DC vs MARVEL

[InsaneZane]

Let the Battle Begin

I dont know where to start with these two
I've always been partial to Superman and Batman... but X-Men and Spiderman are more than awesome in their own way.
but If you have to decide, which one?

I'm for Both

[oldmanwinters]

Oh, I thought this was gonna be about the 1997 fan-vote crossover series, which spawned the Amalgam Universe.

I'd love to see some of those battles re-staged.

Some potential good spats we got cheated out of the first time around:
Thor Vs. Wonder Woman
Green Lantern Vs. Iron Man
Flash Vs. Spider-Man
Wolverine Vs. Martian Manhunter

[ZariusTwo]

If I have to be honest, neither company is as good as they used to be in regards to comics. One dumb creative decision after another in the name of profit has robbed them both of originality, consistency in characters, and alienated readers with continuity hiccups and the hot/cold mentality to runs, that and they are real d*cks to their writers when they don't corrispond with what the higher-ups want.

In regards to television output, DC have always been better and have a larger, more consistently enduring body of work and that'll continue while Marvel pump out their current crop of garbage. Marvel have it all the way with movies at the moment, though I don't think many of their films will hold up over time

[The Sewer Lord]

The '90's comics were the coolest. The new started off awesome -- they suck now.:ohwell:

[RaphAndDonnie]

I used to be strictly for Marvel, as the old comics I inherited were X-Men and Spiderman comics. Hell, my only interaction with DC was a few Green Lantern and Superman comics and the Teen Titans cartoon. Now of course I'm watching Superman TAS and Batman Tas but I just have more exposure to Marvel I suppose. I like both and I read some DC comics occasionally but I just had to pick Marvel.

[Candy Kappa]

The answer is simple

IDW :P

[joefsas]

Gotta be Marvel for me. Superman and Batman just don't do it for me :P

[Leo656]

Always been DC. I've liked a few "runs" of Marvel books over the years - I was sort of heavy into Spider-Man from the late 1980s up until right before the Clone Saga started - but never was able to get into them consistently. To me, it was always like this: Marvel books have great art and mediocre stories, while DC books have had better stories but mediocre art. Now obviously that's a general statement, because there have been great Marvel stories with great art to match, great DC stories with equally great artwork, and plenty of crap all around from both sides. But that's generally how they each came across to me: DC was for readers who cared more about the stories, Marvel was more for those who enjoyed the visuals.

I can't speak for either right now, thought; I haven't picked up a Marvel book in years, and nothing I've read of the New 52 justifies its existence. DC HAD a much more rich mythology than Marvel, but that no longer counts for much. But DC still has Superman and Batman, and you can't honestly present any other character from any other company as "equal" or "greater" than them unless you're completely delusional. Spider-Man could be as iconic, possibly, except that he's a chronic f*ck-up who almost entirely sucks at his own life and pretty much killed his own girlfriend, just to emphasize how bad he is at damn near everything. And he's pretty much the best Marvel's got, except Wolverine, and that's an entirely different type of character altogether.

[ZariusTwo]

Spider-Man could be as iconic, possibly, except that he's a chronic f*ck-up who almost entirely sucks at his own life and pretty much killed his own girlfriend, just to emphasize how bad he is at damn near everything. And he's pretty much the best Marvel's got, except Wolverine, and that's an entirely different type of character altogether.

Marvel are of two minds with Spidey: Really, if you can get past the Gwen Stacy incident, he got it together with his best friend MJ, married her, got to publish a book of his photos, appeared on Johnny Carson, and had a baby who grew up to be a hero herself....of course the other mindset, the one reflected more in the regular books, is he lost the baby at childbirth, his marraige breifly fell apart, and just when he was rebuilding it, he trades it in to save an edlerly staple of the status quoe and a character whose relevancy had long since ended.

The twin mindset continues to this day in the daily strips and the regular books, both having different continuities. In the dailys, (which Spidey's co-creator Stan Lee has creative control over) Spidey is still happily married and pretty together in life, the mainstream version is...well...either dead or stuck in a perpetual state of loserdom.

[CyberCubed]

I hate what Marvel does to the X-men. Didn't they make Cyclops into a madman and pretty much turn him into a one-dimensional nutjob?

[snake]

The '90's comics were the coolest

Spiderman begs to differ.

[ZariusTwo]

The Clone Saga was never as bad as some bandwagon sheep say it is, compared to s*ite like Chapter One, One More Day and Superior Spider-Man, it's actually an underrated gem and probably the last time Marvel tried to make that character a grown-up

If you knew where to look, the 90s were very good to Spidey, Spidey 2099, the 90s cartoon, and the Spider-Girl books can attest to that. I'd much rather be a fan of him back then than I would ever want to be now.

[Slade]

DC. Always been that way for me. Been a Superman fan since I was small, so that universe comes with it I like some characters from Marvel, I've just never read any runs from them. I've tried, just no clue where to start.

[raph27]

The answer is simple

IDW :P

Oh no you didn't! Mirage all the way!:tlol:

[dudeabides]

Unless DC have killed off Batman and have the Joker's brain driving around his body fooling everybody and trying to one up every thing the real Batman did, then at least they have one thing over Marvel.

[Redeemer]

Im going with DC, Marvel doesn't have many original/ Unique characters. Marvel got sued by DC over Captain Marvel. (Marvel copied Super-man and called hime Captain Marvel)
Ironman is basically Batman.
Deadpool is basically Deadshot and slade wilson.

DC is simply more original, and I am also bias bc of batman and batman beyond.

[DonatelloNinja82]

Hmmm, if I had to choose between the two, I'd have to go with DC.

[Bauer536]

I'd say both because they have their strong and weak characters/storylines/concepts. It happens. However, I feel that DC is stronger in the television business than it is in the film industry. Man of Steel was disappointing, it made The Dark Knight Rises look like a masterpiece, and that was a disappointment, too. Honestly, shows like Batman: The Animated Series and Smallville and (for the fans) Young Justice are a lot of fun and bring some good magic to the DC universe.

Marvel, on the other hand, is the opposite. Their movies have been increasingly enjoyable starting with X-Men through the Avengers. But for the cartoons, maybe some of the shows were better in the past, but today's don't really hold that well. Ultimate Spider-Man, Avengers Assemble, Hulk and Agents of S.M.A.S.H., etc. They are what cause a downfall in Marvel. Marvel is better at their movies (whether you like them or not), but the cartoons are very disappointing at this time.

For some reason, TMNT changes based on exposure. One year, it's a movie that's great. Then a few years later, it's a cartoon, 2-D or CGI, that makes people happy. It seems to depend on the creators and who is handling everything.

[LH]

Team Image!!!...

What?...

Okay fine... I'm going to go with Marvel because I'm a Spider-Man fan.

[DonatelloNinja82]

Team Image!!!...

What?...

Okay fine... I'm going to go with Marvel because I'm a Spider-Man fan.

:kgrin: hahahaha

[Rockvoanjd]

Im going with DC, Marvel doesn't have many original/ Unique characters. Marvel got sued by DC over Captain Marvel. (Marvel copied Super-man and called hime Captain Marvel)
Ironman is basically Batman.
Deadpool is basically Deadshot and slade wilson.

DC is simply more original, and I am also bias bc of batman and batman beyond.

Actually Captain Marvel was created by Fawcet comics, to compete with superman in sales. DC sued fawcet for likeness of character. At the time, Marvel was called Timely, then became Marvel, copyrighted the name, and created there own Captain Marvel. DC picked up the rights to Fawcets Captain Marvel, and called the book Shazam!, but still kept his name...Captain Marvel. Until recently DC decided to call him....Shazam. Same goes for Eclipes MiracleMan, he was originally called MarvelMan, created back in the day to pick up the sales of bankrupt Fawcet Comics. If you ever want a dark amazing read, do yourself a favor and read Alan Moores Miracleman.

