Originally Posted by
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.