Marvel v DC?
- Thread starter Taylirious
- Start date
I think you misunderstood my post. It was an optimistic post of how bright their futures can potentially be. I think BvS is awesome. No, I am not blaming the MCU for anything. I am giving Marvel credit for their cinematic universe getting DC to finally get their cinematic universe out of development hell and onto the movie theaters. And yes, Marvel's Civil War did exist before BvS, but lots of great stories get made into movies much, much later, and some never at all.
When I said BvS helped Civil War get made, it was not a wild guess that came out of thin air, it was said by the directors of Civil War, in the links I provided. There were a lot more sources, but posting all of them is redundant. As we know, Kevin Feige is charge of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it is a huge responsibility. Not only does the movies have to be good and profitable, but each movie is a puzzle piece that is part of a bigger picture. What happen in a Captain America movie will affect the other movies in the future, and Feige knows this. Feige and the Russo bros most likely have many ideas for the next CA movie, with CW being one of they wanted to make. Feige's decision is important and must be made carefully. Should he play it safe or take a risk? When BvS was announce, that tipped his decision to go all in for it.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with putting their characters against each other. They did it so many times, I lose track. I think what we were referring to is not about having their characters fight, but the idea that the companies hate each other and want to see the other fail. If they hate each other that much, we wouldn't see many crossovers if any.
Last edited:
And if I could add to that, the idea of their respective fans hating each other is very bad. It's fine to like one only, or both, or neither, but to dictate what others like and should do is bad. Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. That's bad.
These days the companies are pretty interchangable tonaly. Not like in the 60's and 70's when there was difference in how they approached story telling. Marvel was the young upstart with new ideas and a one on one with the fans. You knew the creators by their first names and they came across as your friend. DC was the old guard, plodding along and coming across like your Dad and his business associates. The people in charge were faceless/nameless Editors. To some fans those versions of the companies remain. Even though Marvel has become more corporate and has never recaptured the fun little upstart company vibe that Stan Lee promoted in the early days. DC also changed and broke new ground with books in their Vertigo imprint and titles like Watchmen and Dark Knight, but some will still see them as the staid old guard company.
Because, DC's side imprints and Marvel's incorporation aside, the characters that made those companies what they are haven't changed all that much over the decades. Superman is still a god. Spider-man is still a masked wise-ass. Marvel's characters are still more human than DC's, regardless of Marvel Comics corporate structure.
I would disagree. DC's take on characterization has changed quite a bit in the last 40 years. Their characters are very much in the "flawed human" mode pioneered by Marvel. They're a far cry from the perfect cardboard cutouts from the 60s. This started in the 70s and by the mid-80s and COIE DC had begun to Marvelize their characters in earnest. Even Superman became "more human". Former Marvel talent like Wolfman, Perez, Thomas and others helped this along, bringing Marvel angst to DC. Earlier Denny O'Neil ried to do the same thing but with less success.
Agreed.
That reminds of something funny. Years ago, I was talking to a friend's family member and the subject of comic book movies came up. I will paraphrase because I don't remember the exact conversation.
him: I love the Marvel movies.
me: Me too. I'm looking forward to Marvel phase 2 and the upcoming DC movies.
him: Not me. Marvel is cool, but DC sucks.
me: okay
him: You agree right? Marvel is way better.
me: I like them both about the same.
him: What?
me: I like both of them about the same.
him: You can't like them the same. You either like Marvel or DC, not both.
me: Why not?
him: They are so different from each other. You have to like one over the other.
me: Technically, I like certain characters more than others, but both Marvel and DC are mixed in. For instance, I like Batman and Wolverine. If you hate Batman...
him: I don't hate Batman, I think Batman is cool.
me: So you don't hate all of DC.
him: Most of it.
me: Why do you hate it?
him: Superheroes are so uneven. Superman can defeat everyone. In Marvel, they are more even. Each hero can win against another.
me: I don't think Hawkeye or Black Widow can win against the Hulk or Thor.
him: Well, Superman is just overpowered.