[Rockvoanjd]

Oh and I have no preference, each company has there solids. I'm more a silver/copper/bronze comic fan. I don't read much of todays comics. My opinion is that the 80's had the best stories. Marvel: Spider-Man Kraven's Last Hunt DC: Saga of The Swamp Thing. Of course Mirage. The 80's set the way for more darker, deeper stories.

[Redeemer]

However, I feel that DC is stronger in the television business than it is in the film industry. Man of Steel was disappointing, it made The Dark Knight Rises look like a masterpiece, and that was a disappointment, too.

Marvel, on the other hand, is the opposite. Their movies have been increasingly enjoyable starting with X-Men through the Avengers.


What do you mean marvel makes better movies?????? Man of Steel made over 120$million opening weekend and the Batman trilogy is considered to be the best comic book trilogy of all time (Public consensus)
Dark Knight rises was actually my favorite of all the Batman movies.
And Marval doesn't even make the Spider-man or X-men movies!!!! Sony owns those rights!
so dont even count those, you have Avengers and the Iron man movies, (Like the first one, didn't care for the second one) I haven't seen the the third Iron-man so can't comment, but DC owns in movie adaptation department right now.

[CyberCubed]

Most DC movies have been horrible excluding Batman and Superman, and even then a lot of Batman and Superman movies are horrible. (Batman and Robin, Superman III and IV and arguably Returns)

[Redeemer]

Most DC movies have been horrible excluding Batman and Superman, and even then a lot of Batman and Superman movies are horrible. (Batman and Robin, Superman III and IV and arguably Returns)

The original Batman movie and superman movies used to be held in such high regard until Nolan turn it upside down!! :rolling:

But yeah the Original Batman movies dont hold up well compared to the Nolan Movies.

[Cure]

And Marval doesn't even make the Spider-man or X-men movies!!!! Sony owns those rights!

Yo, are you dumb? That's a stupid technicality. They're still Marvel movies. If that was the case, no DC movie would count as a DC movie because they don't have their own studio.

[Leo656]

I've talked to many people who had problems with "Superman Returns", but hardly anyone who would even try arguing it was "horrible". That would be the absolute worst kind of hyperbole. In other words, the only person who could say that would most likely be someone who never even saw it and bases all their opinions off of the internet. Put me in the room with that person. Opinions are one thing, complete delusion is another.

Based on what an individual knows of Superman, it could be more easily argued that "Man of Steel" is a "horrible" movie, because it ignores a lot of the essence of the character and condenses all the character development to sound bites for the trailers, while cramming in more explosions because "Returns" didn't have enough of them.

I'm being honest, I've never actually met someone who watched SR and called it horrible, but so far I've heard several people say that about MoS. To be correct, neither of them are "horrible" at all; in both cases, even if you hate the plot, or the acting, or whatever, you'd have to be completely delusional to say that they both weren't visually stunning, it was obvious a lot of work went into both of them. They were just two entirely different approaches to the same character, neither of which really did it quite right.

Quality-wise, any honest person would HAVE to say they're about equal. It comes down to whether you prefer introspection, or explosions. I give them both an A, for entirely different reasons, but I know 20 years from now I'll still enjoy "Returns" more because it's just more true to the characters in general.

That and the script for MoS was obviously written on a napkin.

[CyberCubed]

DC has better cartoons than Marvel as well.

Batman, Superman, Batman Beyond, Justice League, Teen Titans and Young Justice remain some of the finest action/superhero cartoons ever produced. Brave and the Bold was fun too.

The Batman was the only "weaker" DC cartoon but at least it wasn't awful like Ultimate Spiderman.

[ZariusTwo]

Most DC movies have been horrible excluding Batman and Superman, and even then a lot of Batman and Superman movies are horrible. (Batman and Robin, Superman III and IV and arguably Returns)

Superman III and IV have their share of problems, but they have developed steadily growing fanbases over the years. SIII is praised for the classic Clark Kent/Evil Superman clash as well as the Smallville sequences with Lana, and SIV really only suffers from a cheap budget, really bad editing and lack of coherance, which is made up for with the deleted scenes availible on DVD.

Even Batman and Robin has some strengths to it (the Alfred sub-plot is masterfully handled).

[Redeemer]

Yo, are you dumb? That's a stupid technicality. They're still Marvel movies. If that was the case, no DC movie would count as a DC movie because they don't have their own studio.

Umm.... I'm pretty sure warner bros made the movies, and I'm pretty sure that DC is owned by Warner Bros.... So yeah I'm pretty sure Dc made their own movies and Spiderman and xmen are owned by Sony, (movies) so it's not technicality it's fact

[Jester]

ACTUALLY....

20th Century Fox makes the X-Men movies. That's a fact, Jack.

[GK Punk]

Yeah sony doesn't do the X-Men related films.

[Galactus]

Im going with DC, Marvel doesn't have many original/ Unique characters. Marvel got sued by DC over Captain Marvel. (Marvel copied Super-man and called hime Captain Marvel)

What kind of weird fun house mirror do you view comic book history with? :o

Ironman is basically Batman.

No. If anything he's the Golden Age Metalo and even saying that is a stretch.

Batman and Ironman are nothing alike.

Deadpool is basically Deadshot and slade wilson.

Originaly yes. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any similarities between Deathstroke and the character Deadpool fast evolved into.

[Lord Nightwalker]

What kind of weird fun house mirror do you view comic book history with? :o



No. If anything he's the Golden Age Metalo and even saying that is a stretch.

Batman and Ironman are nothing alike.



Originaly yes. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any similarities between Deathstroke and the character Deadpool fast evolved into.

Actualy, back in the day, Tony minus armor was pretty much the drunken selfish Bruce Wayne. lol. But, charachter development is a good thing, and now they both have a few similar philanthropist, scientist traits. If they ever do a cross over Ironman/Batman would be a great one. But I do agree that originaly Slade and Wade shared many similarities that they do not any more.

[Leo656]

Batman and Iron Man are SO much alike, not in every aspect but a lot of them...

-Only real super-power is "Being As Impossibly Rich As The Story Requires Them To Be"...
- "Steals" technology from companies owned/operated by their alter-egos in order to better fight crime...
- Arrogant and obnoxious to the point they each firmly believe themselves to be the only person alive smart enough to handle absolutely anything, which naturally leads to problems later on when it's discovered "No, they really can't..."
- Entrusts all their secrets and "stuff they don't feel like doing" to their faithful butler...
- Wears a costume of varying degrees of armor with a variety of built-in gadgets, which are ALWAYS conveniently appropriate to the very task at hand...
- Delusional fans who believe either one would still be JUST as bad-ass and unstoppable without their "wonderful toys", suits of armor, and impossible level of wealth and immunity from prosecution...

"Iron Man" is what happens when a competing comics company says "Let's make it like Batman, but instead of a utility belt, he has a utility SUIT! It's BRILLIANT!" Iron Man has more gadgets and a gaudier costume but otherwise he's just Batman with a drinking problem.

[Cure]

Umm.... I'm pretty sure warner bros made the movies, and I'm pretty sure that DC is owned by Warner Bros.... So yeah I'm pretty sure Dc made their own movies and Spiderman and xmen are owned by Sony, (movies) so it's not technicality it's fact

You're missing the point, hambre; those are still Marvel movies through and through. There's no arguing that.

[Galactus]

Batman and Iron Man are SO much alike, not in every aspect but a lot of them...

