DC versus Marvel: different styles

[assault]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Maybe Weather Wizard or Abra Cadabra but even then' date=' Flash really has more trouble with them than he should.[/quote']

 

I disagree about Abra Cadabra. He's seriously dangerous.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

I hated DC when I was a kid. I have always liked DC.

Typo? Or are your split personalities arguing with each other again?

 

I like a little angst with my heroics.

Me too. Although I do get annoyed when the angst starts to outweigh the heroics (ie - most of the X-titles) .

[OddHat]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Hero gamers tend to be very pro-Marvel. I'd guess that it's a combination of things. Marvel titles were aimed at more concerned with soap opera and life outside the mask in the 60s-70s, though DC had largely caught up by the mid eighties. Also, DC was more willing to go for slapstick and silliness (and pure insanity) without clearly labeling events as "out of continuity".

 

These days I can't see much of a dif between the companies, but then I follow writers.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Last year I started collecting comics again, and I've managed to nail down a few titles that I liked with Marvel, but I've been bouncing all over with DC trying to find a few titles that are worth collecting.

 

Anyone have any suggestions of titles worth reading at DC?

 

I'd reinforce the recomendations for JSA and Teen Titans. Just about any title Geoff Johns is on is good, but I'm a fan of his. I'd also recomend the new Green Lantern series - if you like Scifi comics - they have been great.

[Mike W]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

I disagree about Abra Cadabra. He's seriously dangerous.

 

Abra Cadabra has his moments, but I think he also has the PSYCH LIM: "Must complicate everything enormously" which tends to limit his effectiveness at times.

[Mike W]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Hero gamers tend to be very pro-Marvel. I'd guess that it's a combination of things. Marvel titles were aimed at more concerned with soap opera and life outside the mask in the 60s-70s, though DC had largely caught up by the mid eighties. Also, DC was more willing to go for slapstick and silliness (and pure insanity) without clearly labeling events as "out of continuity".

 

These days I can't see much of a dif between the companies, but then I follow writers.

 

I think one of the reasons the companies are moving closer together is the "portability" of writers. In the 1980s, let's say, you wrote for Marvel or for DC but not both at the same time, and rarely would anyone ever jump ship. Now, everyone jumps ship. Most of the writers seem to agree to write for one company for a year or two then go back on the market to maybe work for the other company for a couple of years. Writers aren't associated with one company the way they used to be.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

I think one of the reasons the companies are moving closer together is the "portability" of writers. In the 1980s' date=' let's say, you wrote for Marvel or for DC but not both at the same time, and rarely would anyone ever jump ship. Now, everyone jumps ship. Most of the writers seem to agree to write for one company for a year or two then go back on the market to maybe work for the other company for a couple of years. Writers aren't associated with one company the way they used to be.[/quote']

 

And I think the continual "jumping" is one of the main reason comic writing has declined in the last decade. Nobody's invested in the characters anymore. They just do whatever they want(regardless of logic or consequences) and then leave the mess for their replacement to clean up. The DC crisis is a classic example. Why is DC doing this? The last Crisis mini series was the best thing to ever happen to DC...and now they want to take it all back? It makes no sense. if any company needs a "Crisis", it's Marvel.

 

Rob

[Jhamin]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

if any company needs a "Crisis"' date=' it's Marvel.[/quote']

 

I would argue that Marvel had it's crisis and kept the old continuity too.

 

The entire Ultimate line is basically a relaunch of the core Marvel franchises with no previous continuity they have to be beholden too. Much in the same way DC rebooted Supes, Wonder Woman, Bats, and all the rest right after Crisis.

 

Only difference is, new issues of Amazing Spiderman (IE: Precrisis Spidey) and Ultimate Spiderman (New continuity Spidey) are coming out at the same time.

[Jhamin]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Actually at the high end they are much closer to each other.

 

And the last line you quoted I find amusing, not in a mocking way mind you, because Thor is/was an Avenger, and the closest to Gods that the JLA got were the few times the New Genesisians were on the team.

 

In my opinion, the difference between Marvel and DC has less to do with how powerful the heros are and more to do with the implied power of humanity.

