Marvel vs DC

[Morrus]

So, let's not 'edition war' over our favourite billion dollar multinationals. But I wanted to zoom in on a particular difference I've seen repeated over and over for years.

"DC characters are more epic. Marvel characters are more relatable."

It's a comparison which is repeatedly used. Is that actually true though? What do you think?

Superman more epic than Thor?

Flash more epic than Quicksilver?

Hawkeye more relatable than Green Arrow?

Darkseid more epic than Thanos?

Scarlet Witch more relatable than Zatanna?

Generally, I feel like they have very similar characters (of course they do -- they spent decades copying each other).

I wonder if it's literally down to Marvel's biggest property is Spiderman (relatable) while DC's is Superman* (epic). Is that why the comparison keeps getting used?



*Well, Batman I guess. But he's not epic.

 

[aco175]

Like most things fantasy (movies, books, characters, etc...) it comes down to relatability and character development. Some of my favorite PCs are ones that have the best story and bits of roleplay that come through. Movies are better when the character are defined and have development.

Marvel feels more developed to me. I know that there are examples in DC, but this is just me. I relate to the heroes better and feel them. Not sure how this is defined.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't know. Batman and Iron Man are the two gadget guy millionaires. Is Stark more relatable because he's a dick, while Wayne is aloof?

DC characters might have problems, but Marvel characters have real world problems. Perhaps it's the storytelling that's more relatable, rather than the characters?

 

[Dire Bare]

Maybe at one point . . . .

But the two houses have been copying each other's successes for decades, to the point they aren't terribly distinguishable to me.

For every DC character, you can easily find a Marvel analogue, and vice versa.

I do think DC plays up more the mythic quality of it's heroes, and their "legacies". Superman is both an individual hero . . . . but his symbol represents a legacy of other heroes as well, Supergirl, the Superboys, Kal-El's kids, other allied Kryptonians and Earthers, and alternate universe incarnations of all of the above. The Justice League, at times, seems presented similar to the 12 Olympians . . . .

But you get into the actual stories about each hero, and they are no more or less "relatable" than their Marvel counterparts. IMO, of course.

 

[Morrus]

But the two houses have been copying each other's successes for decades, to the point they aren't terribly distinguishable to me.

Yeah, that's where I am. So much of it is carbon copies. The main difference these days is the cinematic universes, which go out of their way to play on those alleged differences, but I'm not convinced they actually exist.

 

[CleverNickName]

@Dire Bare summed it up nicely. Both have been copying each other for so long, I can no longer tell them apart. NounMan, The Human Noun, IntensifierMan, whatever. Just take my money and I'll see you at the box office. Bring popcorn.

 

[Umbran]

Superman more epic than Thor?

Broadly speaking, yes. In various parts of Superman's history, he has reversed time, and moved entire planets with only his own strength. He routinely moves through the vacuum of space under his own power and without protection, and indeed fly faster than light to travel between galaxies. He can melt steel by looking at it, and hear a whisper on the other side of the city. He is nigh invulnerable, such that he has, in some stories, survived being at ground zero of a nuclear blast.

Flash more epic than Quicksilver?

Most definitely. The Flash can run fast enough to travel in time (and, at times, "faster than teleportation"), and vibrate his body quickly enough to be able to move through solid matter, and processes thoughts in "under an attosecond". Quicksilver is limited to about Mach 10.

In worrying about Green Arrow and Zatanna, you are leaving out a few of the other common DC heavy hitters - Green Lantern. Wonder Woman. The Martian Manhunter (who has all of Superman's powers, at similar levels, but is also a shapeshifter, and top level psionic as well). Shazam (who is basically another Superman). And, perhaps most importantly, Batman, who is so epic that he has canonicaly worked out ways in which he, a person without superpowers, can take out pretty much every other superhero he's worked with.

I wonder if it's literally down to Marvel's biggest property is Spiderman (relatable) while DCs is Superman (epic). Is that why the comparison keeps getting used?

I think if you put back those top-level JLA-types, the point becomes more obvious.

 

[billd91]

Generally, yes, I think it's true. Marvel characters have been more relatable, in general, than the DC heroes. I think DC has come a long way since the Silver Age in relatability but they had to move there while Marvel staked out that territory early and continues to work it.

And it's not just Spider-Man. Marvel comics have tended toward having characters with regular foibles - Spider-Man worries about money, true, but the Fantastic Four bicker like family, Hawkeye's a pill when not in charge of things, the X-Men are the targets of prejudice and bigotry, and the people around them sometimes die because they fail (Gwen Stacy, I'm looking at you) or they commit suicide (Jean Grey v1.0) to save the world. Maybe it's because the Silver Age DC heroes soldiered through or originated in the cornball 1950s, but I think they had to play a lot of catch-up.

Even the two publishers seem to have some recognition of their differences and their impressions. Back when they did the JLA/Avengers crossover in the early 2000s, the various groups noticed the contrast between how supers are treated in their world vs how the other team is treated in their own. The DC heroes were larger than life and respected by the public, the Marvel heroes were considered with a much more jaundiced eye, their lives and images being much more complicated.

 

[Morrus]

From those answers it sounds to me that the issue isn't one epicness vs relatability but one of realism. Not in the existence of superheroes, but in the way they'd be regarded or treated by the public. So it's not the heroes themselves, it's the world that's relatable.

 

[darjr]

Kinda like the Greek pantheon and the Roman? Which is which?