There are similarities between them but no more than the similarities you'll find with any costumed hero.

Not to mention some of the similarities you list either arn't there or weren't around in Batman at the time that Iron Man was created. If anything a lot of them came about after Marvel developed them with their characters.

- "Steals" technology from companies owned/operated by their alter-egos in order to better fight crime...

I suppose readers of the first few decades of Batman's stories had to assume being rich he had to get the tech to build his vehicles and equipment from somewhere like a company he owned or was invested in but Bruce owning Wayne Enterprises wasn't really known or relevant until say the 70s.

Tony Stark owning and running Stark Industries was there since his first appearance and his been a big part of the stories since.

- Arrogant and obnoxious to the point they each firmly believe themselves to be the only person alive smart enough to handle absolutely anything, which naturally leads to problems later on when it's discovered "No, they really can't..."

Again that characterisation of Batman has only come about comparatively recently. Traditionaly Batman never acted in such a way whereas arrogance was part of Tony Stark since the beginning and the obsessive need to handle everything alone started developing in the 80s with the Armor Wars storyline.

- Entrusts all their secrets and "stuff they don't feel like doing" to their faithful butler...

Jarvis while being the Stark family butler but when he debuted in the comics it was in Aveners and has exclusively been their butler even for versions of the team Stark wasn't a member of and he doesn't take an direct role in their activities in the same way Alfred does with Batman.

- Wears a costume of varying degrees of armor with a variety of built-in gadgets, which are ALWAYS conveniently appropriate to the very task at hand...

Pretty sure when he was originaly created and for a large portion of his history Batman's costume was supposed to be cloth. Again it's more recent addition that he wears some kind of armor and even then it's supposed to be more realistic kevlar. Iron Man has a suit of actual armor that allows him to be what Bats needs a whole host of other gadgets and additions to be.

"Iron Man" is what happens when a competing comics company says "Let's make it like Batman, but instead of a utility belt, he has a utility SUIT! It's BRILLIANT!" Iron Man has more gadgets and a gaudier costume but otherwise he's just Batman with a drinking problem.

I don't think that's the case at all. A lot of the current similarities between them weren't there at Iron Man's inception. One might argue that the modern version of Batman is what happens when DC says "let's make it like Iron Man" and that he's basicaly Ton Stark with childhood trauma but I don't think that's the case either. Rather that as the Marvel way of storytelling gained favour DC writers slowy incorporating a lot of those tropes until the became the norm for the American costumed hero genre.

[CyberCubed]

Batman and Iron Man are nothing alike.

Batman is a detective and was traumatized by his parents murder. He works with the police (Gordon) and deals with crime and the criminally insane. He tries to understand his enemies.

Iron Man on the other hand tends to fight supervillains and other wordly beings.

[gobo]

I've always believed that, in film, DC works best in animation while Marvel has the superior live-action movies.

[Jester]

I've always believed that, in film, DC works best in animation while Marvel has the superior live-action movies.
Seems to be the case. The DC animated series and movies are awesome, but Marvel dominates live action comic book flicks. Maybe it's the Bruce Timm factor.

[oldmanwinters]

Bruce Wayne & Peter Parker. Two universes, different MOs, and a common bond.

azGhHh9mV_Q

[Goon]

I've almost always been strictly a Marvel fan.. I started when I discovered the 90s X-Men cartoon. Only recently did I actually start to really get into the DC Universe.. I think it was mainly because I was getting a little tired with Marvel. But when the New 52 hit I lost all interest in what they were doing...

DC for me is WAY too over powered. There heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman are basically gods on earth. Marvel has their super powered heroes as well but they always have some deep rooted flaws. So Marvel will always be my favorite.

[Leo656]

I don't feel that argument holds up no matter which company someone prefers. Characters like Wolverine or most of the X-Men aren't "over-powered"? For example: Is a guy with an unbreakable skeleton made of a fictional metal and a healing factor that can and has more or less "healed" him from any and every injury one could think of, including having almost all his flesh literally stripped from said unbreakable skeleton, *really* in any way more "realistic" or "flawed" simply because writers also saw fit to make him an alcoholic womanizer with terribly convenient bouts of amnesia? One could argue also that villains like Galactus or Thanos are way more over-powered than most of DC's "Omega"-level threats, thus requiring even more contrived methods (and convenient summer cross-overs) to defeat them.

I'm admittedly more in DC's camp, but I felt the point had to be addressed, because it's a common (and misguided) criticism of the DCU that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The two universes simply present super-heroes differently as a concept, and the reader chooses which take they prefer. DC has always presented super-heroes more as modern mythology, literally the modern-day equivalent to the Old Gods and Titans of Myth from Greek and Roman mythologies, and as such, the characters themselves are portrayed in a more reverent, "scaled-up" sense. Marvel, conversely, has always presented a more grounded, "super-heroes are just normal people with even sh*ttier lives than normal people, because they're 'freaks' and people would hate them" point of view. In the end, preference falls to the reader. I've always leaned more towards DC because I find their stuff to be more upbeat and optimistic in general, and I actually like the exploration of comic characters as mythology better.

But to say one can be "better" than the other because one stable of characters is more "over-powered" than the other is simply not accurate. The truth is, whether it's Superman or Spider-Man, the super-hero character will always be exactly, and conveniently, as powerful as he or she needs to be to make it through the story and defeat the villain. If some writer wanted Wolverine to "heal" himself from just a skeleton, for example, then he could do that, and at that point he'd be arguably more "over-powered" than anybody. That kind of stuff falls to individual writers, it has very little to do with DC or Marvel in general.

I guess in short, what I'm trying to say is, whether DC or Marvel characters are more powerful or "over-powerful" is a lot like the old argument of whether Superman or Batman would win in a fight: It has nothing to do with either one of them, or which the fans prefer, it's entirely up to who is writing the story on any given day. :)

[CyberCubed]

How on earth is Thor any different than Wonder Woman? They're both essentially "Gods" with a similar power level. And then you have Hulk who is practically shown to be unstoppable sometimes.

Likewise you have characters that have practically similar powers/strength like Flash and Quicksilver or Green Arrow and Hawkeye.

[Goon]

The two universes simply present super-heroes differently as a concept, and the reader chooses which take they prefer. DC has always presented super-heroes more as modern mythology, literally the modern-day equivalent to the Old Gods and Titans of Myth from Greek and Roman mythologies, and as such, the characters themselves are portrayed in a more reverent, "scaled-up" sense. Marvel, conversely, has always presented a more grounded, "super-heroes are just normal people with even sh*ttier lives than normal people, because they're 'freaks' and people would hate them" point of view. In the end, preference falls to the reader.
I guess this is a better explanation of how I feel about the both of them.. It is true that powers are used whenever they need to be to make them more or less powerful. I should add that perception is everything.

[Leo656]

How on earth is Thor any different than Wonder Woman? They're both essentially "Gods" with a similar power level. And then you have Hulk who is practically shown to be unstoppable sometimes.

Likewise you have characters that have practically similar powers/strength like Flash and Quicksilver or Green Arrow and Hawkeye.

"JLA/Avengers" has a neat scene with Wonder Woman picking up Thor's hammer. :)

Somehow DC's speedster and archer actually come off as very cool concepts, while Marvel's versions seem kind of weak by comparison. It's interesting to note that "Quicksilver" was an earlier alias used by DC's elder speedster Max Mercury, who was a mentor to several of the Flashes (and who I believe was originally another company's character who was later brought into DC, but I'd have to check on that).

