DC vs MARVEL

[Rockvoanjd]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bauer536

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]

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)

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

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

[Cure]

Originally Posted by Redeemer

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]

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)

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]

Originally Posted by Cure

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

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]

Originally Posted by Galactus

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



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]

Originally Posted by Redeemer

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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

Originally Posted by gobo

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.