And in one fell swoop, my ignorance of Green Arrow is shown...damn...I don't remember that being covered in Justice League OR Unlimited (in my paper-thin defense)Quaxar said:
Anyone else think Marvel heroes are just 'more fun' than DC heroes?
- Thread starter Daystar Clarion
- Start date
Yeah, DC heroes are just... more dull somehow. Although Batman villains are probably the best villains around. (this of course coming from someone who has not had much contact with comics themselves)
Squirrel Girl. The most powerful hero in the Marvel Universe has the power to talk to squirrels. She then defeated Doctor Doom. And Galactus.
Don't worry, I get my Green Arrow trivia only from his tie-ins with GL and/or the Flash. So not like I'm the big expert. It just seemed odd when even Superman has a more "normal" life than Oliver Queen.Shoggoth2588 said:
Are... are you sure you wanted to quote me? Because if so I'm not sure what your point with me is.Spot1990 said:
captcha: bond, james bond
I'm under the impression this captcha is getting stranger every time I post.
See, no. There's "accident of birth" and then there's SUPERPOWERS. I personally in that situation would be fine with the X-men because they're good people (barring the occasional bouts of insanity), but I could never blame someone for not trusting them. I certainly wouldn't dare compare them to racists! Racists are on a an entirely different and irrational level. Disliking someone because they're skin is brown is idiotic; disliking someone because they can disintegrate you without even trying is smart. Perhaps a bit cynical, but smart nonetheless.Spot1990 said:
Actually after the Blackest Night storyline I don't think there is a single character in DC that didn't have a power ring at some point.Spot1990 said:
What is canon in comic books? Didn't they reboot everything with 52? So do I have to use an example only from that or can I dig in from anywhere and from any writer? I choose the last movie. If I can't there are dozens of examples in the comics of superman being rendered too weak to stand one day, so the writers can have a nod to the fable of the mouse that pulls the thorn out of the lion's paw when some normal person jumps in and throws the kryptonite away. Then, in the same series with the same writers, superman is rendered weak but strong enough to crawl and at vital moments strong enough to leap/lung for a lever/throw the kryptonite away.
Honestly, at the risk of repeating myself, I kinda suspect that has a lot to do with how DC doesn't really have characters. (Marvel doesn't either, but back to that in a moment.) With DC it's easier to relate to Batman or Superman because (most of the time) they're presented as this kind of paragon archetype. Kinda like a narrative Rorschach test. You see traits you identify with, even if they're kinda not there. The illustration of this is of course the joke description of Batman as "A rich white guy with daddy issues."SaneAmongInsane said:
It doesn't mean that they can't be interesting. And, a little further down you actually pinpointed one of the better bits from Batman: Frank Miller's Year One. But, for the most part they're devoid of features that can make them unlikable as well. I mean, it's Batman, what's not to like.
In contrast the Marvel characters aren't so much characters, as gimmicks and quirks, piled together. Tony Stark is a jackass, Matt Murdoch is a blind jackass, Thor is an arrogant psychopath, and Spiderman's having a nervous breakdown most of the time. For a lot of people, those flaws are what really sells the characters. It sets a much lower bar for relating to the characters for the reader, or I should say for some readers.
Daredevil always strikes me as an excellent example of this. (And I'm going on old survey data here, so it may be a bit out of date.) But, in contrast to characters like Batman, he tends to be less popular with kids and teens (because of the disability angle), and has never sold as well as the batbooks (obviously). But, when you get to adult readers, and when you control for children/teens with disabilities (any disabilities, really) his appeal skyrockets. This got laid at the feet of him being an underdog, rather than Batman's rolling demigod status, as you put it.
I'm not saying Daredevil's better, but I am saying a lot of the Marvel books are somewhat tailored to specific mindsets, while DC's better suited to general mass consumption.
Simply? Hypocrisy and jingoism. It's a bit like saying where's the difference between George Washington and Ho Chih Mihn? You ask an American that, especially thirty, thirty-five years ago, and you'd be told it's not the same thing. One of them is canonized in American consciousness, and the other is demonized. Even when there are some pretty striking similarities when you get down to the actual history.SaneAmongInsane said:
Now, how does the source of his powers really justify the different treatment? It doesn't. But, his status as a "True American Hero" from long before the major waves of mutants started to show up, secures him a unique place in his world's culture.
In fact, I think you could do a pretty interesting run playing with the idea that he actually is a mutant, and that the serum never really worked at all, that he was the secret ingredient. But, I hope that kinda makes sense.
There was also a rather godawful (pun not intended) run of Punisher stuff back in the late 90s, where he was hunting down and killing Demons for Heaven.SaneAmongInsane said:
But, yeah, Marvel has a lot of gods or godlike beings floating around. I suppose it's possible that Thor is really some kind of transdimensional being that really was the Norse god. But, ultimately, Marvel's universe has at least the Norse and Greek pantheons running around as well as the Judeo-Christian God, and all that entails. I can see where it can be a real sticking point for Christians, but the setting itself just kind of shrugs and says "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies," right before butchering Shakespeare by having Thor open his mouth.