[Cipher]

I'm admittedly more in DC's camp, but I felt the point had to be addressed, because it's a common (and misguided) criticism of the DCU that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. The two universes simply present super-heroes differently as a concept, and the reader chooses which take they prefer. DC has always presented super-heroes more as modern mythology, literally the modern-day equivalent to the Old Gods and Titans of Myth from Greek and Roman mythologies, and as such, the characters themselves are portrayed in a more reverent, "scaled-up" sense. Marvel, conversely, has always presented a more grounded, "super-heroes are just normal people with even sh*ttier lives than normal people, because they're 'freaks' and people would hate them" point of view. In the end, preference falls to the reader. I've always leaned more towards DC because I find their stuff to be more upbeat and optimistic in general, and I actually like the exploration of comic characters as mythology better.
I think this is an excellent breakdown of the difference between the two companies' approaches. It's also why I don't buy the oft-repeated argument that there's really no difference between the Big Two. Their sales structure and even stories may read similarly at any given time, but the fundamental philosophies behind their universes are quite different.

Personally, I love kitsch as art. I like the ability to play with iconography, and think it can lead to more enjoyable and, if done right, smarter, stories. Hence, I prefer DC's approach. I also, from a purely fun, escapist perspective, prefer the universe they present -- it's a wacky, iconic world where anything can happen as long as it involves superheroes. I'm not much for hard fantasy or sci-fi, so whether they're embracing the meta-fictional status of their heroes and finding something to say, or just telling totally silly "comic-booky" stories, their style is right up my alley.

Marvel, on the other hand, fundamentally approaches superheroes from the perspective of, "What if these were real people?" Flaws are a must, etc. I can appreciate what they're going for, and I imagine it felt incredibly novel and refreshing at the time Marvel really started gaining steam in the '60s. But as long as it continues printing superhero monthlies, I get the feeling it can never really live up to its goal, and overall I feel it's a perspective that doesn't have nearly the potential for depth or sense of fun DC can capture, when it's doing things right one way or the other (and to be fair, a lot of the time, it isn't).

But yeah, to each their own. Two totally different but totally valid takes on the same concept.

[CyberCubed]

Considering Batman is feared and sometimes hunted by police in many stories I'm not sure that holds up.

[Cipher]

Considering Batman is feared and sometimes hunted by police in many stories I'm not sure that holds up.
Not sure what holds up?

DC's approach to Batman is still to embrace his iconography and treat him larger than life, rather than prioritize his human element. There's just a level of darkness that's part of his mythos.

I wasn't saying DC's characters can't be dark or flawed. It's just that DC's first approach to a Batman story will always be to tell a "Batman" story, to the extent that it's more concerned with playing off that mythos rather than telling a "Bruce Wayne" story, attempting to give us an even portrayal of man who decides to dress up like a bat and fight crime. Whereas Marvel's approach to a Spider-Man story is just as likely to be a "Peter Parker" one. DC's best stories ask us to care about the effect of the icon. Marvel's best stories, I'm guessing, ask us to care about the effect the icon has on the character.

Not that they don't both break away from that mold from time to time. But it is, I think, among their fundamental differences.

[Leo656]

What's interesting to me as well, which some critics and fans have also made mention of, is the following evolution of storytelling in each company: At the time when Marvel Comics started publishing, and for much of the past few decades of comics, indeed it has been that Marvel's take was more "real world" and DC's the more "Fantastical". Recent movies set in each universe, however, have been the opposite: Marvel's films are more flashy, funny, fantastical "super-hero" films, while DC's most successful recent films have tried an overwhelmingly down-to-earth, darker, more "realistic" take.

It's as though in their philosophy towards films, their approach has become inverted. Could it be that DC's more up-scaled titans are a harder sell, thus requiring a more "realistic" introduction to mass audiences in order to believe they could exist? Possibly; but were that entirely the case, how could all the slapstick comedy not have hurt pseudo-god Thor's film appeal?

I'm not in any way saying one approach is better than the other, as both companies' films are drowning in money so obviously they're all doing it "the right way". I simply find it interesting that DC and Marvel characters are approached in cinema the exact opposite from how they're normally approached in comics: DC more "serious", Marvel more "comic book style".

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Im going with DC, Marvel doesn't have many original/ Unique characters. Marvel got sued by DC over Captain Marvel. (Marvel copied Super-man and called hime Captain Marvel)
Ironman is basically Batman.
Deadpool is basically Deadshot and slade wilson.

DC is simply more original, and I am also bias bc of batman and batman beyond.

i see what you mean. if you notice Black Cat is a COMPLETE ripoff of Catwoman

[Cipher]

I'm not in any way saying one approach is better than the other, as both companies' films are drowning in money so obviously they're all doing it "the right way". I simply find it interesting that DC and Marvel characters are approached in cinema the exact opposite from how they're normally approached in comics: DC more "serious", Marvel more "comic book style".
Yep, totally agreed on this.

I think it'll continue to work well for Marvel, because fun superhero blockbusters will always have an audience, but DC really seems to have chosen an disharmonious approach to their franchises. I'm not sure if it's a result of thinking Marvel had already filled that niche, or if they're simply trying to continue the goodwill Nolan's Batman movies engendered, ignoring what actually made those films work, but I'm not sure it's going to hold up.

Maybe their biggest mistake is thinking that they couldn't tell smart stories while embracing the fun, iconic elements of their characters. They've been doing it in comics for decades, and it could've been their niche over Marvel. Oh well.

[LeoNerdo]

I am a life-long Marvel fan. Stan Lee's personality in the comics really hooked me when I was a kid even though I only knew him at the time from the titles "Stan Lee Presents:" and from each month's Stan's Soapbox column. When I was 12 I wrote him a personal letter just out of the blue and he sent me back an autographed poster, an autographed Captain America tpb and a little note. It was so cool! I was also a huge fan of the early 90s Marvel Cartoons, and while I enjoyed the DC shows too I never got into DC comics much. When I got older I really learned to appreciate the DC cartoon universes especially Bruce Timm's. Marvel is really on a roll with the movies lately, and the Batman/Supes movies I've liked too.

There are very few modern comics from Marvel that have interested me (Brubaker's Cap and Ultimate Spider-Man come to mind), but these days I'm more interested in the history of comics. Marvel & DC's Omnibus, Masterworks, Archives and Chronicles are really great. They're tough on my wallet but having like the first 67 issues of Amazing Spider-Man in two books is amazing to me. I never would have dreamed of that when I was a kid.

[BabyTurtles]

I like DC's superheroes more :3

their costumes are better to me (I don't know if thats a good reason)

I like the justice league more then the avengers

and DC has the best sidekicks~ robin, kidflash, batgirl, supergirl, wondergirl

I also like the girls better in DC :D


though I do love Spiderman ^_^

[Redeemer]

I've almost always been strictly a Marvel fan.. I started when I discovered the 90s X-Men cartoon. Only recently did I actually start to really get into the DC Universe.. I think it was mainly because I was getting a little tired with Marvel. But when the New 52 hit I lost all interest in what they were doing...

DC for me is WAY too over powered. There heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman are basically gods on earth. Marvel has their super powered heroes as well but they always have some deep rooted flaws. So Marvel will always be my favorite.

How on earth is Thor any different than Wonder Woman? They're both essentially "Gods" with a similar power level. And then you have Hulk who is practically shown to be unstoppable sometimes.

Likewise you have characters that have practically similar powers/strength like Flash and Quicksilver or Green Arrow and Hawkeye.

agreeing with Cyber cube on this one

[CyberCubed]

The X-men being in the same universe as the Avengers and Spider-Man never made sense to me. The x-men are feared and hated for their powers, yet people turn around and praise Spider-Man and the Avengers?