Anyway, we just talked in circles after that. I would have been in the wrong if I demanded he like both the same, like me.
BTW, this is from my point of view. He probably remembered the conversation differently.
Last edited:
I agree with this entirely. What makes a character relatable, ultimately, is how they're written. Good writing can make even a god utterly relatable, while bad writing can make a postal worker seem like something completely alien. And the two comic publishers have, for a long time now, used pretty much the same stable of writers, working from the same influences.
I always find generalizations about major differences between each publisher's output strange because, if anything, there are much bigger differences within each line than between them. By which I mean if I take a modern Superman comic, I'd probably have a much easier time finding something with a similar 'feel' in a Fantastic Four comic than in a Batman or Swamp Thing, to use one example.
I agree.
Liking a certain character or group of characters better than another is completely understandable, but when one brings it up to the publisher level it looses any point and dissolves into blind fanboyism.
It's like saying you like Scholastic better than HarperCollins in the book world because you like Harry Potter better than Lord of the Rings, or Paramount better than Universal in the film one because you like Transformers better than Fast & Furious... the sheer volume of output and variety of stuff any of those publishers put out makes any such generalization nonsensical.
Thanks for the observation, Dodge. I'm going to use that analogy from now on.
That's pretty close to my feeling too. I like characters from both publishers. They both have very different tones and styles spread throughout their line ups, so it's hard to judge their entire lines as one monolithic entity.
Why can't you break it down empirically when it comes to DC and Marvel, though?
It's very possible to do this and not be blind at all. For example, there are only 2 DC books I cared for recently, Batman and Swamp Thing (I tried more, like Superman, Wonder Woman, Justice League, and a few others.) Image is about 5 or 6 and Marvel is about the same.
Empirically, I'm enjoying Marvel and Image more than DC. It's not blind fanboyism, it's what I'm enjoying. People do this with vehicle brands (I've had a few cars from such and such a company, they went in for repairs all the time, but since I switched to this other company, even though they all sell a variety of stuff, I've had less problems), restaurants, even television networks (I watch nothing on NBC, that pretty much makes it currently my least favourite network I guess) and many other companies not always based simply on blind fanboyism.
Because they're not selling brooms.
You can't throw some dirt on the floor and then see which one sweeps up more rubbish and everyone will agree that the broom from company A sweeps better than the broom from company B.
They're selling stories, written by people, and different people will respond differently to those stories.
The whole Marvel and DC as "brands" is essentially bullshit, because over the past 80 years and hundreds of thousand of stories written by thousands of people about thousands of characters there is not one unifying thing that either of those represent. Also the people writing those stories are often the same as there's a lot of sharing of talent between the two which makes the supposed "differences" even more nonsensical.
Of course, saying you like A better than B because you like 7 books from A and 2 from B is technically correct and a matter of simple mathematics, that's not what I meant by fanboyism.
What happens more often than not in these discussions, is that people will then use these 7 books they like from publisher A to represent the entire output A, and some books from B they don't like to represent the entire output of B, and then argue A>B, and then someone will do the opposite and say B>A.
And it's entirely possible that those people could choose books from same authors on both sides with generally the same kind of storytelling quality but they will end up killing each other on the internet because of "brands".
That's why I think if you like some books from publisher A, argue the merits of those books made by those authors about those characters, and not of publisher A.
When i used to read comics, i was into marvel 100%. I only read dc a few times. The batman issues of the 90s was cool. I did like the starman series of the 90s. But i was a huge spidey fan. Xmen was second. Even read some FF.
As f the tv n films aspect of dc vs. Marvel, i enjoy both. They both have ups and downs. Even though superman 1&2 have aged, they did set the blue prints f future superhero films. Richard donner doesnt get enough credit. He was fired f wanting to make serious and at the same time fun entertaining films. He fought with the heads n the studio like crazy.
With films, dc started out with a bang way before marvel. The first 2 super man and batman films were very good. Then gradually the films went downhill quick. Dc has yet to fully come back.
