Marvel vs DC

[Dire Bare]

The degree to which Bill Gates actually tries all that hard to spend his fortune helping people is...debatable.

Oh, he tries hard. As hard as he could? Maybe, maybe not. Is he disconnected from reality somewhat, hindering his ability to put his money towards effective philanthropy? I'd argue yes to that! Gates was a super-nerd who came into his success rather early . . . and has been ridiculously wealthy for the majority of his adult life. He earned it, but . . . I don't trust his understanding and empathy for the common man, although I do think his heart is in the right place.

I'm a teacher, and I'm familiar with several of Gates philanthropic works in education. It's all very well-meaning, and gets a lot of resources put into it . . . but often misses the mark and barely moves the needle on anything. But I have a lot more respect for him that I do for billionaires obsessed with space travel and taking humans to Mars. I mean, that's cool and all, but we've got some more pressing issues on this planet I'd rather have my wealthy philanthropists focus on . . . .

 

[MarkB]

Yup during Matt Fraction's IRON MAN run one of the subplots IIRC was Stark attempting to develop a renewable energy source that could be mass produced. I think to an extent that Idea made it over to the very beginning of the 1st Avengers movie, as far as creating a renewable energy source. When we first see him in the movie he's in the process of attaching a power module to an underwater cable that effectively takes Stark Tower off of NY's power grid and using an offshoot of his arc reactor to power the building.

Yep. As Tony says in the movie, he's the world leader in renewable energy at the time, which throws shade on SHEILD's stated goals to do the same thing with the Tesseract.

Interesting side note, I think it was my 2nd or 3rd rewatch of THE AVENGERS that I caught that the energy source that Howard Stark had been attempting to replicate his entire life and that Tony succeeded in doing (with the arc reactor) was the power of the Cosmic Cube aka the Tesseract.

That was my take on it at the time, but I believe it's been subsequently clarified that it was actually the power of Vibranium. The way it goes as I understand it is that Howard Stark knew the atomic structure of Vibranium from when he worked with that one sample of it back in WWII to make Captain America's shield, but it wasn't until years later, by which time what he thought was the one available sample was lost, that he worked out that it was the ideal material to use in the Arc Reactor.

He lacked the technology to create it artificially, so he bequeathed that problem to his son. When Tony forges the alternate material for his personal Arc Reactor in Iron Man 2, he's actually forging Vibranium - which means that he's probably the only person in the world outside of Wakanda with ready access to the material.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Rich people haven't solved the real world's problems with their oodles of money. Some have tried. Bill Gates comes to mind, he works pretty hard at various philanthropic endeavors, and hasn't enjoyed tremendous success in doing so.

Actually, he and his wife have funded some pretty important research and organizations fighting all kinds of issues that strike hardest in developing nations. His reward? Being cast as a RW Lex Luthor by gaslighters and the misinformed.

 

[Dire Bare]

Actually, he and his wife have funded some pretty important research and organizations fighting all kinds of issues that strike hardest in developing nations. His reward? Being cast as a RW Lex Luthor by gaslighters and the misinformed.

You don't believe he's working with Fauci to put chips in the COVID vaccines? Sheep!

(totally kidding, if that's not clear)

Yeah, I'm probably focused on Gates philanthropy I'm most familiar with, in the education field. With which I have not been impressed. But he does support a lot of work in a lot of different fields, for sure.

 

[Cadence]

I thought Busiek and Perez's JLA-Avengers did a beautiful job of comparing and contrasting the two, at least back when it was written and before.

The DC heroes are more consistently looked up to in there world, shape it more, and often outclass their opponents by more.

The differences are microscopic now compared to the 1960s though.
opponents by more.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, he tries hard. As hard as he could? Maybe, maybe not. Is he disconnected from reality somewhat, hindering his ability to put his money towards effective philanthropy? I'd argue yes to that! Gates was a super-nerd who came into his success rather early . . . and has been ridiculously wealthy for the majority of his adult life. He earned it, but . . . I don't trust his understanding and empathy for the common man, although I do think his heart is in the right place.