Makes no sense at all in that universe.

[Jester]

The X-men being in the same universe as the Avengers and Spider-Man never made sense to me. The x-men are feared and hated for their powers, yet people turn around and praise Spider-Man and the Avengers?

Makes no sense at all in that universe.
Spidey, no. Avengers and FF, yes.

[BabyTurtles]

The X-men being in the same universe as the Avengers and Spider-Man never made sense to me. The x-men are feared and hated for their powers, yet people turn around and praise Spider-Man and the Avengers?

Makes no sense at all in that universe.

yea..that always puzzled me also.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Oh no you didn't! Mirage all the way!:tlol:

http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u540/WallCrawlingHero/TMNT%20Gifs/OhnoyoudidntMike_zps3933a7ff.gif

here you go

[Cipher]

So, I'm getting my first-ever Marvel superhero book (and Marvel anything since I read their (excellent for what it was) Transformers series as a kid) later this week. It's been a stressful few days, work and moving wise, and I decided on a whim to start re-watching X-Men: Evolution on Netflix. Two things occurred to me:

1) Damn, that show really holds up for all ages.

2) I was really in the mood for another kind of quirky, young/character-driven take on these characters. So, despite the fact that I'm about as much a DC-over-Marvel guy as can be (not that I take that seriously), and despite the fact that I'm not a huge Grant Morrison fan, I went ahead and ordered the omnibus of his run on the franchise. I just felt like he and Quietly would be a better match for these characters than a lot of his DC work.

I ... have no idea what I'm in for. It was basically a $70 gamble, but I'm hugely looking forward to it. I guess I'll report back after giving it a read.

It's going to basically take up a whole shelf with next to the 52 omnibus and all the Turtles Ultimate Collections though. One really embarrassing shelf.

[ZariusTwo]

Morrison's run on X-Men was the last time I gave two thirds of a s*it about that franchise. Noone's touched the quality of writing in that. You're in a for a real treat.

[CyberCubed]

So, I'm getting my first-ever Marvel superhero book (and Marvel anything since I read their (excellent for what it was) Transformers series as a kid) later this week. It's been a stressful few days, work and moving wise, and I decided on a whim to start re-watching X-Men: Evolution on Netflix. Two things occurred to me:

1) Damn, that show really holds up for all ages.

2) I was really in the mood for another kind of quirky, young/character-driven take on these characters. So, despite the fact that I'm about as much a DC-over-Marvel guy as can be (not that I take that seriously), and despite the fact that I'm not a huge Grant Morrison fan, I went ahead and ordered the omnibus of his run on the franchise. I just felt like he and Quietly would be a better match for these characters than a lot of his DC work.

I ... have no idea what I'm in for. It was basically a $70 gamble, but I'm hugely looking forward to it. I guess I'll report back after giving it a read.

It's going to basically take up a whole shelf with next to the 52 omnibus and all the Turtles Ultimate Collections though. One really embarrassing shelf.


Glad you like X-men Evolution. I feel its the best X-men cartoon so far.

A lot of the fanboys of the 90's X-men never gave Evolution a chance, despite Evolution being better in terms of characterisation and animation. Also I never understood people's problems with the X-men being teens, when that's how they're usually portrayed at the beginning in the first place. Storm, Wolverine and Beast were kept as adults, and Cyclops/Jean were older than the others (they were 18 ), so I don't see the problem.

It also had a healthy run of 52 episodes, which is pretty good for a Marvel show. I just wish the show went on for one more season as they would have done the Jean/Phoenix story.

[Cipher]

Morrison's run on X-Men was the last time I gave two thirds of a s*it about that franchise. Noone's touched the quality of writing in that. You're in a for a real treat.
Six or seven issues in, and really enjoying it.

It actually reminds me a lot of 52, tonally, but with the addition of being a cool new direction that really fits X-Men as a mythos. I don't know why I find Morrison's Batman run so insufferable but enjoy him on these two other books. I think it's just the smaller the goals, the better his stuff comes across; he's great with characters and humor when he actually slows down to focus on them.

But, yeah, reaction favorable. I'm also still enjoying these characters/concepts and am thinking about following it up with Whedon's Astonishing run.

[Leo656]

I really dug Morrison's Black Glove/R.I.P. stuff. I do think he writes over everyone's heads a lot, but there's a lot of stuff that shows up and makes more sense only after you read certain stories repeatedly.

I didn't like his Batman run when I was reading it monthly back in 2008, but then when it was over and I re-read it two or three times in a row, I thought it was brilliant.

[Ulisa]

This topic is actually pretty difficult. I have always been a DC girl....my husband is a Marvel fan but over the years, we have selected different runs from one another's preferred universe. For myself...

I prefer DC slightly because I think their heroes are more interesting. I love Batman, Wonder Woman (or more precisely the role her younger sister, Wonder Girl took on) Nightwing (and his development from Robin) and my favorites are Flash (Barry Allen/Wally West) and Kid Flash and like Robin, the development of their sidekick into a hero in their own right. Needless to say, I HATE the New 52. I much prefer the old school DC.

That said, I do enjoy the teams of Marvel as well, especially the Avengers and the X Men. In my opinion, I think Marvel can create very cool team ups and DC focuses more on making their heroes so they don't NEED a team up. I like both, but like I said, I prefer DC because they have a lot of characters I really love and I am just starting to find Marvel characters I like (Captain America, Hulk, Wolverine, etc.)

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Always been DC. I've liked a few "runs" of Marvel books over the years - I was sort of heavy into Spider-Man from the late 1980s up until right before the Clone Saga started - but never was able to get into them consistently. To me, it was always like this: Marvel books have great art and mediocre stories, while DC books have had better stories but mediocre art. Now obviously that's a general statement, because there have been great Marvel stories with great art to match, great DC stories with equally great artwork, and plenty of crap all around from both sides. But that's generally how they each came across to me: DC was for readers who cared more about the stories, Marvel was more for those who enjoyed the visuals.

I can't speak for either right now, thought; I haven't picked up a Marvel book in years, and nothing I've read of the New 52 justifies its existence. DC HAD a much more rich mythology than Marvel, but that no longer counts for much. But DC still has Superman and Batman, and you can't honestly present any other character from any other company as "equal" or "greater" than them unless you're completely delusional. Spider-Man could be as iconic, possibly, except that he's a chronic f*ck-up who almost entirely sucks at his own life and pretty much killed his own girlfriend, just to emphasize how bad he is at damn near everything. And he's pretty much the best Marvel's got, except Wolverine, and that's an entirely different type of character altogether.

Marvel and DC tend to have two very different ways of writing comics.

DC's approach was to plan the whole comic out first then write it all out.

Marvel's approach was to write it as they go along.

This i think makes DC better when it comes to comics.

In fact, i like DC more than Marvel

[Discogod]

Im going with DC, Marvel doesn't have many original/ Unique characters. Marvel got sued by DC over Captain Marvel. (Marvel copied Super-man and called hime Captain Marvel)
Ironman is basically Batman.
Deadpool is basically Deadshot and slade wilson.

DC is simply more original, and I am also bias bc of batman and batman beyond.

Uh, no. Fawcett Comics created Captain Marvel (aka Shazam), and was later sued by DC. Marvel's Captain Marvel was created to take advantage of the fact that no one at that time owned the copyright to the name "Captain Marvel".

Other than Batman & Iron Man both being billionaires, there're very few similarities. Green Arrow's more of a rip-off of Batman than Iron Man. You could even make the case that DC have ripped off Marvel's characters in recent years - look at the similarities between Spider-Man and Blue Beetle, for instance.