 

In DC, it is generally implied that if big guns ever decided to do awful things there is very little the normal human governments, institutions, or individuals could do about it. There have been several Superman plots along these lines and the entire metastory of Kingdom Come basically expore the helplessness of humanity in the face of gods.

 

In Marvel there are lots of really powerful supers, but it is implied that if they ever tried to just kill everybody the humans would at least make it hurt when they went down.

The mutants in the X-titles are for the most part genuinly concerned with the humans and the Sentinals that work for them.

Iron Man has the edge over his rivals, but is well aware that if he slacks off of his upgrade planning he will eventually get overtaken by some soldier in a power suit.

Spidey is a long way from bulletproof.

Heck, the Vision was taken down by the government cause they were worried about what he might do.

 

The few heroes that are just untouchable by the humans (Thor, Silver Surfer) tend to spend alot of time away from earth and are not as much on the public's mind as Superman is.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

In my opinion, the difference between Marvel and DC has less to do with how powerful the heros are and more to do with the implied power of humanity.

 

In DC, it is generally implied that if big guns ever decided to do awful things there is very little the normal human governments, institutions, or individuals could do about it. There have been several Superman plots along these lines and the entire metastory of Kingdom Come basically expore the helplessness of humanity in the face of gods.

 

In Marvel there are lots of really powerful supers, but it is implied that if they ever tried to just kill everybody the humans would at least make it hurt when they went down.

The mutants in the X-titles are for the most part genuinly concerned with the humans and the Sentinals that work for them.

Iron Man has the edge over his rivals, but is well aware that if he slacks off of his upgrade planning he will eventually get overtaken by some soldier in a power suit.

Spidey is a long way from bulletproof.

Heck, the Vision was taken down by the government cause they were worried about what he might do.

 

The few heroes that are just untouchable by the humans (Thor, Silver Surfer) tend to spend alot of time away from earth and are not as much on the public's mind as Superman is.

Though, the recent Asgardians take over everything story line did show some of this, but you are right, it is a rarity/exception in Marvel to show this starkness in the power dichotomy between normal people and superbeings.

 

TB

[OddHat]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

In my opinion' date=' the difference between Marvel and DC has less to do with how powerful the heros are and more to do with the implied power of humanity.[/quote']

 

Good point.

 

This is also an issue that frequently comes up in debates on these boards.

[Mike W]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

In my opinion, the difference between Marvel and DC has less to do with how powerful the heros are and more to do with the implied power of humanity.

 

In DC, it is generally implied that if big guns ever decided to do awful things there is very little the normal human governments, institutions, or individuals could do about it. There have been several Superman plots along these lines and the entire metastory of Kingdom Come basically expore the helplessness of humanity in the face of gods.

 

In Marvel there are lots of really powerful supers, but it is implied that if they ever tried to just kill everybody the humans would at least make it hurt when they went down.

The mutants in the X-titles are for the most part genuinly concerned with the humans and the Sentinals that work for them.

Iron Man has the edge over his rivals, but is well aware that if he slacks off of his upgrade planning he will eventually get overtaken by some soldier in a power suit.

Spidey is a long way from bulletproof.

Heck, the Vision was taken down by the government cause they were worried about what he might do.

 

The few heroes that are just untouchable by the humans (Thor, Silver Surfer) tend to spend alot of time away from earth and are not as much on the public's mind as Superman is.

 

I agree that that is part of it, but even still, I would argue that part of the reason humanity seems more potent in Marvel is because the heroes/villains they are up against are not as powerful as they are in DC, so humanity CAN be more of a threat.

 

I also agree that the portability of writers is getting out of hand and not in a good way. Even the good writers rarely stay on a book that long anymore. In the old days, we thought not just of great stories, but the writers who hung around for years writing the books. We talk about "Walt Simonson Thor", "Frank Miller Batman", and "Mark Grunwald Captain America". But when is the last time we really identified a writer and a character together like that. "Mark Waid Flash" is probably the latest to come to mind for me and that was quite a while ago.

