Marvel vs DC

[turnip_farmer]

Yeah, it is just weird that time travel, interdimensional travel, and basically all sorts of other crazy stuff gets accomplished but curing AIDS? Nah.

And, of course, Reed Richards can cure the average alien-introduced plague, functioning as it doe in a way completely novel to all known medical science, in an afternoon.

 

[Ryujin]

I mean, Clark saves those kids in the bus as well as all those oil workers from the flaming platform. I totally get the criticisms of the last fight, but people forget the earlier stuff.



I really disagree with this, because I find both companies to be roughly of the same consistency: sometimes they are consistent, sometimes they just make more stuff up.

For example, using S.H.I.E.L.D. for everything just gives rise to a number of problems as to what the agency's focus, who runs it, and a bunch of other stuff. The movies really have this problem, where S.H.I.E.L.D. is simultaneously a US agency but also has international oversight? It's quite weird. At a certain level the jumble of different agencies that DC occasionally has like S.H.A.D.E, D.M.O. and the D.E.O. feels real to how damned clumsy and scattered the US Government can be.

But honestly, the best fictional spy organization in comics is basically Greg Rucka's version of Checkmate. S.H.I.E.L.D. can be good, but nothing ever came close to the proper politicking that Rucka and Trautmann had in that book.

But if you want one of the worst-integrated parts of Marvel, it's mutants. The hatred of mutants comes off as weird because it doesn't really extend to other metas, which doesn't really make sense. People just seem to know who are mutants and who aren't, so no one really hates the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man doesn't really get anti-mutant hate despite no one knowing his origin. It's part of why I think the MCU feels so much cleaner in that regard, though I wonder how the hell they are going to be able to integrate mutant hate in a universe where metas have been around forever and are generally viewed as heroic.

If I find anything really different, it's that structurally the DC setting is more dispersed, but the hero community is much more centralized, while the Marvel setting is much more centralized but the hero community is dispersed.

In DC, most heroes do not live in the same city: generally-speaking, most cities have a single hero or team who are the focus of a city. Gotham, Star City, Ivytown, Metropolis, etc... everyone has their own sort of "playground" to play in. However, the hero community itself in DC is much, much more closely organized, with the Justice League at the center of it. You certainly have more teams, but ultimately it feels like there's a relatively central hero authority that has most heroes linking up to it directly or indirectly.

In Marvel, while there are other cities that are in play the classic setting is New York City: you can have teams out in Los Angeles, or the X-Men moving out to San Francisco, but for the most part the action in Marvel is going down in NYC. However, there's not quite the same strong sense of community that DC has: the Avengers have kind of become the top team at Marvel, but they still compete with the X-Men at a power level, and it wasn't until recently that everyone started joining the Avengers team. The hero community itself feels like it's broken up into a lot of small sub-divisions, but there's no central organizing figure or group like DC has.

Personally, I like both: they present different flavors that manage to work really well in their respective universes.

Part of the issue, here, is that most of these characters were created to play in their own little sandbox, with little to no plan on how they would fit into the greater universe. Probably because they were initially considered to be the be-all, end-all of their own universe. With popular characters cross-over events were inevitable, in order to boost flagging sales and, ultimately, entire histories were created to try and bond disparate characters together in a single universe. Which led to multiple universes. Which led to major events to thin out those multiple universes. And so on...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I genuinely don't understand how you saw the bolded part above when Bruce actually retires at the end of the third film (technically the beginning, too).

As for the italicized part, getting Lau was the key part to letting them beat the mob. They come right out and say it.

And yet they don’t seem to have reduced organized crime, only really accomplishing a reduction in police corruption, which is mostly down to Dent and Gordon. Who cares if they got some mobsters, if it doesn’t actually improve life in Gotham?

And Bruce retires...and leaves the cowl for someone else, because he knows Gotham will still need a Batman. Thus, the forever-crusade continues, even though Bruce retires from it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Part of the issue, here, is that most of these characters were created to play in their own little sandbox, with little to no plan on how they would fit into the greater universe. Probably because they were initially considered to be the be-all, end-all of their own universe. With popular characters cross-over events were inevitable, in order to boost flagging sales and, ultimately, entire histories were created to try and bond disparate characters together in a single universe. Which led to multiple universes. Which led to major events to thin out those multiple universes. And so on...

That's certainly part of it. Crises and Wars only started in the 80s, after all.

 

[Eric V]

And yet they don’t seem to have reduced organized crime, only really accomplishing a reduction in police corruption, which is mostly down to Dent and Gordon. Who cares if they got some mobsters, if it doesn’t actually improve life in Gotham?