Anywhoo, I've always been a Marvel zombie - growing up over here, DC comics weren't really available whereas Marvel stuff was everywhere. I didn't really discover DC until the late 80s. That said, my favourite heroes are DC characters - Green Arrow & The Question.

[Leo656]

DC didn't create Blue Beetle, either; they purchased the character and a few others from Charlton comics in 1983, along with Captain Atom and The Question.

They were all supposed to be the main cast of "Watchmen", but the editors wisely realized they couldn't make money on them if they killed them all off right away, thus the lookalikes of Nite-Owl, Rorschach, etc.

And actually, Blue Beetle was created in 1939. So if anyone ripped anyone off, well...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Blue_Beetle_04.jpg/250px-Blue_Beetle_04.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/Amazing_Fantasy_15.jpg/220px-Amazing_Fantasy_15.jpg

Looks like ol' Stan has some explaining to do... :lol: (although in all seriousness, most reputable sources say Steve Ditko, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby all really created Spider-Man, anyway, so maybe we're blaming the wrong guy)

[Cipher]

1) The recent Batwoman news and all the editorial comments that have followed is terrible and has really soured me on current DC, despite still loving their IPs.

2) Unrelated, I just won this auction (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Huge-lot-of-Marvel-Essential-paperbacks-X-Men-X-Factor-Wolverine-24-vol-/171119744815?autorefresh=true&nma=true&si=Tn1yYJ39gr%252BZMfuwQw96wjqrRt4%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557) for damn near all of the existing Essential X-Men, X-Factor and Wolverine books. Total steal, but it's going to take me thirty years to get through this material. Longtime Marvel fans, are there highlights I can jump around to? What's the way to get the most out of these the fastest (and later I can come back and fill in holes/read them chronologically)?

Also, how do I store these things without having the most embarrassing two-and-a-half book shelves ever?

Halp.

[Discogod]

DC didn't create Blue Beetle, either; they purchased the character and a few others from Charlton comics in 1983, along with Captain Atom and The Question.

Yeah, I should have been clearer - I meant the new Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes), not Dan Garret or Ted Kord.

Cipher, why would you be embarrased to have TPBs on your bookshelf?

[Leo656]

Gotcha. Carry on. :)

[CyberCubed]

Also, how do I store these things without having the most embarrassing two-and-a-half book shelves ever?

Halp.

Didn't you say you already have a fiance? If your girlfriend is already cool with you liking cartoons/comics, you don't have anything to worry about. ;)

[SavageSloth]

Batman is one of my alltime favourite heroes, but Marvel has so many amazing characters, and their movies are always good. So I would have to go with Marvel.

[ZariusTwo]

their movies are always good..

Half of them don't age well at all.

[ObiWanFan4life]

Half of them don't age well at all.

Yes, but Like the first Superman movie, they're are still solid well scripted, well made movies.

[Cipher]

Cipher, why would you be embarrased to have TPBs on your bookshelf?
Nah, man. I already have my TPB bookcase right in my apartment living room. It's just the thought of having 24 enormous X-books in a row. It's going to look way crazier than it should.

Girlfriend or no girlfriend.

[DaVinci]

I prefer DC, since I'm a mythology buff. Though I obviously have a soft spot for Thor.

I'm surprised that in amongst all the praise for DC animated shows, nobody mentioned Green Lantern: TAS. That show was awesome. So sad it got canned because the movie couldn't move toys.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

As my screen name suggests, I am a Marvel girl through and through. I honestly could never get into DC. Their heroes always felt too one-sided to me, their "real" lives always taking a back seat to their alter-egos. The only ones I ever really liked were Superman and Swamp Thing. I actually like some of the villains better than the heroes, especially some of Batman's, like Joker, Riddler, and Cat Woman. For some reason, I feel like the villains are actually more interesting than the heroes themselves, and it always felt like without them, the heroes couldn't even carry their own books. I will admit that I loved the cartoons like Batman TAS back in the day, and Batman Beyond, and even Static Shock, but their other cartoons aside from Teen Titans just never really hooked me.

On the other hand, Marvel heroes always felt more "real" to me- their normal lives actually are just as important as their hero lives, and they have enough flaws to give them depth. I enjoy them as much for their backgrounds and interactions as for the powers and fights, and to me that says a lot about how different the two houses really are. They also seem to have it all over DC in movies, and up until recently, I enjoyed their cartoons as well. Ultimates 1&2 were really great animated movies (and the "outtakes" were hilarious!) and the cartoons from the 90's and early 2000's (X-Men Evolution being the most recent one I liked) were really good.

I guess I should give some background on WHY I actually prefer Marvel. I didn't REALLY start reading comics until after I graduated high school and got married. I liked the old 90's Marvel toons and Batman TAS/Beyond/Static Shock, but had only ever read a few old comics I inherited from my mom, as well as a couple of omnibus collections of X-Men my English teacher had in her classroom. But then 2001 came along, and the comic and game store I frequented for Yu-Gi-Oh, Magic, and D&D gaming got the TPB of Amazing Spider-Man with the 9-11 tribute issue in it- this was part of JMS's run on the book, and his writing is probably one of the biggest reasons I fell in love with comics. I was bored waiting for my turn to come around during a weekly D&D game one night and picked it up. It brought tears to my eyes- and not just that one story, either. It also contained the story arc where Peter's Aunt May finally discovered his secret and confronted him. I had never before realized a comic book could move me to tears! I was hooked then and there, and have been until this day- at least as far as being a Marvelite goes.

There are a few decisions in recent years that really irked me (*cough* OMD/BND, OMIT, Superior, and Dark Reign *cough*) but it's the characters themselves that draw me, and how they all interact even when NOT out saving the world. DC has NEVER done that for me. I've also never read a DC book that moved me to tears- for another great Spidey example that was overlooked as very emotional, Spider-Man: Blue deals with him reminiscing over Gwen's death years later, and it really brought home just how deeply it affected both him and the people around him. It's one more reason why I care more about Marvel characters than those in DC. (And for those who want to cite examples like Joker beating Robin to death- don't. I never really cared much about him anyway- I dislike DC's tendency to have sidekicks everywhere. Why do superheroes even NEED them?!) And the fact that I love the writing style of several of Marvel's major writers doesn't hurt. Peter David is probably my absolute fave comic writer, for his quirky, witty, and often tongue-in-cheek style. He manages to add subtle (and not-so-subtle) humor even in the midst of a serious tale, and I love his work on X-Factor. I've YET to find a DC writer who has hooked me like JMS, Peter David or Bendis. I guess it boils down to how the character affect me- Marvel ones make me care about their lives, DC ones just don't.

[CyberCubed]

To be honest I like spiderman and the x-men but other than that Marvel's heroes bore me.

I can enjoy the Avengers together as a team, but as individual characters they aren't interesting. I don't think I will ever be compelled to pick up an Iron Man comic in my entire life.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Really? Maybe you've just never read the "right" Avengers books. Actually, the Avengers I like best are those outside "the Big Three" of Thor, Cap, and Tony. Iron Man is cool in some stories, but I've never liked his personality until the movies. Cap always struck me as too "Boy Scout-ish", until HIS movie appearances. And I was never into Thor, or even Hulk, for that matter. (And Banner hasn't been an Avenger for a LOONG time.) I actually prefer Ms. Marvel (hence my username) and recently, Luke Cage, Dr. Strange, Wasp, She-Hulk, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, and others. The "New Avengers" has been my favorite line-up of the team so far.

[John Pannozzi]

The general consensus seems to be that:

Marvel, Better at: Comics, live-action movies, and possibly theatrical animated movies and original internet video (i.e. Netflix stuff).

