DC vs MARVEL

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Spoiler:

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by JamieH

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Spoiler:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MogwaiNinja89

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