Marvel vs. DC

[WadeDeadpool]

Since the last debate like this wound up being a post of widespread mockery (spelling?) and derision, then I think I'll just post a little more organized debate here, since I'm kinda interested in what other people have to say on this matter. And just right off the bat, I'm more of a Marvelite myself, so sorry if I'm a little too biased here.

To start off, the one thing that a company like these two need to keep readers interested is to keep new characters coming. This can backfire, however, as too many new people at one time can confuse the reader easily. Best example of this that I can point out is when Marvel tried pushing Squadron Supreme. It was supposed to be their new flagship title, but the shear amount of new characters bogged them down. Same thing with the M2 line. But ignoring those two, Marvel has done a splendid job in introducing new characters. They found the key to be releasing small groups, maybe five or six, of new characters at a time. This gave readers manageable amounts of new characters to take in. Another tried and true strategy is taking several established characters, have them form a team, and one by one, introduce new members, until the origional founding members leave, and the team is comprised of only new members. For a time at least, the Avengers were a perfect example of this, as Cap, Iron Man, and Thor left to make room for Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver.

On the DC side of things, the last new character I can really remember being created that had a big impact being Huntress. Again, I'm not a big DC fan, and am probably missing something here, so I hope that a DC fan will present me with a counter argument to this point. DC has stayed with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" aproach. This is all fine and good, except they should understand that regular maintenance (spelling?) is needed.

The only other point that I have enough energy to make a half-sane argument about is the "big event". These are things that combine the entire comic universe, the step above crossovers. Let's start with Marvel again.

Marvel has the first necessity of the big event: make it memorable. This is done by one of three ways. Have a lasting effect on a character, change the way that things happen in the entire universe, or have the story have some deeper meaning. The lasting effects are the mainstay in Marvel big events. Secret Wars gave Spider-Man his black costume. Onslaught killed off half the universe, and, in my opinion, was the firestarter to Marvel's resurgence. But that's another topic. As for the other two, I really only have one thing to say to them. Infinity (insert noun here).

All of those are well known throughout the entire comicverse, whether you bleed radioactive spiderblood or have a butler named Alfred. However, in my opinion, DC has only one of these. Zero Hour. (Please God, let me have the title correct on this or else I'll never live it down) Superman died. Hell, didn't Japan have a national moment of silence for this or something? And it wasn't a bad story. Green Lantern goes insane, shot by his best friend Green Arrow, and the story ends with all of DC's heroes together in a somber moment as Ollie shatters his bow. Good stuff. But the only other storyline that DC did that could reach this caliber was Kingdom Come. (See parenthetical note about Zero Hour)

Again, I admit that I am a staunch Marvel fan, and would enjoy a strong DC counterargument.

[A_Higher_Level]

I would gladly engange you in an intellectual counter argument showing how DC characters can in fact be a better choice over Marvel (other than them starting with Outwit). However, I must assuredly agree that Marvel is the better brand in this case. So I will continue to sit and watch the other following posts from individuals of like minds after me.

[zaurial]

um , what aoubt crisis on infinate earths? the flash DIED! that is major!

[drop19]

Cool, I'm always up for discussion rather than potshots. :)

One question though about the Squadron Supreme: wasn't their late 80's series always intended to be a 12 issue maxi-series. I'm pretty sure Mark Gruenwald had a definite ending he was working towards, one which is reflected in many later works such as Kingdom Come. Slightly off-tangent, but that Squadron series stands out as a great example of comics telling a socially aware story without being preachy or ridiculous. For those of you who haven't read the Squadron Supreme series, shell out for the tpb and see what laid the groundwork for stuff like the Authority and Kingdom Come.

Marvel has certainly had more luck with creating new characters who catch on with fans, but for every new character there are several others who failed or burnt out quickly. Characters like Darkhawk, Sleepwalker, the group from Slingers, Guardians of the Galaxy, the Scarlet Spider, the New Universe groups, etc. all faded into obscurity after a few years. Across town, DC had tons of failed characters as well, with Gunfire, Xero, Manhunter, Fate, and multitudes of others to line the quarter bins.

DC tends to try revamping old projects and bring them forward where as Marvel is more willing to try new concepts for their titles, but whether or not these books succeed is another matter. The exception to this rule would be the Ultimate Line, which feels way more like a DC tactic than a traditional Marvel tactic. While I enjoy these books, it's tough to deny that many of the stories are reinterpreted versions of prior Marvel U. tales. This doesn't mean they are bad or have nothing to add, but it's interesting to see the company that for so long trumpeted that they had no need for revising continuity turning around and starting "fresh" continuity books.