DC, Better at: TV (both live-action and animation) and animated DTV films.

And when it comes to non-core multiverse comics, I think perhaps DC has the edge with Astro City, Fables (while it lasts) and the current Sandman miniseries, but Marvel has Powers and Miracleman (with reprints of the Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman stuff, with Neil writing a conclusion to his run in the future), so they're no slouch.

[Redeemer]

The general consensus seems to be that:

Marvel, Better at: Comics, live-action movies, and possibly theatrical animated movies and original internet video (i.e. Netflix stuff).

DC, Better at: TV (both live-action and animation) and animated DTV films.

And when it comes to non-core multiverse comics, I think perhaps DC has the edge with Astro City, Fables (while it lasts) and the current Sandman miniseries, but Marvel has Powers and Miracleman (with reprints of the Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman stuff, with Neil writing a conclusion to his run in the future), so they're no slouch.

I cant believe how quickly people forget about Nolan's Batman trilogy. The Nolan trilogy is easily not only the greast comic book trilogy of all time, but all movie trilogies in general. imo I am not a batman fanboy, but I do enjoy the character and fiction.

[Leo656]

I don't agree Marvel does comics better at all. Artwork, maybe, they've had more consistently good artwork over the years, but story-wise? I don't need navel-gazing and "real-life angst" in my super-hero comics. They're modern-day Titans, I don't care how they pay rent, and generally, I don't care what they do out of costume, either. Power Girl is an interesting character. Karen Starr, her alter-ego and "real life" persona, is not interesting at all. And it's not for lack of trying on the writers; they've wasted years trying to make people care about PG out of costume. It doesn't work. It also doesn't work for Flash, Robin, Nightwing, Superboy, Martian Manhunter, Huntress... actually, other than Clark and Bruce, I don't think any DC characters' alter-egos are very interesting.

And that's not to say DC's heroes are less interesting than Marvel's, it's to say that I don't think anyone drops $3 on a comic to see super-heroes go on dates, juggle bills, or go out to lunch. Save the friggin' universe, you hacks!

Example: Probably the worst long-form Superman story of the modern era was "Grounded", and it was exactly the kind of thing Marvel would do: take this powerful Christ-figure, remove him from his element of stopping global threats and punching out Darkseid, and have him walk - not fly, but WALK - across the country tackling smaller, "real-life" problems in an attempt to "find himself." AND IT WAS THE MOST BORING SH*T THEY EVER DID!!! When the hell is Superman of all people, whose greatest "power" has always been an instinctive will to act, ever plagued by crippling self-doubt?! Who exactly wanted to read that kind of story, with that character? Sales and fan reaction indicate that the answer is somewhere between "nobody" and "nobody at all".

Frank Miller said it best: "Trying to make super-heroes 'realistic' is silly... I don't need to see sweat stains under Superman's armpits, I want to see him FLY." Miller's a hack, but he was right in that case.

As for one company's ability to tell stories that emotionally move the reader, I'd argue heavily that it depends greatly on how much time the reader has invested in the source material. If you barely read DC, or aren't familiar with Flash's importance as a "Legacy" character, for example, 1993's "The Return Of Barry Allen" might not do anything for you. If, like me, you grew up with the character, it's one of the five best things you've ever seen. Likewise, if your Spidey knowledge starts and ends with the McFarlane Era-Venom/Carnage stuff, you probably won't care much about "Blue", no matter how well written it is, because you've only ever known Gwen as a tragic plot point from long before your time. And if you're only sightly familiar with many of DC's most prominent storylines over decades, you won't care how easily guys like Dan Jurgens or Geoff Johns can take even minor characters and plot points from those old stories and make them suddenly super-important in a logical, meaningful way, and their stories won't hold the same weight as they would for someone more invested in the material.

I know people who thought DC's "Final Crisis" was a jumbled mess. I thought it was f*cking brilliant. You absolutely need a PhD in DC to even understand any of it, let alone enjoy it. And since comics is a commercial medium aimed towards mass-appeal, some can call that a failure. For someone who "got" it, though, it was glorious. Talk about moments that can bring a person to tears? The "epitaph" Superman chose for his own tombstone was one of my biggest mark-out moments in all of comics. Ever.
For the record, the epitaph he chose read simply, "To Be Continued." Perfect.


Bottom line: Everyone is gonna read what speaks more to them, on a personal level, but it always, 100% of the time, says more about the reader than the quality of either company's product.

Except for the New 52. F*ck ALL of that sh*t.

[JakeSully]

Most DC movies have been horrible excluding Batman and Superman, and even then a lot of Batman and Superman movies are horrible. (Batman and Robin, Superman III and IV and arguably Returns)

Marvel made some stinkers too like Fantastic Four 1 & 2 and Corman's, Ghost Rider 1 & 2, Blade 3 etc. and they ain't perfect either.


I've always been more DC fan as i feel like Marvel likes to rip-off DC characters and Stan Lee isn't as original as he thinks he is but the movies to Marvel are good and some are bad.

[Fjaj]

I read DC a lot more because it seems they do graphic novels a lot better. I've hardly read much of any ongoing series, mainly because of the large gap between what's important to the story and what's actually good. It you read the stories that are good, then you'll be confused on a lot of story points. If you read what's important, you'll end up reading a lot of garbage. That's one of the reasons why I like the Original TMNT comics, it's easy to see what comes next and they have a consistent quality - definitely better than your average ongoing series. There are a few Marvel graphic novels I'm interested in, namely Marvels and Astonishing X-Men, which i'm planning to buy.

[Metroid]

Im going to have to go with Marvel, DC has its strong points, but i cant help but laugh at the fact how whenever superman tries to save people, he always ends up blowing up the city in the process, its almost like the villains know this.

But Marvel takes the cake for me, i have been a Marvel fan sense a child, and i have always loved the X-Men and Spiderman. Oh, and Deadpool, those are my favorites

[JamieH]

Let me put this out there first, I've been buying new comic releases weekly for the past 7 years. Not saying I'm an expert, but I have an alright understanding of DC's and Marvel's current stuff and how they've been doing business in that time.

Currently, Marvel is doing more right and putting out better books. DC is still putting out some great books, but not that many. Not to mention DC hasn't been treating their talent too well over the past couple of years (or the characters). Marvel has always gotten more of my money over the years, especially right now. I've been dropping DC books here and there for one reason or another.

Now, overall, throughout the years (going way back to the beginning)? They're neck and neck. Most creators have at some point worked for both companies. So the argument that Marvel or DC comics are generally better written or contain better artwork doesn't stand. They both have relatable and likable characters. They're both superhero focused. They both do huge cross-overs and big events that affect all the books and characters. They've even done the same thing in different ways at the same, or almost same time.

I've heard DC is men acting like gods while Marvel is gods acting like men as a rough way to put the difference in how the two have their characters come across to the readers.

I've personally always preferred Marvel's flawed characters. They seem more like actual people to me. I like that, it makes them seem grounded. So they're more interesting to read to me. Sure, I enjoy them doing the whole saving the day/Earth/universe thing, but if that's all there is to them it gets kind of boring.

And that's how I feel about the two on which is better.

Now, you want to read some really interesting and different comics, you have to step outside the big two (not saying they don't do some amazing stuff, they do, just not at the consistency of the indies). The independents are great when you're looking for non-cape stuff. And I don't really view Vertigo as DC even though Vertigo is a DC imprint. I mean, there's titles under Vertigo that DC would never print as DC books for various reasons. And they're better off for it. Right now Image has been amazing. They are so creator oriented and all about creator owned. And how can I talk about comics and not mention IDW. They've given our favorite turtles a great home. Plus IDW knocks it outta the park with their artists' edition hardcovers.

