log in or register to remove this ad

 

Marvel vs DC

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Batman remains pretty popular though. So I'm not sure I'd say most people have a problem with it.
I’ve never met a Batman fan who didn’t both love Batman and have a problem with this. People can have major criticisms of a thing they love.

IME most Batfans either head-canon/fan-fic the problem away, or try to ignore it and just assume that Bruce is doing more than we see on-panel.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
One thing I’d love to see in a Batman comic or tv show or whatever is a long term strategy that bears fruit and makes life better.

they’re gonna reboot in 5 years anyway, so why bother telling stories where nothing really changes? Why not tell the 5 year story where Bruce and his found family win?
 

Shadowedeyes

Explorer
I think most people assume Bruce does stuff off panel. The comics are just focusing on the interesting superhero stuff, not the fund raisers, boardroom meetings or uninteresting patrols where nothing happens. Even the comics mention that Bruce is a big philanthropist.

Superhero comics in general try to hold popular characters in stasis, for the trademarks and so they don't have to retire popular moneymaking characters.
 


Eric V

Hero
There's the comparative thing though. In Stark's world there are many people who have his level of funding. In Batman's world you have to look to one of Superman's foes, Lex Luthor, to find that kind of money.
What does that have to do with the issues I brought up in the MU?
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
My opinion is Marvel has heroes. DC has gods who step on people and destroy cities while they fight.
What DC comics hero has accidentally destroyed a city? (Hal did it on purpose, even if he was insane at the time)
I think most people assume Bruce does stuff off panel. The comics are just focusing on the interesting superhero stuff, not the fund raisers, boardroom meetings or uninteresting patrols where nothing happens. Even the comics mention that Bruce is a big philanthropist.

Superhero comics in general try to hold popular characters in stasis, for the trademarks and so they don't have to retire popular moneymaking characters.
Eh, DC doesn’t do stasis so much as 5-year stretches and then a reboot, these days. Might as well actually use that structure to do soemthing interesting.
That's the Nolanverse, no?
Egads no. What strategy?
 

GreyLord

Hero
I think originally, the difference was how the Superheroes in each comic got started.

DC was making HEROES with epic stories...or, icons that kids could look up to. These were sort of like Heroes beyond belief that did extraordinary things.

DC was still making these types of Comic books when Marvel started up. DC's heroes at the time were supposed to exemplify heroic good, being larger than life and in some ways inspirational to the young readers that read them.

On the otherhand, Marvel said...what if we made these characters more relatable. Rather than have icons for the kids to look up to, have characters which they can relate to. Thus, most Marvel characters have problems relatable in some way to how kids in the 60s and early 70s may have had to deal with. There is poverty, racism, discrimination, disability, emotional problems, and various other things that people may have had in real life.

I'd say in the 60s and 70s the Marvel characters were definitely more relatable because that's how they were designed and it was a different philosophy than what DC and some other comics were having.

This changed in the 80s. Marvel, rather than staying relevant to kids, started to become more of a soap opera type idea which you followed from month to month. I'm not sure why this change occurred, but now it wasn't really dealing with the problems which limited them before, though they still had problems...you were now wondering who was Jean Grey going to end up with, who was Peter Parker dating and would he have heartbreak in a month or two, could he keep that relationship going without having major drama...etc..etc...etc.

DC at the same time moved to a darker attitude around the mid-80s. The Characters were no longer such perfect icons of heroic fantasy, but rather flawed dynamics which had weaknesses that were constantly explored whether that was some physical weakness, emotional or other such weakness. It was comparing and contrasting what MADE them heroes rather than that they just WERE heroes. It was showing that in many of the comics the Villains were actually very similar to the Hero of the comicbook, but it was the difference of CHARACTER that made the hero a hero and a villain the villain.

This is sort of the dynamic that we have today and that they are tryigng to recreate in the movies. For DC, I'm not sure they have been as successful in some ways with the modern DC MCU, though I think Nolan did a GREAT series of Batman films that examines that exact dynamic of DC comics from the 80s and 90s. It's that which appeals to the parents of kids today because those are the DC heroes they grew up with.

Meanwhile, in Marvel most villains (with the exception of Thanos) only lasted a movie, but you don't keep watching the movies for the metaplot of Thanos...it's more of how will Captain America deal with the modern world with his old fashioned habits...Will Tony Stark EVER pop the question to Pepper Potts and live happily ever after...will Thor ever make up and be good brothers with Loki? In this, I think Marvel has done a better job at recreating the Marvel comic dynamics of the 80s and 90s than DC has recently.

However, comicbooks have moved on (no idea if the current ideas will be accepted, as the sales are down quite a bit from earlier decades). Marvel has moved more to interpersonal conflicts now, where the conflict is not so much a soap opera (it's still there though) but one where the exploration of can a hero also be a villain, or can one hero be the villain of another hero at the same time, can we let the privileges we have be the same things that are making it harder for others in life?

DC has, on the otherhand tried to make their comics more akin to a cross between Marvel of the 90s with more of a soap opera feel at times and a combination of more relatable characters with a bigger focus on personal lives rather than heroics.

Perhaps in 30 years the Comic Book movies will also reflect these current trends rather than how they try to reflect the trends of the 80s and 90s that they try to recreate today.
 

