DC vs MARVEL
 

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

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

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

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.

The answer is simple

IDW :P

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

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 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.

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?

Spiderman begs to differ.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Team Image!!!...

What?...

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

:kgrin: hahahaha

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

ACTUALLY....

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.