Wait, TDK makes it clear that the mob is on the ropes due to the efforts of Batman, Gordon, and Dent. It's why they turn to the Joker. Then, by the time TDKR begins, they clearly state how there's no organized crime...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wait, TDK makes it clear that the mob is on the ropes due to the efforts of Batman, Gordon, and Dent. It's why they turn to the Joker. Then, by the time TDKR begins, they clearly state how there's no organized crime...

Okay, I may have missed that statement in TDKR (by far my least favorite Nolan Batman movie).
And yet, Bruce is still completely convinced that a Batman will be needed. Why, if Gotham is free of organized crime, police corruption, etc? Surely Batman isn’t needed in a normal, healthy, city?

As for TDK, they may say that, but they sure as hell don’t show it. A bunch of gangs and other factions that are now trying to fill a power vacuum, with no apparent decrease in the number of people perfectly willing to join an organized crime ring, isn’t actually an improvement.

The shop owner being threatened for protection money doesn’t care who the boss is of the guy threatening him.

 

[Imaculata]

Okay, I may have missed that statement in TDKR (by far my least favorite Nolan Batman movie).
And yet, Bruce is still completely convinced that a Batman will be needed. Why, if Gotham is free of organized crime, police corruption, etc? Surely Batman isn’t needed in a normal, healthy, city?

At the start of TDK, Batman is still rounding up renegade threats such as Scarecrow, but it is not implied that there is much crime left. However, Gotham police can't touch a criminal like Lou, because China doesn't extradite. Batman is the only person who can bring them in, and thus Dent can round them all up. But a large part of TDK's plot revolves around Batman feeling he is no longer needed, and that Dent can take over. I don't really understand how you can come to the conclusion that Batman feels he is needed, when a large part of the plot of TDK revolves around the opposite.


(Pay EXTRA attention to his exchange with Rachel at the end of the video.)

Remember, Bruce retires as Batman after TDK. At the start of TDKR, he IS retired. When he reappears at the start of TDKR, the police are surprised because its been a while since they've seen him.

As for TDK, they may say that, but they sure as hell don’t show it. A bunch of gangs and other factions that are now trying to fill a power vacuum, with no apparent decrease in the number of people perfectly willing to join an organized crime ring, isn’t actually an improvement.

They pretty much do show it. We have a few criminals having their meeting in broad daylight, and then being mocked by the Joker for doing so. The Joker points out that they are afraid of the Batman.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At the start of TDK, Batman is still rounding up renegade threats such as Scarecrow, but it is not implied that there is much crime left. However, Gotham police can't touch a criminal like Lou, because China doesn't extradite. Batman is the only person who can bring them in, and thus Dent can round them all up. But a large part of TDK's plot revolves around Batman feeling he is no longer needed, and that Dent can take over. I don't really understand how you can come to the conclusion that Batman feels he is needed, when a large part of the plot of TDK revolves around the opposite.


Remember, Bruce retires as Batman after TDK. At the start of TDKR, he IS retired. When he reappears at the start of TDKR, the police are surprised because its been a while since they've seen him.



They pretty much do show it. We have a few criminals having their meeting in broad daylight, and then being mocked by the Joker for doing so. The Joker points out that they are afraid of the Batman.

Okay.

You are much more willing than I to take the movies at face value.

 

[Imaculata]

Okay.

You are much more willing than I to take the movies at face value.

Face value has little to do with it. That is what the plot of The Dark Knight is about:

Batman has reduced crime severely at the start of TDK. The criminal underworld, or what remains of it, cowers in fear. Bruce Wayne realizes Batman may no longer be needed, and he is looking for Harvey Dent to step in, so he can retire. That is when the Joker steps in and confronts the gangs of Gotham during their group therapy session with Lou, warning them that Lou is untrustworthy and not as untouchable as they think. Because as he points out, Batman has no need for jurisdiction, he can get to anyone anywhere. This turns out to be true, because Batman flies to China and delivers Lou on Gotham's doorstep. With Harvey stepping up, Bruce is ready to retire the cowl.

And then the plot of the Dark Knight Rises:

Bruce IS retired as Batman, and severely out of shape. That is literally how the movie starts. Gotham no longer needs Batman. Batman is now a wanted criminal, and Dent is a hero, all based on a lie.

Now, whether any of this is realistic is besides the point. This is a fictional city, set in a fictional universe, obeying by laws that make the superhero the good guy and not the villain. In Batman's Gotham, Batman makes a difference and reduces crime. And he does so effectively in the Nolan movies.

In real life, a person like Bruce Wayne could probably dramatically reduce poverty, and thereby reduce crime. But in his own universe, the real issue in Gotham is crime and corruption. Gotham needs Batman, and Batman eventually is able to reduce crime to the point where he is no longer needed.

 

[Eric V]

Okay.

You are much more willing than I to take the movies at face value.

???

What other value is there? It's the actual story the movies are telling...