Marvel vs DC

[Ryujin]

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.

@Dire Bare was pretty on point about that, I think. It's the difference between looking up at Mount Olympus, or finding out that Joey down the pub is suddenly bullet-proof.

 

[Marc_C]

I mostly agree with @Dire Bare, but with Hell's Kitchen TV shows DC has managed to create relatable characters such as Dare Devil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and The Punisher. Teen Titans is also grounded in reality.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It depends on how much of the characters publication history you look at. A lot of characters- even (especially?) major ones, get rewritten. Multiple times.

The original Supeman literally leapt, and didn’t fly. Some versions of the character could literally fly through the hearts of stars and move planets by himself. Thor was NEVER like that., despite being the Asgardian god of strength, etc.

Flash? Breaks the time barrier in almost every incarnation. Quicksilver, not so much. There’s this panel:

Quicksiver never- nor any other super-speedster from another publisher- makes claims like that.

So, yeah, DC has a tendency to have more epic built into their characters at some point.

 

[Umbran]

So it's not the heroes themselves, it's the world that's relatable.

For me, not so much.

The thing with heroes the power of DC's main stable is... with power that high, their emotional lives are not terribly relatable. Their lives as people becomes alien to us.

Now, the world being plausible is an aspect of this - if the world just generally says, "Yay! You're the bestofthebest! We loves you always!" all the time, that will set us up for an emotional experience we can't really understand very well.

 

[MarkB]

So it's not the heroes themselves, it's the world that's relatable.

It's also the world that is more relatable. And that is intrinsic to the settings themselves. DC heroes like Batman and Superman exist in fictional rough-analogues of real-world cities, Gotham and Metropolis being the most famous. Marvel heroes exist in real-world locales, a fair number of them being found in and around New York city. They feel more grounded in reality because they exist in real places that people have visited or seen in movies.

 

[Morrus]

It's also the world that is more relatable. And that is intrinsic to the settings themselves. DC heroes like Batman and Superman exist in fictional rough-analogues of real-world cities, Gotham and Metropolis being the most famous. Marvel heroes exist in real-world locales, a fair number of them being found in and around New York city. They feel more grounded in reality because they exist in real places that people have visited or seen in movies.

Only New York though? Maybe it's different for Americans, but I wouldn't recognize any other American city. I can't believe that the difference is simply that most Marvel heroes operate in a single city though.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

I wouldn't say "epic," but I would say that originally thatDC characters were more often archetypes playing out big tropes while Marvel characters were more often characters ( at least since the Fantastic Four started). For an example from your list, it isn't that Hawkeye is "more relatable" than Green Arrow, but Green Arrow is "Robin Hood, but in the Modern Age, but still with the tights and bow" whereas Hawkeye is a former circus performer informed by a complex series of soap opera background events and relationships...though in the end they are both crime fighters wearing ridiculous costumes who are very good archers ( a primeval power fantasy).

This got messy after the 80's, when DC hired all the Marvel writers they could and had them change everything with Crisis on Infinite Earths to follow more Marvel approaches to character.

 

[Ryujin]

Only New York though? Maybe it's different for Americans, but I wouldn't recognize any other American city. I can't believe that the difference is simply that most Marvel heroes operate in a single city though.

Given how many of the superhero shows are shot in Vancouver or Toronto, Canada, I don't think many Americans recognize many American cities either

'Oh, look! It's a skyline shot of Chicago!!" Next shot has the CN Tower in the background

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Only New York though? Maybe it's different for Americans, but I wouldn't recognize any other American city. I can't believe that the difference is simply that most Marvel heroes operate in a single city though.

It's all of these things. Marvel's characters had real-world problems and "feet of clay" while DCs were impossibly impressive. Marvel's existed (for the most part) in real places (yeah, mostly New York) while DCs cities had aspects of real places, but were also fantastical.

This is historically true - and still "feels" that way, most of the time.

There's a reason you're questioning it now though: Marvel quickly became more successful than DC, so DC tried to "Marvelize" their characters, making them more flawed and relatable (and generally less powerful). More recently, writers started to go crazy amping-up Marvel character's powers. (I think they were foolish to do so - now you have Spider-Man healing as fast as Wolverine used to do, while Wolverine can regenerate from a nuclear blast. It's a disservice to the characters, IMO.)

So yeah, they're closer than ever before. It's still generally true that Marvels are relatable and DCs are epic, though. Which isn't to say that you can't make your DC characters more relatable (you're better of if you do) nor can you not find epic moments for your Marvel characters (but that shouldn't be done by making them overpowered, IMO.)

 

[DonoZen]

Here is a montage of a few different ideas I've run across over the years and combined the best parts, and don't remember at all where I got these points but they totally reflect the difference, in my opinion.


"The main differences between the two universes of DC and Marvel is a kind of inverse logic,
in that DC’s characters are more God-like but in the guise of humans, whereas Marvel characters
are more human but given God-like superpowers.

DC’s heroes are endowed with almost immutable virtue, whereas Marvel’s characters are often thrown
into the superhero position by accident and still deal with their all-too-human condition.

DC generally utilizes fictional locations for its heroes such as Metropolis (for Superman),
Gotham City (for Batman) Central City (for The Flash) and Coast City (for the Green Lantern).

On the other hand, Marvels heroes are usually fighting for cities that we know.
They’re more grounded to reality in that aspect. We see New York City, Washington, D.C.
and San Francisco threatened and destroyed, not some fantasy cities."


Stan Lee said himself he created the heroes to be exactly that from the start to be relatable.