Why prefer DC over marvel?

[WhipWhirlwind]

I like the characters at DC but lately have been preferring the writing at Marvel. They seem less bound by editorial edicts, and seem to give their writers more freedom on what they want to work on even at the expense of continuity.

[Jim Kelly]

When I dropped DC during the new 52, I wanted to try out Marvel. But their comics are just as hard to get into as DC's now. It's just too much work to figure out what's in and out of continuity anymore.

[Buried Alien]

When I dropped DC during the new 52, I wanted to try out Marvel. But their comics are just as hard to get into as DC's now. It's just too much work to figure out what's in and out of continuity anymore.

The work is worth doing if the product is compelling enough (you can imagine my confusion as someone who, during the 1980s, last picked up a DC book in early 1984 and didn't return until late 1988), but the problem has been...it usually isn't.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[DevilBat66]

Basically it boils down to Marvel pretty much ruining all their characters "for me" over the last 15 yearsish.

You can only tear down your heroes so many times before they become unlikable shades of what they used to be.Can hardly stand most of the Marvel characters anymore.

The constant retcons and stuff while proclaiming they don't reboot like DC does is also laughable to me. None of the characters have the same continuity and history they did when I started reading in the 70's. DC, at least, has dividing lines between all the Crisis events so I can ignore the stuff I didn't like or start fresh with characters again.
Marvel likes to pretend it's still all the same and that just really bugs me. I hate hypocricy.

I love plenty of characters from both companies and both have had tons of great stories over the decades. Marvels' shock stories, status quo changes that never really have any lasting impact, constant internal resetting of continuity "but it's not a reboot!" and the general de-uniquing of their heroes has really turned me off.

Most importantly though...I'm an older fan ( since 74! ) and a few years back I really needed to start cutting back and last 15 years of Marvel made it real easy to pick DC.

Also, as much as I can't stand Dan Didio and his obsession with all the crappy stuff from the 90's, it's nothing compared to how much I hate Tom Breevort and Joe Quesada. The changes Jim Shooter brought about messed up a lot of what I liked about Marvel back in the day but I could still enjoy the books and heroes were heroes. That pretty much ended when Quesada and whatshisface took over around 200 or so.

I have found out that I basically really only like The Marvel Comics Group era of Marvel. Once it became the Marvel UNIVERSE under Shooter, it really lost a lot of what I liked. Sadly it took me decades to realize that.

[lemonpeace]

I got into DC first and i've always liked the larger than life feeling of DC and the (usual) focus on superheroism. However, as I've read more and gotten deeper into comics I feel less enchanted by that and DC seems to be focusing more on nostalgic editorial than engaging stories at times. As a black fan, nostalgia usually means story beats with characters that don't resonate with me AS MUCH (not saying at all) as over on Marvel where they're more human and diverse in their approach. I am still on board with DC most of the time but I've always bounced from one to the other. I go to DC for certain things (the feeling of modern mythology unfolding) and I go to Marvel for others (seeing me reflected on page).

[Sacred Knight]

For me, I've just plain always preferred the characters. I never cared for any of the characters outside of Spider-Man half as much as I cared about DC's core.

[Jim Kelly]

It bugs me that when people think of DC and Marvel, they only seem to think of the super-heroes--and maybe, just maybe, some of the supernatural characters. DC and Marvel have both had lots of other kinds of comics and concepts. They deserve to be celebrated for that.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

It bugs me that when people think of DC and Marvel, they only seem to think of the super-heroes--and maybe, just maybe, some of the supernatural characters. DC and Marvel have both had lots of other kinds of comics and concepts. They deserve to be celebrated for that.

Yeah and DC beats the stuffing out of Marvel in this area, as I myself pointed out a couple of pages back.

[SiegePerilous02]

I just like the characters more. I don't know what it is, they "click" with me more. As others have noted, the almost mythical archetypes they play with make them larger than life as opposed to soap opera-story telling. The latter can be entertaining, but it doesn't seize my imagination nearly as much. I like Marvel's major properties a great deal, but the only ones I consider myself a big fan of are Spider-Man and the X-Men, and comics wise neither one of them has grabbed me in a long ass time.