I'm a teacher, and I'm familiar with several of Gates philanthropic works in education. It's all very well-meaning, and gets a lot of resources put into it . . . but often misses the mark and barely moves the needle on anything. But I have a lot more respect for him that I do for billionaires obsessed with space travel and taking humans to Mars. I mean, that's cool and all, but we've got some more pressing issues on this planet I'd rather have my wealthy philanthropists focus on . . . .

Yep. He mainly needs to have a wake up call that his intellect isn’t going to solve the worlds problems, and he needs to put resources directly into the hands of actual experts. But he has also done things like help stop vaccine research from becoming open source, and instead making deals to get a company he owns stock in get to buy that research privately.

So, he may mean well a lot of the time, but the developing world would likely be better off with a 10 billion dollar grant given to Worldbuilders and other organizations that already work in those countries.

 

[Dire Bare]

Just finished Snyder's "Justice League" and also the first episode of "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" tonight . . . . at least in the competing big screen universes, the Marvel heroes are way more relatable! The new 4-hour long Justice League brings a lot more to Cyborg and the Flash than the theatrical cut, but . . . . I got way more relatable and interesting character drama in ep 1 of Marvel's new show tonight.

Then again, I'm really loving the struggling dad/husband Superman of the new CW show, "Superman & Lois" . . . . so, back-and-forth . . .

 

[Flamestrike]

It's hard to have any investment in a story about a gonzo OTT protagonist.

They dialed the power up to 11 in DCEU with Aquaman on the same power level as Thor from the MCU, Cyborg able to control the economy (and nukes) of the planet with a thought, Golden Age flying Wonder Woman, Flash able to reverse time, and Superman at his prime.

Meanwhile they chronically underplay Batmans strengths (detective work, planning, strategy, stealth, tactical genius), having him charge in headfirst in to battles, and leaving him looking even more of either a Mary Sue with Plot armor up the wazoo, or a guy struggling to take down paradaemon mooks, and spending the rest of the fight getting out of the way.

The movies for me are just spectacle, with the occasional fear for Batmans safety and questioning his sanity as a dude in a cape hanging around with actual Gods as a 'peer'.

All the DCEU protagonists (even Batman, in his power armor) have been hurled through concrete buildings and several hundred Kms per hour and survived without even a broken bone, or any noticeable damage.

Marvel handled the differing power levels of the heroes much better, with even niche protagonists like Ant man getting a solid treatment, the characters arcs being better thought out (Iron Man, Thor and Cap), most characters being relatable, and actually having notable flaws.

If only Disney could have done the same thing with Star Wars Sequels instead of just ad hocing them. A coherent story-line, relatable protagonists not drenched in plot armor, and clear arcs for each character.

 

[Imaculata]

I see it a different way. When I was younger, I saw Batman as you do. Still do sometimes and enjoy the stories. But then I think of this rich guy who could wipe out poverty in his city with the stroke of a pen, or fund the medical research that could save Mr. Freeze's wife, and wonder what that says overall. Renovate Arkham Asylum and treat Edward Nigma, The Joker, Harlene Quinzell... Instead he buys million dollar toys and punches people in the face.

Is Gotham's biggest problem poverty though? The way Gotham City is usually portrayed, its biggest problem is crime. There's little point in trying to solve Gotham's poverty, when the city is so corrupt. Gotham needs someone like Batman. It is written that way on purpose.

Gotham already has an asylum where Batman's villains can be treated, but they have to be caught first. It is never suggested that Arkham Asylum needs a renovation. Batman's villains just keep escaping due to plot convenience. Better security and higher walls wouldn't solve that problem; the place is already a fortress.

As for Mr Freeze's wife, he already had funding originally. Bruce does try to help Freeze any way he can, by providing him with a team of specialists. But then Freeze's wife is killed (depending on the continuety). Could Bruce help Mr Freeze further by funding his research? Probably. But after the death of his wife, Freeze chooses crime and revenge. He's not entirely blameless, even if he is sympathetic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Is Gotham's biggest problem poverty though?

Yes. You can’t have that many muggers and muscle-for-hire types ready to throw in with psychopaths without some pretty grim living conditions, and a population that is desperate.

edit: also homelessness seems to be a major issue in Gotham. Which Bruce is wealthy enough and connected enough to solve.