Marvel has more better mass appeal films than dc, but when dc does good they do good. I love watchmen and v f vendetta. The dark knight trilogy was a hit. Their older films are classics.
Marvel knows how to better do films that appeal to general audiences. They know how to balance everything out. They usually mix the story, characters, action, humor n drama just right.
Dc seems to do good but only good in one department. Man of steel was good but more serious with less humor. Same with the nolan films. Green lantern n catwoman however didnt take themselves serious and instead became self parodies of themselves instead of good fun deep entertaining films.
Im glad to have the choice to pick between the 2. I love both. Though i might be more into marvel than dc, it depends on my mood. All out fun i pop in guardians. If i wanna see a very serious take i pop in man of steel r watchmen. If i want a guilty pleasure of stupid fun give me green lantern or even catwoman (haha). To me green lantern is a good fun escape just like spawn was. Its fun to go back and watch classics such as the 60s batman film and the donner superman films. Cant go wrong with tim burton's bat films either.
Marvel and dc are both good. They just different. Im glad dc isnt trying to do the same exact copy of marvel. BvS might be better over time after suicide squad n wonder woman come out. It might make the film fit much more in the series as a whole. When empire strikes back first came out a lot of audiences complained about it being too dark n they didnt like it. But now its regarded as the best by many fans.
Anyways i love both. I might be into marvel a little bit more, but they both have their ups n downs. Now on the tv side, dc prob. Has marvel beat. Right now marvel is winning the movie market. Gots to love free enterprise.
I agree on other comments that both dc and marvel feed off of each other. All these smart phone companies sure are right now. Its like when a new phone comes out with new features everyone else jumps on the bandwagon. This is like iphone vs. Galaxy. Ok bad example haha. Good thing about dc and marvel is we can enjoy both. Most people either have a iphone or an android.
As f the tv n films aspect of dc vs. Marvel, i enjoy both. They both have ups and downs. Even though superman 1&2 have aged, they did set the blue prints f future superhero films. Richard donner doesnt get enough credit. He was fired f wanting to make serious and at the same time fun entertaining films. He fought with the heads n the studio like crazy.
With films, dc started out with a bang way before marvel. The first 2 super man and batman films were very good. Then gradually the films went downhill quick. Dc has yet to fully come back.
Marvel has more better mass appeal films than dc, but when dc does good they do good. I love watchmen and v f vendetta. The dark knight trilogy was a hit. Their older films are classics.
Marvel knows how to better do films that appeal to general audiences. They know how to balance everything out. They usually mix the story, characters, action, humor n drama just right.
Dc seems to do good but only good in one department. Man of steel was good but more serious with less humor. Same with the nolan films. Green lantern n catwoman however didnt take themselves serious and instead became self parodies of themselves instead of good fun deep entertaining films.
Im glad to have the choice to pick between the 2. I love both. Though i might be more into marvel than dc, it depends on my mood. All out fun i pop in guardians. If i wanna see a very serious take i pop in man of steel r watchmen. If i want a guilty pleasure of stupid fun give me green lantern or even catwoman (haha). To me green lantern is a good fun escape just like spawn was. Its fun to go back and watch classics such as the 60s batman film and the donner superman films. Cant go wrong with tim burton's bat films either.
Marvel and dc are both good. They just different. Im glad dc isnt trying to do the same exact copy of marvel. BvS might be better over time after suicide squad n wonder woman come out. It might make the film fit much more in the series as a whole. When empire strikes back first came out a lot of audiences complained about it being too dark n they didnt like it. But now its regarded as the best by many fans.
Anyways i love both. I might be into marvel a little bit more, but they both have their ups n downs. Now on the tv side, dc prob. Has marvel beat. Right now marvel is winning the movie market. Gots to love free enterprise.
I agree on other comments that both dc and marvel feed off of each other. All these smart phone companies sure are right now. Its like when a new phone comes out with new features everyone else jumps on the bandwagon. This is like iphone vs. Galaxy. Ok bad example haha. Good thing about dc and marvel is we can enjoy both. Most people either have a iphone or an android.
I hate it when that happens.
Similar threads
