Marvel Comics advantages over DC

[jetengine]

Short note here, afaik Ditko left Marvel because his randian philosophy wouldnt allow him to compromise. Lee was grouchy about that sure but thats on Ditko frankly. As for Kirby whilst he and Stan had issues at times Kirby left because the EIC (not Stan) wasnt paying him enough. Just because Stan showboats and is good at promoting himself doesnt make him a complete shitheel. You want that you go to Bob Kane.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Short note here, afaik Ditko left Marvel because his randian philosophy wouldnt allow him to compromise.

Ditko didn't really become Randian until long after he left Marvel. He left Marvel in 1966, then he spent a year at Warren Comics under Archie Goodwin illustrating horror comics (that some, like Alan Moore, think are his best works) and then he went to Charlton. It wasn't until Mr. A (which came out in 1973-Six Years Later) that people realized how deep into Rand he was. Ditko's issues with Marvel as per his biographer Blake Bell were entirely down to pay. He was co-writing stuff but got a credit (and payment) solely for his work as artist. He negotiated a plotting credit which he saw as a sop (but still more than what Kirby achieved) and then Stan Lee in interviews at the time talked smack about Ditko, saying he wasn't a good plotter (which considering that the issues after that was the Master-Planner Saga is pretty false).

There was absolutely no political reason behind Ditko's departure from Marvel. For one thing, Ayn Rand in the early to mid-60s was still largely known as a mainstream author of science fiction and YA rather than a philosopher. That's apparent when you consider the fact that the person who introduced Ditko to Rand, who recommended him to read her, was none other than...Stan Lee himself. Stan Lee essentially dunked Ditko into a vat of acid all things considered. Likewise, Jack Kirby, who was a liberal and leftist (he opposed the Vietnam War in the '60s at a time when Lee was studiously apolitical) had same issues with Lee and he said he would have left at the same time as Ditko if not for having to take care of his family first and provide some stability before he made the shift.

As for Kirby whilst he and Stan had issues at times Kirby left because the EIC (not Stan) wasnt paying him enough.

With Martin Goodman (who was publisher of Marvel and Lee's Uncle). Yeah. Ditko had issues with him. But both Lee and Kirby definitely didn't see Stan on their side.

Just because Stan showboats and is good at promoting himself doesnt make him a complete shitheel. You want that you go to Bob Kane.

I don't think Bob Kane is the only flavor and variety of bad. Lee, in the context of his time, was further ahead of others in terms of introducing full credits and so on, and he wasn't personally a bad writer and so on...but you can definitely hold him responsible for the stuff he didn't do or fully own up to and so on. And as Editor-In-Chief, you can definitely hold him to task dor driving away "the goose that lays the golden egg" to competitors which definitely played a part in Marvel's slide in the '70s. For all that Jim Shooter got grief for driving John Byrne to DC, it's nothing compared to Lee's blunder in driving co-founders of Marvel to the competition.

I feel like Marvel taking place in a "real world" setting is an advantage. I don't mean it's realistic, but rather it sets itself as being our world if it we[/re a superhero world.

That's another thing that no longer has any meaning. Marvel might have been a mirror to the "real world" in the '60s and '80s but not anymore. New York City is gentrified heavily but you still have high crime rates taken for a given in Marvel NY. Functionally Marvel NY is not any different from Gotham and Metropolis at this point. It's just not the "world outside your window" anymore. The exceptions are stuff like Miles Morales and Kamala Khan which reflects some real world stuff but those are exceptions.

Spider-Man and Daredevil for instance absolutely exist in a fantasy version of New York City. As does The Punisher and others.

I think just having the Marvel characters come from actual real-world places with defined locations helps to better sell them as real people instead of a fictional city of a vaguely-defined location.

People at DC would argue that having each character having a defined location and background of their own allows each hero to stand out as something special individually as opposed to Marvel where there's a superhero caste system in NYC where basically the Fantastic Four live in a penthouse and handle the cosmic/galactic stuff, the Avengers live in a Mansion and handle stuff the FF are too busy to deal with, while "street-level" heroes exist to be mocked and made fun off in crossover stories for handling small-time crooks and gangsters and so on. On the whole DC is a more democratic place. Superman would never say, like Iron Man does in Homecoming with a straight face, that "so-and-so" is below his pay grade. Batman would never say any threat is beneath him and so on.

That's my take as to the advantages Marvel has over DC.

