DC vs MARVEL

[oldmanwinters]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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?]

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.

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

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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


though I do love Spiderman ^_^

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Spidey, no. Avengers and FF, yes.

[BabyTurtles]

Originally Posted by 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.

yea..that always puzzled me also.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Originally Posted by RaphaeltheAwesome13

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

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.