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.

[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

[snake]

Originally Posted by The Sewer Lord

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.

[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.

[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