[BlackSword]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

I also agree that the portability of writers is getting out of hand and not in a good way. Even the good writers rarely stay on a book that long anymore. In the old days' date=' we thought not just of great stories, but the writers who hung around for years writing the books. We talk about "Walt Simonson Thor", "Frank Miller Batman", and "Mark Grunwald Captain America". But when is the last time we really identified a writer and a character together like that. "Mark Waid Flash" is probably the latest to come to mind for me and that was quite a while ago.[/quote']

Gail Simone and Devin Grayson have been on "Birds of Prey" and "Nightwing" (respectively) for quite a while and are recognized for both being long time authors as well has having good runs (though there Grayson does have some controversy in Nightwing Fandom). Geoff Johns has been on JSA for a long time, and it has really shown in that stories develop over years, as opposed to only being a quick arc. I do agree that having an author stay with a single title for a long time has a much greater change to produce good results. If it takes someone 4-6 issues to 'get into stride,' then only being a guest writer for an arc means the author will never quite get it until the end of the arc. With authors sticking it out longer you have chances for stories to have roots many issues beforehand, and a better long term theme.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Add my vote in with the "I like it better when authors stayed with a series for several years." I think the Johns run on JSA has made it one of the best series I've ever read. I especially like the way he handled the various legacy characters (well, okay, they're *all* legacy characters). And the continuing trouble with Mordru was very well handled.

[Kristopher]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Gail Simone and Devin Grayson have been on "Birds of Prey" and "Nightwing" (respectively) for quite a while and are recognized for both being long time authors as well has having good runs (though there Grayson does have some controversy in Nightwing Fandom). Geoff Johns has been on JSA for a long time' date=' and it has really shown in that stories develop over years, as opposed to only being a quick arc. I do agree that having an author stay with a single title for a long time has a much greater change to produce good results. If it takes someone 4-6 issues to 'get into stride,' then only being a guest writer for an arc means the author will never quite get it until the end of the arc. With authors sticking it out longer you have chances for stories to have roots many issues beforehand, and a better long term theme.[/quote']

 

Another thing good about years-long runs by good writers is that the characters tend to be more consistent and have better depth.

[CandidGamera]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Johns's run on Flash was fairly iconic. Morrison and Waid both had solid JLA runs in recent memory. Dan Slott is building a dynasty with She-Hulk. Mark Waid's current run on Legion will go down as one of the classics, I think.

 

Love it or hate it, Bendis left his mark on Daredevil. And still writes Ultimate Spider-Man as far as I know.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

I'm not sure I agree that the quality of comics writing has deteriorated that much. I mean, much as I loved the comics of my youth (we're talking late-Silver, early Bronze Age) much of the writing -- plots, dialogue, etc -- was fairly cliched, childish, and downright cringe-worthy by today's standards.

 

Granted, these days I only read The Good Stuff (as recommended by more hardcore friends), so I may have a slanted view. I do agree about the lack of consistency/continuity being a problem. But then, continuity was never exactly an absolute back in the good old days either.

[ZootSoot]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

Someone commented in another thread about the differing styles of Marvel and DC comics. Just what are they? The biggest difference I can think of between Marvel and DC is that the 'mundanes' are basically decent and grateful to the heroes in the DC-verse (well, usually), while in the Marvel-verse the best you dare hope for is that they merely want to use you to make some quick money. More often 'mundane' in Marvel seems to be just a synonym for 'ungrateful fascist rat-@@@@ard'.

 

Those are the main differences I can think of off the top of my head. Any others?

 

PS -- By 'mundane' I mean 'a normal person who isn't a criminal.'

 

 

The strongest differencebetween DC and Marvel is stylistic. DC is a mythic world where metaphors are real and ethical beliefs have the same weight as the laws of physics. While some effort is made to claim that certain things are not known, they are only not known to the general inhabitants of the DC universe, the reader knows exactly what they are. Green Arrow was in Heaven before he chose to come back. You can sell your soul to the devil at Hell.com. Good always triumphs is not just a conventional belief it is a fundamental unerpinning of the universe. In the DC universe the Amazo android can have all the powers of the Justice League, and it means exactly that and as you increase the JL roster the powers of the android expand and if you disband the JL its powers vanish. Or you can have a character like The Quiz who has every suerpower you haven't thought of. Or the Flash can find his way home through the timestream because of the anchor of his "love" for his wife.