Comics is one of those things I can go on and on about if I don't catch myself. So I'll end this post here.

[pennydreadful]

Now, you want to read some really interesting and different comics, you have to step outside the big two (not saying they don't do some amazing stuff, they do, just not at the consistency of the indies). The independents are great when you're looking for non-cape stuff. And I don't really view Vertigo as DC even though Vertigo is a DC imprint. I mean, there's titles under Vertigo that DC would never print as DC books for various reasons. And they're better off for it. Right now Image has been amazing. They are so creator oriented and all about creator owned. And how can I talk about comics and not mention IDW. They've given our favorite turtles a great home. Plus IDW knocks it outta the park with their artists' edition hardcovers.

Comics is one of those things I can go on and on about if I don't catch myself. So I'll end this post here.

Agreed; while my knowledge of Marvel and DC is strong enough to participate in a goodly amount of nerd conversations, I don't consider myself a Marvel or DC fan - I'm indie all the way. I feel that there's more variety and the types of stories are more appealing to my personal taste; for the most part they're bound by a lot less of the Comics Code Authority BS. Just my opinion though! :)

[JamieH]

Actually, no one is bound to the Comics Code Authority any more. Been that way for years, decades even. Marvel and DC restrain themselves because they are not only more business like, but are each owned by larger entities. Warner-Bros. (DC) and Disney (Marvel) like money, a whole helluva lot, so they pull things back a little to ensure the books of their respective properties can reach a broader demographic ensuring larger sales. That, and they don't want to insult anyone, well not too often. Hence why even though there's plenty of violence, blood, and even gore, there's no swearing/cursing or nudity in the big 2. And no more smoking or drinking.

When I said Image is creator oriented and all about creator owned, what that means is that Image doesn't ask or demand changes are made to someone's work. At Image creators have the final say on everything about their books. From the paper stock the books are printed on to the content on the paper. The only time an editor works on an Image books is when a creator asks for one. And even then they don't have to listen to the editor. They really believe and abide by the creators being the owners of their original work.

That is more or less the exact opposite of the way things are done at Marvel and DC. And not many, if any other, of the Indies operate that freely. You can pick up nearly any current Image title and not be disappointed. Image recognizes good talent and really pulls it in with being so open.

[pennydreadful]

Actually, no one is bound to the Comics Code Authority any more. Been that way for years, decades even. Marvel and DC restrain themselves because they are not only more business like, but are each owned by larger entities. Warner-Bros. (DC) and Disney (Marvel) like money, a whole helluva lot, so they pull things back a little to ensure the books of their respective properties can reach a broader demographic ensuring larger sales. That, and they don't want to insult anyone, well not too often. Hence why even though there's plenty of violence, blood, and even gore, there's no swearing/cursing or nudity in the big 2. And no more smoking or drinking.


LOL, how dumb do I feel! For some reason I thought a couple (including DC) were still following it, though I knew Marvel had ditched it a while ago. Plus all the BS like John Constantine not smoking anymore, I thought that was to please the CCA... guess I should've looked into it a bit more! Ah well, thanks for setting me straight regardless. :)

[Slade]

I don't agree Marvel does comics better at all. Artwork, maybe, they've had more consistently good artwork over the years, but story-wise? I don't need navel-gazing and "real-life angst" in my super-hero comics. They're modern-day Titans, I don't care how they pay rent, and generally, I don't care what they do out of costume, either. Power Girl is an interesting character. Karen Starr, her alter-ego and "real life" persona, is not interesting at all. And it's not for lack of trying on the writers; they've wasted years trying to make people care about PG out of costume. It doesn't work. It also doesn't work for Flash, Robin, Nightwing, Superboy, Martian Manhunter, Huntress... actually, other than Clark and Bruce, I don't think any DC characters' alter-egos are very interesting.

And that's not to say DC's heroes are less interesting than Marvel's, it's to say that I don't think anyone drops $3 on a comic to see super-heroes go on dates, juggle bills, or go out to lunch. Save the friggin' universe, you hacks!

Example: Probably the worst long-form Superman story of the modern era was "Grounded", and it was exactly the kind of thing Marvel would do: take this powerful Christ-figure, remove him from his element of stopping global threats and punching out Darkseid, and have him walk - not fly, but WALK - across the country tackling smaller, "real-life" problems in an attempt to "find himself." AND IT WAS THE MOST BORING SH*T THEY EVER DID!!! When the hell is Superman of all people, whose greatest "power" has always been an instinctive will to act, ever plagued by crippling self-doubt?! Who exactly wanted to read that kind of story, with that character? Sales and fan reaction indicate that the answer is somewhere between "nobody" and "nobody at all".

Frank Miller said it best: "Trying to make super-heroes 'realistic' is silly... I don't need to see sweat stains under Superman's armpits, I want to see him FLY." Miller's a hack, but he was right in that case.

As for one company's ability to tell stories that emotionally move the reader, I'd argue heavily that it depends greatly on how much time the reader has invested in the source material. If you barely read DC, or aren't familiar with Flash's importance as a "Legacy" character, for example, 1993's "The Return Of Barry Allen" might not do anything for you. If, like me, you grew up with the character, it's one of the five best things you've ever seen. Likewise, if your Spidey knowledge starts and ends with the McFarlane Era-Venom/Carnage stuff, you probably won't care much about "Blue", no matter how well written it is, because you've only ever known Gwen as a tragic plot point from long before your time. And if you're only sightly familiar with many of DC's most prominent storylines over decades, you won't care how easily guys like Dan Jurgens or Geoff Johns can take even minor characters and plot points from those old stories and make them suddenly super-important in a logical, meaningful way, and their stories won't hold the same weight as they would for someone more invested in the material.

I know people who thought DC's "Final Crisis" was a jumbled mess. I thought it was f*cking brilliant. You absolutely need a PhD in DC to even understand any of it, let alone enjoy it. And since comics is a commercial medium aimed towards mass-appeal, some can call that a failure. For someone who "got" it, though, it was glorious. Talk about moments that can bring a person to tears? The "epitaph" Superman chose for his own tombstone was one of my biggest mark-out moments in all of comics. Ever.
For the record, the epitaph he chose read simply, "To Be Continued." Perfect.


Bottom line: Everyone is gonna read what speaks more to them, on a personal level, but it always, 100% of the time, says more about the reader than the quality of either company's product.

Except for the New 52. F*ck ALL of that sh*t.

Agree with all, except I think DC has better art most of the time, and I actually read New 52 Superman and Batman, together and seperate.

[BabyTurtles]

The general consensus seems to be that:

Marvel, Better at: Comics, live-action movies, and possibly theatrical animated movies and original internet video (i.e. Netflix stuff).

DC, Better at: TV (both live-action and animation) and animated DTV films.


thinking about it now...I kinda agree with this.

[MogwaiNinja89]

Both. I hate this stupid comics war. It's pointless and annoying.

I do give a slight edge to Marvel though mainly because the overall continuity is less convoluted than DC which had to reboot it's entire universe two times.

[ZariusTwo]

I do give a slight edge to Marvel though mainly because the overall continuity is less convoluted than DC which had to reboot it's entire universe two times.

DC tinker with their timelines every few years to be honest, even after the first Crisis there were the occasional revisions and retcons in between that and Flashpoint (Superboy's reality-bending punches anyone?)

Even Marvel are starting to go down that slippery slope (One More Day, Age of Ultron, the "Time Runs Out" arc coming in 2015), though I think a reboot would be best for them as they'd be free of some of their more wretched character turns and developments of the last decade or so