Regarding crossovers, DC easily has Marvel matched on them. Whether any of them (from either company) is any good is another matter entirely. Just to name a few, DC has run: Crisis on Infinite Earths (pretty much the biggie), Legends, Millenium, New Blood, Armageddon 2001, Invasion, Final Night, Joker's Last Laugh, Our Worlds at War, and several others I'm forgetting here. Your standard for a big event seems to be something changing permanently for these characters, and it happened in several of these series to one degree or another. At the same time, many of these crossovers were just attempts to get people buying more of the titles that they weren't buying in the first place.

For every decent event Marvel has run (Secret Wars I, Mutant Massacre), there have been some really terrible ones as well. Atlantis Attacks, Evolutionary Wars, Operation Galactic Storm, and some others stank up the joint pretty badly. Because Marvel's characters tend to co-exist in a tighter universe (aka New York) it seems like more of their major events draw in the multitudes of characters.

I'm not a big fan of crossovers from either company, mainly because they tend to disrupt the ongoing storylines of regular titles. Also, with the exception of one or two characters it seems as if little ever really changes. Onslaught might have "wiped out" half of the characters of the Marvel Universe, but after a few months in another dimension they were all back and a-ok. Professor X is a good guy again, the Avengers and F4 are still around, etc. DC is the same way though. In Final Night we see the Sun-Eater about to plunge our world into eternal darkness. Hal Jordan sacrifices himself to save the world, but did much else really change?

When it comes to the actual DC clix vs Marvel clix, Wizkids has done an excellent job of reflecting the way the two universes have always played out. Starting with the Silver Age, DC characters tended to outsmart their villains or use some sort of scientific answer to solve their dilemnas. Marvel books tend to focus more on the hero you can relate to overcoming odds and pulling it together in the end. DC heroes tend to be either extremely powerful or powerless heroes who rely on wits and gadgets. Marvel heroes tend to have some sort of power that places them on the same level as their fellow heroes, with some major exception such as Thor or Silver Surfer.

These philosophies seem pretty evident in the way the game plays out (or at least the games I've played in). Marvel characters usually work in a more straight-forward fashion, where as DC characters involve more strategy and team work. A Batman team could potentially take an X-men team or an Avengers team, but it's going to require the Batman team being very sneaky and relying on outwit.

DC has stayed with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" aproach. This is all fine and good, except they should understand that regular maintenance (spelling?) is needed.
Absolutely. In far too many cases DC is guilty of leaving their books in a state of complacency. Nothing really changes, the stories are rather dull, and there just isn't much sizzle to sell the steak. Changes are developing to counter this such as Loeb and Lee on Batman, Geoff Johns books such as JSA and Flash, the upcoming Superman/Batman title, the new Teen Titans book, etc. Also, they are introducing some nice "niche" titles such as Gotham Central, Catwoman, and H-E-R-O which reflect the less visible sides of their universe strongly.

Marvel's strength under the current regime has been a willingness to try new things and revamp things that had grown stale. Grant Morrison's New X-Men is absolutely brilliant, the first X-title in forever that isn't coasting on the formula Claremont developed over twenty years ago. Bendis is bringing a very subdued yet intriguing tone to Daredevil. I'm reading Fantastic Four and enjoying it for the first time in forever. Some of these revamps are falling on their face (Uncanny X, Soldier X, the current Hulk run) but at least they are willing to try something different, rather than assume the attitude that "people will buy it because they have been for so long" that DC seems to.

To wrap up this rambly post, I've always been more of a DC kid, but I read titles from both companies. These things seem to go through phases where one company will be really dominant and the other will be playing catch-up. Currently Marvel is the innovator and is putting out more books that have appeal, but DC has a new VP and seems poised to make some major changes in their product.

[Dr.Notsoevil]

I liked the Squadron Supreme. I also like Hex(DC).

The other thread has gotten better and who really cares about spelling when MATH is the future.

[Talon378]

I have been readng comics for a long time now, well over 20 years, and I feel I have a fairly unique perspective into the differences in the two companies.