Marvel's franchises being so interconnected has its strengths and weaknesses. Yeah, it's more cohesive, but it can also make everything homogeneous. Jack Kirby and Stan Lee had a hand in most of it, and they were God-tier creators, but that means you're just getting output from the same guys. The individual franchises of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, the Green Lanterns, Aquaman and Captain Marvel are all very big and distinct from each other and while crossovers can be great, they also don't rely on them because they all have a **** ton of characters that fall under their respective umbrellas. DC is also better at experimenting with mature story telling and non-superhero genres. Vertigo speaks for itself, especially in its early years. And they are willing to experiment with other stuff like the Black Label, Young Animal, Wildstorm, Wonder Comics, Zoom, etc.

[Jim Kelly]

How many people know that the first DC/Marvel joint enterprise was MGM'S MARVELOUS WIZARD OF OZ--not in 1939 when the movie came out but decades later in 1975? Adapted from the motion picture by Roy the Boy Thomas and Big John Buscema-cover art by Jazzy Johnny Romita.

I also loved the MARVEL CLASSICS COMICS--adaptations of great literature. DC did its part by adapting BEOWULF and THE BIBLE.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

I started reading superhero comics with DC as a kid in the early 1970s, so I'll always have affection for their characters. DC was also very easy to get into by picking up any random issue because most of their stories were done-in-ones and their most famous characters were on TV in reruns of The Adventures of Superman and Batman '66 -- plus Super Friends on Saturday mornings, so that also made it easy to know who was who.

I got into Marvel in the late 70s as I grew older and wanted the more sophisticated storytelling that Marvel offered at the time. However, I never turned my back on DC. I only wished that DC would age-up their storytelling to Marvel's level, and that's what began to happen around 1980 when Marvel people who were frustrated working under Jim Shooter began to arrive at DC. So, while during the years of 1978-1980, I was frustrated by DC's lack of willingness to grow up (particularly on Schwartz's Superman titles), that changed with the arrivals of Marv Wolfman and Roy Thomas. When the British writers, led by Alan Moore, arrived in 1983, followed by Marvel's crappy cash-grab miniseries, Secret Wars in 1984, DC really rose to the top again in my book as Marvel fell drastically out of favor with me.

If I had to put my finger on one problem that Marvel has that makes me not want to stay with their characters for very long, it would be what they tout the most: their "realism."

Marvel has it so thoroughly drilled into their own heads that their characters must be flawed and have all these problems, that eventually the writing becomes very contrived. It takes me out of the story when I can see the latest "problem" coming down the pike simply because Marvel's heroes must have an unending streak of problems.

For me, this led to what I refer to as the "Gilligan's Island Syndrome." A lot of Marvel's series are set up where the hero is in undesirable circumstances and wants to be free of it. So, for awhile you root for the hero to overcome his obstacle (e.g. cure himself of being The Hulk, The Thing, Man-Thing, Ghost Rider, Werewolf by Night, etc. etc.), but eventually you realize that can never happen. Just like in Gilligan's Island, they must try to get off the island in every episode, but they must ultimately fail because if they succeed the show's over. If all of a sudden Banner cures himself of the Hulk, it's over. If everyone all of a sudden loves mutants, it's over. Peter Parker can never be too happy for too long. And so on and so forth ad infinitum for most of the Marvel characters. This constant trying and failing only works for me in the short term before it becomes frustratingly repetitious and disempowering. At that point, the new problems and obstacles really stick out to me as editorial contrivances rather than organic storytelling, and I have to jump ship.

I like DC's characters because they try and succeed rather than constantly failing at their core objective. That's very empowering, and more fun to read. DC's characters aren't stuck in an endless cycle of failure and misery like the Marvels.

Also, DC's characters generally like themselves while a lot of Marvel's have self-esteem issues. I get that this is highly relatable to comics nerds when they are teenage outcasts themselves, but eventually you grow out of it and accept yourself and like yourself. However, the Marvels never do. Again, the Gilligan's Island Syndrome dictates that it they should ever overcome their core identity problem, the story is over. That's why I loved Alan Moore's initial Swamp Thing story. Changing the concept of Swamp Thing so that he was never Alec Holland, but just a sentient swamp creature with Holland's essence, allowed Swamp Thing to get rid of that Gilligan's Island anchor around his neck and the storytelling opened itself up to new and innovative avenues.

So, for me, the general lack of Gillgian's Island narrative dead-ends is why I much prefer the DC Universe over the Marvel Universe.

[Marvel/DC Fan]

I like both but currently I get more DC comics than Marvel. Most of the newer Marvel comics read like bad TV sitcoms to me.