Eric V

Hero
Egads no. What strategy?
His conversation with Rachel in Batman Begins makes him see that pursuing people like Joe Chill is pointless when people like Falcone run virtually everything. The Nolan Batman doesn't go out "on patrol" or the like; everything is about taking the mob down to give Gotham a chance, sans corruption.

Egads.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
His conversation with Rachel in Batman Begins makes him see that pursuing people like Joe Chill is pointless when people like Falcone run virtually everything. The Nolan Batman doesn't go out "on patrol" or the like; everything is about taking the mob down to give Gotham a chance, sans corruption.

Egads.
Sure, but I wouldn’t say he had any cohesive strategy or multi-year plan. He likely did less good than Gordon and Dent, IMO.

And even if we accent the overrated Nolan Batman as a good example of what I want, it should be the norm, not something that one trilogy does kinda okay.
 

WayneLigon

Adventurer
The big difference I've noticed between the two is that Marvel has always felt more planned out, while in the DC universe, things 'just happen'. In Marvel, we have vastly better and more detailed world-building. For instance, once we have SHIELD, there's no real need for another global spy agency. Various editors and authors just use SHIELD, which incidentally adds to the entire SHIELD mythos and background. You mention Project Pegasus. and later on someone remembers to use that in their story.

DC, on the other hand, just willy-nilly creates one-shot stuff that we never hear from again unless you have some minutia-loving writer that unearths it later. Instead of a SHEILD, for instance, they eventually had so many independent international spy agencies running around that they had a mini Crisis on Infinite Earths to pare them down.
 

Eric V

Hero
Sure, but I wouldn’t say he had any cohesive strategy or multi-year plan. He likely did less good than Gordon and Dent, IMO.

And even if we accent the overrated Nolan Batman as a good example of what I want, it should be the norm, not something that one trilogy does kinda okay.
He brought them back Lau, which enabled Dent to go after their money. He worked with Gordon and Dent as part of the strategy. Between the three of them, organized crime in GC got busted up badly.

But hey, if you think it's overrated, I'll gladly drop out of this conversation.
 

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
Actually go back and watch all of the dark knight movies. Batman puts more effort in one fight saving innocent bystanders than superman does in any movie starting with man of steel

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.

The big difference I've noticed between the two is that Marvel has always felt more planned out, while in the DC universe, things 'just happen'. In Marvel, we have vastly better and more detailed world-building. For instance, once we have SHIELD, there's no real need for another global spy agency. Various editors and authors just use SHIELD, which incidentally adds to the entire SHIELD mythos and background. You mention Project Pegasus. and later on someone remembers to use that in their story.

DC, on the other hand, just willy-nilly creates one-shot stuff that we never hear from again unless you have some minutia-loving writer that unearths it later. Instead of a SHEILD, for instance, they eventually had so many independent international spy agencies running around that they had a mini Crisis on Infinite Earths to pare them down.

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.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Actually go back and watch all of the dark knight movies. Batman puts more effort in one fight saving innocent bystanders than superman does in any movie starting with man of steel
Sure. The Snyder Superman is very clearly not the Clark of the comics. Snyder either completely fails to understand who Clark is, or is too far up his own vision of reinventing the characters to just make a good Superman movie.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
He brought them back Lau, which enabled Dent to go after their money. He worked with Gordon and Dent as part of the strategy. Between the three of them, organized crime in GC got busted up badly.

But hey, if you think it's overrated, I'll gladly drop out of this conversation.
IMO the movies do a poor job of actually showing that any of it mattered, though. It’s like Nolan felt beholden to the forever-crusade of the comics, even though he was making a complete story in 3 parts, not an ongoing serial.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Given how his Watchmen adaptation went, I'd say a bit of both.
Yeah honestly I think I’d have more respect for his body of work if he focused on new ideas and taking archetypes in new directions and stuff like that, rather than adapting comics.

I mean, he’s an edgelord so I still wouldn’t love most of his work, probably, but I don’t think he’d get nearly as vehement criticism in general.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
That really shouldn't be an issue. In the Marvel Universe, it's canon that Wakanda has the cure for cancer; Reed really should have been able to find it by now, to say nothing of curing AIDS, renewable clean energy, etc.
Except Reed's tried... and failed. And that was with a LOT of help from other qualified Marvel supers.
But, ultimately, superhero geniuses should generally avoid trying to tackle real world problems like cancer and HIV because it risks trivializing real world problems which are pretty much always more complex than beating up a supervillain will solve - giving Wakanda a cure for cancer was probably a mistake on Marvel's part because it then imparts a responsibility onto the Wakandans to use it or try to explain why they didn't (which almost ever goes over well).
 

Eric V

Hero
Except Reed's tried... and failed. And that was with a LOT of help from other qualified Marvel supers.
But, ultimately, superhero geniuses should generally avoid trying to tackle real world problems like cancer and HIV because it risks trivializing real world problems which are pretty much always more complex than beating up a supervillain will solve - giving Wakanda a cure for cancer was probably a mistake on Marvel's part because it then imparts a responsibility onto the Wakandans to use it or try to explain why they didn't (which almost ever goes over well).
Yeah, it is just weird that time travel, interdimensional travel, and basically all sorts of other crazy stuff gets accomplished but curing AIDS? Nah.
 

Eric V

Hero
IMO the movies do a poor job of actually showing that any of it mattered, though. It’s like Nolan felt beholden to the forever-crusade of the comics, even though he was making a complete story in 3 parts, not an ongoing serial.
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. 🤷‍♂️
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top