Advantages aren't forever. The advantages that Marvel once had over DC aren't there anymore, or they no longer have the same value and meaning.
-- Stuff like everyone living in a real city and background doesn't mean anything if they don't continue to update and progress and keep paces with changes in that background.
-- Marvel in the '60s had real-time progression and character growth and that was a huge advantage it had over DC. But then the "illusion of change" came and now it's not any different from DC.

People also need to grok something. DC has obviously stayed in business since the '60s, and many great comics have come out since then. They still kept the fictional cities and other stuff. So if you want to make a case of "advantage" then it doesn't explain why DC still do that and still stay solvent. Maybe those advantages aren't really advantages after all.

[Gaastra]

I'm not sure about that. From what I've researched, Marvel was pretty small fish compared to DC back in the 1940s

Marvel had a hit with archie clone patsy walker and her tons of spin-offs ironically.

- In the 60s, Marvel > DC. 'Nuff said.
-- In the 70s, DC > Marvel. This was when Ditko and Kirby left Marvel (driven away by Stan Lee). In that decade, you had Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil on Batman, Kirby on Jimmy Olsen and New Gods, Steve Gerber's Strange Apparitions, and towards the end of the decade, Len Wein's Swamp Thing.
-- In the 80s, DC = Marvel in terms of ongoing superhero comics (DC's really great stuff was of course Swamp Thing, Watchmen, TDKR which wasn't really in continuity).
-- In the 90s, DC>Marvel.
-- In the 2000s, Marvel > DC.
-- This decade, well I haven't read a fair bit of DC stuff this one so I can't judge. I stopped reading DC because of DiDio and Johns and not because I dislike the characters or anything. Anytime those two leave DC, I'll be back.

I disagree with dc winning 70s. Marvel had some great stuff from the horror comics to conan to star wars to 70s avengers run to some great 70s spidey tales to micronuts to defenders and was trying out non hero comics as well. Plus, 70s x-men rules comic shops!

Marvel had its A game in the 70s in fact some see it as one of marvels best eras.

80s gave us some great spidey stories, more x-men tales, god loves man kills, death of captain marvel, byne fantastic four, peter davids hulk, millers daredevil, dr strange dr doom trade, gijoe and transformers comics that were better than the cartoons, strike force, epic comics, 80s avengers tales and some great tales!

I will disagree dc won those two decades!

90s is a mess with both. Deaths events all over dc, gimmick covers and image art with tons of zippers and image looking art from both, but both had great stuff also like marvels, avengers vol 3, untold tales of spider-man, kingdom hearts, and some great batman tales. I see 90s as more of a tie myself.

[Punjabi_Hitman]

spambot necrobumping lol.

Marvel had a hit with archie clone patsy walker and her tons of spin-offs ironically.



I disagree with dc winning 70s. Marvel had some great stuff from the horror comics to conan to star wars to 70s avengers run to some great 70s spidey tales to micronuts to defenders and was trying out non hero comics as well. Plus, 70s x-men rules comic shops!

Marvel had its A game in the 70s in fact some see it as one of marvels best eras.

80s gave us some great spidey stories, more x-men tales, god loves man kills, death of captain marvel, byne fantastic four, peter davids hulk, millers daredevil, dr strange dr doom trade, gijoe and transformers comics that were better than the cartoons, strike force, epic comics, 80s avengers tales and some great tales!

I will disagree dc won those two decades!

90s is a mess with both. Deaths events all over dc, gimmick covers and image art with tons of zippers and image looking art from both, but both had great stuff also like marvels, avengers vol 3, untold tales of spider-man, kingdom hearts, and some great batman tales. I see 90s as more of a tie myself.

Lol you replied to a banned dude

[Gaastra]

How was i to know he was getting banned.

[Hoodj]

I feel like Marvel taking place in a "real world" setting is an advantage. I don't mean it's realistic, but rather it sets itself as being our world if it were a superhero world. The locations are real, with the prime example being New York City, and people being born in real places. DC primarily relies on fictional places like Gotham, Metropolis, Star City, Central City, Bludhaven etc. even when not as fantastical as something like Themyscira or Atlantis. Marvel does have fictional locations, yes, that isn't being denied, but those are treated as the exception, and when present are more fantastical like Wakanda, Latveria, Attilan, Atlantis, Madripoor etc.

Those are the exception, and not the rule.

I think just having the Marvel characters come from actual real-world places with defined locations helps to better sell them as real people instead of a fictional city of a vaguely-defined location.