 

Marvel is more indefinite. Various claims about divinity and such are made, but the truth of such claims is disputable. The Good Guys win in Marvel but no one claims this is an inherent part of the universe. The nature of good and evil, God (or lack thereof), the afterlife (and its existence) are no more known in the Marvel Universe than they are in our own. There are weird conceptual things in Marvel (a mutant neutralizer that works equally well on Warren Worthington III and Emma Frost; or Spiderman's strength of will carrying him to victory in a fight in which his internal organs have been turned to paste), but they don't have the same sort of dominance they have in DC.

[ZootSoot]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

They're closer together than they've ever been previously.

 

Me thinks...

 

DC does have the grateful populace.

MARVEL has the fearful mutant-haters.

 

DC at least pays lip service to ideals (or did).

MARVEL tries to be grittier, with heroes doing things heroes shouldn't do.

 

DC has a wealth of characters whose names end in "boy", "girl", "man", "woman", "lass", "lad", etc.

MARVEL has some too, but not to the degree (and definitely not the lasses and lads).

 

DC seems to run on a higher power scale as an average. JLA are god like.

MARVEL is still strong, but generally speaking the average character is below that in ability. Avengers aren't gods.

 

Sounds like I'm a Marvel Hater, but truth be told, I'm more of a Marvel fan.

 

 

That power level difference is mostly Marvel propaganda trying to suggest that their characters are more human. While they may be officially weaker in a panel by panel comparison Marvel characters do pretty much everything DC characters do. the main difference is that DC has more characters at the top level of power and Marvel has more mid-range and low-powered supers. But at the top of the power level there ain't a frog's whisker of difference in power.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

But at the top of the power level there ain't a frog's whisker of difference in power.

This may be true, but as you yourself point out, Marvel has more low-to-mid level heroes than DC. So the average power level is lower.

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

That power level difference is mostly Marvel propaganda trying to suggest that their characters are more human. While they may be officially weaker in a panel by panel comparison Marvel characters do pretty much everything DC characters do. the main difference is that DC has more characters at the top level of power and Marvel has more mid-range and low-powered supers. But at the top of the power level there ain't a frog's whisker of difference in power.

On a cosmic scale, yes. When you restrict it to Earth-bound heroes, Marvel has fewer heroes who are at the same power level as the top heroes of Earth. Marvel tends to be a little better at not having cosmic-level heroes stopping bank robbers and one trick wonders.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

The strongest differencebetween DC and Marvel is stylistic. DC is a mythic world where metaphors are real and ethical beliefs have the same weight as the laws of physics.

 

Marvel is more indefinite. .

 

 

I think you have just summed up one of the reasons I love DC. Great analysis.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

It also seems to me that DC prefers the all-or-nothing, Invulnerable-Except-For-One-Huge-Vulnerability hero model. Kryptonite. The color yellow. Wrist bondage. Etc. Not all DC heroes, of course, and Marvel has a few of their own. But it seems to be more common in the DC universe, especially among the more iconic characters.

[st barbara]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

On a cosmic scale' date=' yes. When you restrict it to Earth-bound heroes, Marvel has fewer heroes who are at the same power level as the top heroes of Earth. Marvel tends to be a little better at not having cosmic-level heroes stopping bank robbers and one trick wonders.[/quote'] Marvels "one trick wonders" have frequently been confined to the ranks of the villains (or where back when Lee was doing a lot of the writing) and , as I have said before, their "one trick" was often lethal which made for characters that had to act in a stupid manner. One of the differences between the companies used to be in the nature of the villains. D C's super criminals used to be out to enrich themselves (illegaly!) and humiliate the heros. It was often a contest for them to see if they could best the heros. Marvels villains were often more vicious and used to carry a grudge more often. They didn't want to just get rich and humiliate the heros, they wanted to destroy them !

[Kristopher]

Re: DC versus Marvel: different styles

 

A lot of Marvel's OTPs were/are X-Men, IIRC.