Actually, as an aside, Ultimates 2 revolves around Loki manipulating reality in such a way to convince everyone that Ultimate Thor is in fact just an escaped mental patient with a prototype powered armor suit. It's actually a pretty damn entertaining read, though not as good as the first Ultimates.
EDIT: Come to think of it, DC's actually just as guilty. Although he was in exile from main continuity for a few years, John Constantine frequently trucked with Angels and Devils, and he exists alongside Wonder Woman and her Greek Pantheon backing.
Yeah, of the recent Batman material (say, the last 15 years), my favorites have all been the books set early in his career, Long Halloween, Dark Victory, and the Matt Wagner stuff, including Trinity, (and of course Elseworlds... anything Elseworlds just about).SaneAmongInsane said:
It's not that I dislike the character, it's that since Dark Knight Returns, Batman has become this unkillable ubermensch you can defeat anyone he wants with sufficient prep time, even characters that he has literally no way to beat, like Midnighter.
Yeah, I think Superman has some real potential depth. Unfortunately, it's usually only depth we see played with in Elseworlds (like Red Son or Kingdom Come), or in parallel characters, like Mark Waid's Irredeemable. I'm not saying he can't be interesting, or isn't interesting, just that most writers who actually take over the book don't have anything interesting to say with him. So it runs a real risk of degenerating into The Adventures of Mary Sue Man, instead of some really meaty philosophy.SaneAmongInsane said:
I get why, that's not what DC wants with the character, and that's fine, it's their court, they get to make the rules up as they go, but it does disappoint me a bit.
What can I say, at least we didn't get Hank Pym?Spot1990 said:
The only thing that does worry me about a Justice League film is that it'll get shoved out the door as fast as possible to capitalize on The Avengers, and we'll end up with another mess like Green Lantern.
*exasperated sigh* Ok, Marvel is one of those "you have to have at least read ----- series and ----- series and ------ series and then read ------ series and this one spin off and etc. to under stand it. And people are fine with Cap because he isn't really a mutant. He is a government super soldier, also he wasn't born a super soldier. And as for Tony Stark, yea he is a drunk but he also isn't one of those "drunk on the job ha ha" type of heroes he is one of those "Asshole, why the FUCK are you drinking now! You're gonna get someone killed". His drinking on the job actually got him almost and at one point booted from the Avengers because he blew up a bus with people in it or something like that. Also he at alot of points gets severe depression and tries to commit suicide multiple times despite Cap,War Machine, Thor, and some of the other Avengers best efforts to try and help him out through depression and being a alcoholic. I'm not gonna go on a tyrant rant on you because you like DC and don't understand Marvels story (To each his own). But please don't get your information on the Marvel universe from the movies and then proceed to call an element of it bullshit.SaneAmongInsane said:
Captcha:black gold. Wait? Isn't that a Miracle of Sound song
There's a bunch of interesting comparisons you can draw between DC and Marvel.
Marvel is interesting for showing struggle. When you think about it, a lot of it's big names are street-level. Consider Wolverine and Spider-man.
Whereas DC is interesting for the way it incorporates big, grand mythology into itself. The Justice League feels more like a Pantheon of gods - They have characters tied in with concepts like the Oceans, Technology, Speed, War, Order, Justice, Vengeance, et cetera, and the characters basically embody those concepts.
The Avengers feel more human. They have an ever-shifting roster and one might be totally unrecognizable from another. They are closely associated with governments and are regularly skewered by the media and financial problems.
I mean, the two cross over a lot, but generally I consider the difference between the two to be thus;
DC characters are about symbolism and idolatry - They are people you can look up to.
Marvel characters are about struggle and humanity - They are people you can relate to.
Again, there are places where they overlap, but that's a good rule of thumb.
So I tie that rule in with the "Who is more fun" question, by showing these two fights:
(Skip to about 1:47)
The first is Wolvy versus Hulk. A bloody, desperate battle that is just two completely savage freaks unloading everything they have on one another.
The second is two extremely powerful Cosmic Gods tossing each other around a city, shattering windows for miles with each blow. Notice that this is Good Versus Evil rather than just pure chaos.
In my opinion, both fights are fun, in really different ways. I'm a marvel man personally, but I love both.
Even so, I'd rather see Spider-man in a very personal fight with Venom at low stakes than see Superman clashing with Luthor over the fate of a planet.
Marvel is interesting for showing struggle. When you think about it, a lot of it's big names are street-level. Consider Wolverine and Spider-man.
Whereas DC is interesting for the way it incorporates big, grand mythology into itself. The Justice League feels more like a Pantheon of gods - They have characters tied in with concepts like the Oceans, Technology, Speed, War, Order, Justice, Vengeance, et cetera, and the characters basically embody those concepts.
The Avengers feel more human. They have an ever-shifting roster and one might be totally unrecognizable from another. They are closely associated with governments and are regularly skewered by the media and financial problems.
I mean, the two cross over a lot, but generally I consider the difference between the two to be thus;
DC characters are about symbolism and idolatry - They are people you can look up to.