That brings us to the next point, the fact that Marvel heroes have stood apart from DC heroes as being more like real people with real struggles, and just as much focus on what's behind the mask as there is the costumed hero.

Many heroes have a defined struggle which the audience can relate to in some way, yet prove to be good people through it all.
Take for example:

• Spider-Man has a sense of realism in that the dead stay that way and status quo changes have consequences from one arc to the next (Clone Saga and OMD notwithstanding), and Peter struggles with many of the mundane problems we do.
• X-Men and the mutants go through prejudice that is like that of real life minorities, racial or sexual or any other (albeit in a more fantastical way). Hence, they related to so many people and why they became so popular.
• The Fantastic Four are a family that bicker and fight, yet still love each other, just like any real world family.
• Hulk with his psychology issues and dealing with inner demons.
• Iron Man struggles with alcoholism, and it's played realistically.
• Daredevil being blind and having a troubled past while being a devout Catholic.
• Jessica Jones having PTSD from a very bad experience.
• Quicksilver's powers are a hindrance as much as a help.
• Hawkeye having an abusive dad and finding a better path.

and so on.

There's also the fact that Marvel, from the beginning, set itself as being part of a living breathing world. That's why it's so common for heroes to meet each other outside of special crossovers while also going about their own lives, they fight villains normally associated with someone else while having their own rogues, they have supporting casts migrate between different characters (such as Iron Man getting key Spider-Man character Mary Jane Watson as a PA for Stark Industries), and that many worldbuilding elements are present throughout all the books. Events that happened somewhere else can be relevant to a different story, and it's common for books to reference each other (often with captions to tell you where to look).

This began because Marvel was centered primarily around two creators: Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Yes, there were others like Bill Everett, Larry Lieber, Don Heck, and of course, Steve Ditko, but they were the core. It was both for reasons of differentiation (DC not having a connected universe then and Marvel selling itself as the hot alternative), and practicality (because it's just easier to swap around concepts with two guys are in charge versus a whole company). That said, they wanted their world to feel alive, where anything can happen, and where there's one connected continuity that affects everything. DC actually had to catch up because Marvel's formula was so successful, but I still prefer how Marvel does it overall.

In DC, you have the Trinity of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. However, you can't really do that with Marvel. Fans have recently tried that before with Iron Man, Captain America and Thor, but that is an extremely spotty way to do it. Marvel is just too widespread for it, and making them the Trinity leaves a bunch of massive elephants in the room. They can be the Avengers Trinity, but not the Marvel Trinity, in my book. It'd be best described as four pillars: Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, X-Men, Avengers.

That's my take as to the advantages Marvel has over DC.

Like many people have said, DC basically copies Marvels formula of realism meets fantasy and Spideys angst and relatability in many characters like Supes, Batman, The Flash, freaking Titans etc.

[Ultimate Captain America]

The Marvel universe



The DC Universe



'Nuff said!

[Anthony W]

I feel like Marvel taking place in a "real world" setting is an advantage. I don't mean it's realistic, but rather it sets itself as being our world if it were a superhero world. The locations are real, with the prime example being New York City, and people being born in real places. DC primarily relies on fictional places like Gotham, Metropolis, Star City, Central City, Bludhaven etc. even when not as fantastical as something like Themyscira or Atlantis. Marvel does have fictional locations, yes, that isn't being denied, but those are treated as the exception, and when present are more fantastical like Wakanda, Latveria, Attilan, Atlantis, Madripoor etc.

Those are the exception, and not the rule.

I think just having the Marvel characters come from actual real-world places with defined locations helps to better sell them as real people instead of a fictional city of a vaguely-defined location.

This has got to be one of the things that Marvel gets so much UNDESERVED credit for. DC has imaginary cities but those cities can easily be stand ins for real world cities.

MARVEL IS, WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE ALL ABOUT NEW YORK CITY. They have only recently gotten comfortable enough with the West Coast to start going out there since Runaways. So that means it took Marvel roughly 40 or so years to become comfortable with the West Coast. So in another forty or so years Marvel might become comfortable with middle America or what their writers refer to as "flyover states". Yes I know they had West Coast Avengers...that they actually called it that should tell you something.

It's amazing that in the year 2022 we still have comics fans praising Marvel for taking place in the "real" cities. Or do a majority of CBR posters live in NYC?

[FFJamie94]

How was i to know he was getting banned.

I didn't know he was banned either.
I wonder why he was...

(I've had disagreements with the guy on here and other forums before).