[Kyer]

Oh, the Bad timing for this question...

I grew up loving Superman on TV life action and cartoons. Boyscout Superman: "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" He was definitely someone to aspire to be...eh, but without the super powers and kryptonite allergy. As I discovered more superheroes it was Aquaman (I do love the ocean), Plasticman, Flash. DC had a nicer universe. Even Batman at that time was not yet all grim and dark.

Marvel... I didn't go for Marvel until the 90's X-Men cartoon where I almost immediately liked Scott Summers. Then much, much, MUCH later I saw Hank Pym on EMH and added him to my list.

You may now see just why I opened my post as I did. Neither DC or Marvel have been good for me of late. The only thing with DC or Marvel slapped onto the title I watch anymore with any anticipation of utter goodness is Lego.

[Lightning Rider]

I started reading superhero comics with DC as a kid in the early 1970s, so I'll always have affection for their characters. DC was also very easy to get into by picking up any random issue because most of their stories were done-in-ones and their most famous characters were on TV in reruns of The Adventures of Superman and Batman '66 -- plus Super Friends on Saturday mornings, so that also made it easy to know who was who.

I got into Marvel in the late 70s as I grew older and wanted the more sophisticated storytelling that Marvel offered at the time. However, I never turned my back on DC. I only wished that DC would age-up their storytelling to Marvel's level, and that's what began to happen around 1980 when Marvel people who were frustrated working under Jim Shooter began to arrive at DC. So, while during the years of 1978-1980, I was frustrated by DC's lack of willingness to grow up (particularly on Schwartz's Superman titles), that changed with the arrivals of Marv Wolfman and Roy Thomas. When the British writers, led by Alan Moore, arrived in 1983, followed by Marvel's crappy cash-grab miniseries, Secret Wars in 1984, DC really rose to the top again in my book as Marvel fell drastically out of favor with me.

If I had to put my finger on one problem that Marvel has that makes me not want to stay with their characters for very long, it would be what they tout the most: their "realism."

Marvel has it so thoroughly drilled into their own heads that their characters must be flawed and have all these problems, that eventually the writing becomes very contrived. It takes me out of the story when I can see the latest "problem" coming down the pike simply because Marvel's heroes must have an unending streak of problems.

For me, this led to what I refer to as the "Gilligan's Island Syndrome." A lot of Marvel's series are set up where the hero is in undesirable circumstances and wants to be free of it. So, for awhile you root for the hero to overcome his obstacle (e.g. cure himself of being The Hulk, The Thing, Man-Thing, Ghost Rider, Werewolf by Night, etc. etc.), but eventually you realize that can never happen. Just like in Gilligan's Island, they must try to get off the island in every episode, but they must ultimately fail because if they succeed the show's over. If all of a sudden Banner cures himself of the Hulk, it's over. If everyone all of a sudden loves mutants, it's over. Peter Parker can never be too happy for too long. And so on and so forth ad infinitum for most of the Marvel characters. This constant trying and failing only works for me in the short term before it becomes frustratingly repetitious and disempowering. At that point, the new problems and obstacles really stick out to me as editorial contrivances rather than organic storytelling, and I have to jump ship.

I like DC's characters because they try and succeed rather than constantly failing at their core objective. That's very empowering, and more fun to read. DC's characters aren't stuck in an endless cycle of failure and misery like the Marvels.

Also, DC's characters generally like themselves while a lot of Marvel's have self-esteem issues. I get that this is highly relatable to comics nerds when they are teenage outcasts themselves, but eventually you grow out of it and accept yourself and like yourself. However, the Marvels never do. Again, the Gilligan's Island Syndrome dictates that it they should ever overcome their core identity problem, the story is over. That's why I loved Alan Moore's initial Swamp Thing story. Changing the concept of Swamp Thing so that he was never Alec Holland, but just a sentient swamp creature with Holland's essence, allowed Swamp Thing to get rid of that Gilligan's Island anchor around his neck and the storytelling opened itself up to new and innovative avenues.

So, for me, the general lack of Gillgian's Island narrative dead-ends is why I much prefer the DC Universe over the Marvel Universe.

I've heard others express similar sentiments before, but not as completely or well thought out. Great post.

[dancj]

That pretty much ended when Quesada and whatshisface took over around 200 or so.

For me, that was the first time Marvel became worth reading. Unfortunately it only lasted about ten years.