The primary difference between the two companies is in the overall scope of the characters. Marvel characters are generall human in scope. they are men and women that are primarily human characters that have been blessed/cursed with fantastic powers, but for the most part, they still retain their humanity. There are exceptions to this of course, but for the most part, they have human problems, and human feelings. DC characters, on the other hand are more "Iconic" in nature. They represent an ideal, and the scope of their powers usually make them far beyond the problems of normal humans. DC characters are typically written on a higher scale of power, and the big guns are simply more powerful than their Marvel counterparts. Even Batman, who is likely the most "Marvel" of the DC heroes, is iconic in that he is the supreme embodiment of how far rage and conviction can carry a man in his never ending quest to right the wrong of his parents death. Spider-man exists along a similar storyline, but he does it in a more "human" manner.

[sluggo]

"The exception to this rule would be the Ultimate Line......but it's interesting to see the company that for so long trumpeted that they had no need for revising continuity" - First it mostly depends on the Editor and Chief at the time, and Joe Quesada it probably one of, if not THE, best since Stan Lee. Also Marvel has tried serveral times to restart its continuity (the Liefeld and Lee runs on Captain America and FF, just for one example), however most have sucked while the Ultimate line of books is one of (if not THE) best line out right now. And yes a lot of the storys are very similiar to the "normal" marvel storylines the writers (Miller and Bendis) have the advantage of hind-sight and are crafting the storys in a much better, clearer way.

"Regarding crossovers, DC easily has Marvel matched " I disagree, while DC may do bigger, universe affecting storylines better, Marvel will quiet often have a character show up for a couple pages and leave, but always for a good reason that makes sense and furthers the storyline.

"Some of these revamps are falling on their face (Uncanny X, Soldier X, the current Hulk run)" - Again I disagree. Uncanny X-Men is good book these days, and its constantly in the top 10 or 15 books every month. Its far from "falling on its face". Same with the new Hulk run. Agent X I havn't read and it doesn't seem to be selling great (not bad either) but everyone I Know who reads it loves it.

[drop19]

My reference to the Uncanny X revamp falling on its face regards the highly trumpeted Casey/Churchill era that was part of the massive re-launch when Morrison/Quitely took over. Casey's stories faltered in a big way and Churchill cut out within a few issues. The book meandered for awhile with a variety of artists and no real direction before they finally put a different writer on the book. I can't make any sort of statement on Austen's current run, but I'd have to call the Casey Uncanny run a creative failure for Marvel.

The Incredible Hulk book is one that I've seen a love it/hate it attitude from people. Admittedly, much of my interpretation on this book is based on online reaction which is far from a fair gauge of anything.

And in regards to the third book, I was referring to the Cable revamp Soldier X, which has already been cancelled. In regards to Agent X though, I have yet to hear anything negative. People seem to enjoy Gail Simone's writing quite a bit, which makes it unforuntate that she is off the book due to editorial differences.

Marvel will quiet often have a character show up for a couple pages and leave, but always for a good reason that makes sense and furthers the storyline.

I was thinking more in terms of "event" crossovers as listed by the first poster than just inter-title appearances. Marvel has something of an advantage here because the vast majority of their characters reside in NY, making it much more plausible for them to bump into each other. Some of DC's books like Starman, Green Arrow, Flash, & JSA have made excellent use of the surrounding universe. The JLA/JSA: Virtue and Vice HC was easily one of the best crossover stories in recent years, if not the best.

First it mostly depends on the Editor and Chief at the time, and Joe Quesada it probably one of, if not THE, best since Stan Lee.
I have to agree that more quality product is coming out of Joe's regime than Marvel has had in a real long time. His (along with bad cop Jemas) attempts to take pot shots at the opposition while disregarding valid criticism of fans and retailers alike is pretty disappointing, but it becomes a matter of ignoring the loud mouth and just reading the books. ;)

And yes a lot of the storys are very similiar to the "normal" marvel storylines the writers (Miller and Bendis) have the advantage of hind-sight and are crafting the storys in a much better, clearer way.

For the most part I've enjoyed the Ultimates and Ultimate X. I'm not a Spidey fan so Ultimate Spidey doesn't hold a lot of appeal regardless, although there is no denying the success that book has achieved. Unfortunately the recently finished Ultimate War was a big case of all-hype and no delivery. Without spoiling anything, it felt like 3 issues of build-up with no real pay-off. The book was structured around some sort of conflict between the two groups, but what we got was very brief and very lacking. Maybe this is the intention so they can make Ultimate War 2 down the line.