Marvel characters are about struggle and humanity - They are people you can relate to.
Again, there are places where they overlap, but that's a good rule of thumb.
So I tie that rule in with the "Who is more fun" question, by showing these two fights:
(Skip to about 1:47)
The first is Wolvy versus Hulk. A bloody, desperate battle that is just two completely savage freaks unloading everything they have on one another.
The second is two extremely powerful Cosmic Gods tossing each other around a city, shattering windows for miles with each blow. Notice that this is Good Versus Evil rather than just pure chaos.
In my opinion, both fights are fun, in really different ways. I'm a marvel man personally, but I love both.
Even so, I'd rather see Spider-man in a very personal fight with Venom at low stakes than see Superman clashing with Luthor over the fate of a planet.
i agree, but i could live with the overpowered thing if they had actually depth or character flaws. it's one or the other in my book.
Captain America has virtually no character flaws but he's still a brilliant character in the movies because he has alot less power than his teammates, and he stands for something, the American ideal as it was in WW2.
Superman doesnt have any character flaws but is stupidly overpowered. it's like he's Thor, if Thor never went through that violent douchebag phase he had in the Thor movie. Superman isn't human, that isn't just his origin story, it's his whole character arc, he's 2 demensional, i can't relate to a character that isn't even human in spirit.
of course any critisism leveled against DC could be countered with the statement "except for Batman"
Captain America has virtually no character flaws but he's still a brilliant character in the movies because he has alot less power than his teammates, and he stands for something, the American ideal as it was in WW2.
Superman doesnt have any character flaws but is stupidly overpowered. it's like he's Thor, if Thor never went through that violent douchebag phase he had in the Thor movie. Superman isn't human, that isn't just his origin story, it's his whole character arc, he's 2 demensional, i can't relate to a character that isn't even human in spirit.
of course any critisism leveled against DC could be countered with the statement "except for Batman"
It all depends on what you have seen. Depending on what batman faces, you get to see a bit more of his inner personality, versus the various roles he takes place as. As Bruce Wayne, he puts a bit of an act on, so that many wouldn't even consider him as a possible batman. He also works himself to death showing that. His adventures as batman are obsessive, almost compulsive to him. He can't help himself. He has to be the hero. And specific arch enemies bring out more of him. He tends to joke a bit with the joker, actually, he shows a lot of dark humor with the Joker, and the joker also tends to pull out a bit more violence out of him than usual. Mainly because the Joker has no boundaries, no place he will stop. Batman could have no limits. Many times he has been tempted to have no limits, to just kill this enemy, get revenge, etc. But he forces that dark side of him under control. He is also quite protective of children, but doesn't know quite how to deal with them. Teaching the boy wonder to be like a little version of him probably wasn't the best choice at the time, but he knows the feeling. When you are young and powerless and want to get revenge.Daystar Clarion said:Even then, do you like Batman or the guys Batman has to catch?geK0 said:
The rogues gallery in Batman is awesome, Joker, Two Face etc.
Batman plays second fiddle to the guys he catches
The larger graphic novels and regular novels are quite fascinating as well. because there are no pictures in the novels, they have to characterize Batman more, and it exposes a bit more of his inner thoughts than say "the older comics" where they really didn't want batman to have darker thoughts or anything more than completing the mission.
On the surface, if you only look at the simplistic parts, then yes, he is more of a flatter toned nature. Its when you delve into the more modern stuff that he gets more complicated.
Fuck yeah, while DKR got me into reading Batman, Year One is what made me love reading him.SaneAmongInsane said:
Yes. I have read comics for 30+ years, and Marvel characters typically draw my interest more so than DC firstly for looks, appearance, etc. I have read titles from both companies over the years, but when i go to CBR i look at the Marvel boards every time, DC on rare occasions. I feel Marvel (particularly Xmen titles) are more easy to relate to. Being an outcast reading about a outcast is comforting....somehow
To be honest, I find Iron Man (and his film) quite boring. I don?t think Tony Stark is likeable at all, and his superhero persona is just?an iron man. He can fly, he can shoot blasts?meh.
But Wonder Woman?I don?t know what the fuck they?re doing with her at the moment. Someone needs to give her a kick up the backside, because I haven?t heard anything from her in ages and I?m not even sure if she was a franchise or just a female Superman rip-off in the first place.
Batman?s awesome, for obvious reasons, but they?ve been oversaturating the market with dark comic books, TV series, films?and now I hear they?re doing a fucking reboot after Nolan?s trilogy. They just need to give it a rest for a while.
But Wonder Woman?I don?t know what the fuck they?re doing with her at the moment. Someone needs to give her a kick up the backside, because I haven?t heard anything from her in ages and I?m not even sure if she was a franchise or just a female Superman rip-off in the first place.
Batman?s awesome, for obvious reasons, but they?ve been oversaturating the market with dark comic books, TV series, films?and now I hear they?re doing a fucking reboot after Nolan?s trilogy. They just need to give it a rest for a while.