assertion, then?

The point is that any story told in either universe will be informed by the unique properties of that universe.

Agreed, but its the lore of each universe that informs the stories, not some underlying tonal element that just makes one more prone to a certain type of story.

[ItzdoctorZ]

Because I am interested in more of the marvel characters. DC don't have as many interesting characters imo.

[Prof. Warren]

But where is the concrete evidence of this?

In reading the stories.

If you can't discern the differences between Marvel and DC, I wonder what possible value you can get from reading either.

Other posters, including myself, have pointed out tangible examples of how Marvel and DC have mined almost the same territory for decades. However, you have just brushed those off without really engaging with them and simply saying "they have different tones" when in truth, they don't. Having the same tone doesn't mean they're the same story or that nothing differentiates them. It just means that Marvel and DC are capable of creating a similar feel to their respective universes. After all, neither universe is a monolith. There is and should be variation in both.

There is variation in both. No one is saying there isn't.

But if you can't tell the difference in tone between Marvel and DC for yourself and you want to insist that they're practically identical, there's no point in discussing anything.

I don't know how I can explain this in a way you can actually comprehend, since you seem attached to the idea that two very different universes are interchangeable.

No one who's ever written or edited for both companies would tell you that one is the same as the other.

And this is not a value judgement on either, it's just stating the fact that they are not the same.

No, they're expendable to certain current editorial influences at DC, but the DC Universe noticeably feels as if its missing something without Wally or Kyle. After all, why do you think there was this huge fan backlash to Wally's absence during the New 52?

But at the same time, what makes you think that Barry and Hal aren't introspective, flawed characters? And that's the point. Nowadays, every character has flaws. Every writer touches on aspects of their personal lives.

Whatever Barry and Hal's flaws might be now were added on over time. At their core, they are simplistic characters who were originally defined by their powers. As people they were simply generic white guys from an uncomplicated era.

As Howard Chaykin succinctly noted when talking about developing and evolving the character of Barry Allen for the CBS Flash series, "For me, the beginning and the end of the Barry Allen character (in the comics) was that he had a crew-cut."

Point being that complexities have been added on to DC's classic characters but they were not part of their inceptions in the same way that Marvel's heroes were.

Again, evidence? I know it wouldn't have been a carbon copy just by virtue of the lore. However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have explored the same tones or themes.

There's more to the differences between Marvel and DC than just the lore.

You mean just like Superman has had to struggle with being the last survivor of his race and his role as "torchbearer" of Krypton culture? And also, how Clark has had to struggle with the notion that his ideals of "truth, justice, and the American way" may not be as embraced by the rest of the culture as or with the reality that he can't be the ultimate savior that everyone wants him to be? A lot of Superman stories explore these themes. Just right off the top of my head, Action 775, Peace on Earth, For the Man Who has Everything, etc.

Superman is a mythic figure that struggles with godlike responsibilities.

His struggles are not the same as Steve's idealism continually bumping up against real corruption and cynicism.

It certainly hasn't driven Superman's stories in the way that struggling with disillusionment and a complex modern world has with Steve.

Superman never has to question or doubt what he represents whereas Steve often does.

So, again, see? Every character has personal and character-driven issues that are explored in their stories. That's the point I have been making. That, while the exact personal struggles are different, the likelihood that you would see personal struggles in a character's series is the same.

It's been pointed out to you what the actual definition of "character-driven" is. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

As someone who has read both Marvel and DC for decades, I can't imagine being so oblivious to the crucial ways in which they're different.

You seem to resist acknowledging their differences because somehow you feel that to do so would be disparaging to one or the other or that would say that it limits one or the other.

But it isn't and it doesn't.

Read JLA/Avengers. Much of that story hinges on the differences between the universes.

Not only could you not tell that story if both universes were treated as the same, you wouldn't even want to tell it because it's only through spotlighting and reveling in their differences that it actually becomes fun and interesting rather than just a generic team-up that would be commonplace in either universe. To see both universes as interchangeable and virtually identical is to fail to appreciate the value of either.

Simply saying "but, you know, kind of similar stuff happens in both!" is entirely missing the point and just glosses over the clear and fascinating ways in which they differ.

That's my final word on the topic. Keep enjoying the books any way you see fit.

[Agent Z]

JLA/Avengers was based on a very shallow and outdated view of the DCU. Let's not forget that at the time of that story:

* Jason Todd had been murdered by the Joker.

* Barbara Gordon was crippled by the Joker.

* Hal Jordan turned evil and destroyed the Green lantern Corps.

* Barry Allen was dead.

* Qurac had been nuked.

* Wonder Woman's Amazons were now victims of rape and slavery which led to tensions between them and Man's World.