DC has their Big Three, who are Marvel's Big THree?

[TheCorpulent1]

Well he is right to an extent. Unlike Marvel, DC has kept most of their costumes exactly the same (for any number of reasons) since the characters creations often with only minor changes if any (Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, Batman, Superman, Atom, Captain Atom, Captain Marvel, Lex Luthor Powersuit, Joker, Two Face, Parasite, Hawkman, Black Canary, to name a very few have never changed costumes much at all--without reverting back.). Whereas in Marvel costume updates of very popular characters like Wolverine, Thor, Iron Man, Spider-Man, and the X-Men are very common. So you could say DC is stuck in the fourties. However that doesn't mean it is visually unappealing, DC is always the more iconic and "mythological" of the Universe's and the stable image associated with their heroes is almost necessary. And they most certainly have great artists to draw these characters, however unlike Marvel it does not feel the need to update their look, just their character.

Again, I don't see it. 99% of characters' looks have a cyclical nature. Thor's costume has changed now and then, but it always comes back to the classic Kirby design. Spider-Man always comes back to the classic Ditko design. Daredevil switched once, very early on, and has stuck with the red, except for that crappy black/armor look, almost consistently. Wolverine's gone back to his usual yellow and blues with very, very minor differences. The X-Men in general retain the yellow and blue/black motif, or come back to it after radical changes. Compare it to DC--Black Canary's costume is similar to her mom's original look, but she went through several other incarnations before finally coming to it. Luthor never even looked at a power suit for a pretty long time before the end of the first Superman/Batman arc.

 

[deemar325]

Again, I disagree. That goes back to the "Marvel is more realistic" argument, which I believe is utter, unfiltered bull****. Either publisher can do realistic or outlandish; it's dependent on the writers and the directions they wish to take the characters in. As far as I've seen, Marvel may appear "more realistic" because they focus in on a smaller group of street-level heroes and try to keep their characters in their own little pockets of their universe--Punisher lives in the gritty underbelly of New York and the Silver Surfer flies through space, and never the twain shall meet. DC's just got a more malleable universe, where things can intersect in ways you might not expect. Maybe that's just a less cynical take on it born of my enjoyment of DC's comics, though.

Dude I agree whole heartedly, I'm just a Marvel guy.

DC as a whole just feels like a confusing mess, as much as I might like say the Flash his history and continuity is so all over the place it's off putting.

That probaly why I prefer the Vertigo and the minis like Batman: The Mad Monk.

 

[Ben Urich]

I think the differences between the two can me summed up by their cities.
Marvel has real cities. DC has fictional ones.
In a very broad sense, Marvel is more realistic. But, as Corp said, it all depends on the writers and their direction.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

True, the cities are the one area where DC lacks realism. But I don't think it's that hard to see that Metropolis is a metaphor for the idealistic picture of a bright and shining New York City while Gotham is the seedy underbelly of the same.

Hey Urich, where in Central Florida are you? You gonna matriculate to the U of F like a good Central Floridian for your English degree?

Dude I agree whole heartedly, I'm just a Marvel guy.

DC as a whole just feels like a confusing mess, as much as I might like say the Flash his history and continuity is so all over the place it's off putting.

What, you mean like the X-Men?

 

[Ben Urich]

Flagler
They have a whole class on grammar theory. Sign me up!

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I think the differences between the two can me summed up by their cities.
Marvel has real cities. DC has fictional ones.
In a very broad sense, Marvel is more realistic. But, as Corp said, it all depends on the writers and their direction.

Neither is "realistic" since people with power inherently are not realistic. However Marvel is set in modern day Earth (as in our Earth) as you point out. DC is more ICONIC, it tends to create heroes that resonate for very basic things, almost like ancient Gods. Their powers are more godlike, their personalities are more godlike, however the "realism" is dependent on the writer. Sure Batman seems less plausible than Punisher, but Punisher has probably had more "out there" stories than Batman. However DC has this more "mount Olympus" feel to it, it's suppose to be somewhat dated because the cities like Metropolis (which is reminiscent of the world's fair) and Gotham (reminiscent of old Boston and Chicago) are fictitious and respresent these different time periods both real and fiction. Whereas Marvel is just "our world with heroes" DC is more "what would the world have been like if heroes existed" at least thats how I see it.

 

[deemar325]

True, the cities are the one area where DC lacks realism. But I don't think it's that hard to see that Metropolis is a metaphor for the idealistic picture of a bright and shining New York City while Gotham is the seedy underbelly of the same.

Hey Urich, where in Central Florida are you? You gonna matriculate to the U of F like a good Central Floridian for your English degree?

What, you mean like the X-Men?

LOL! damn you Corp!

Well I can at least say the X-men never had to use 'Superboy Punches' to fix things.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Point, the central idea of Infinite Crisis was really, really ****ing bad. But Marvel's had their share, too. Norman being in Europe, "healing" for decades in real-time? Wanda going crazy off-panel with virtually no setup? Like I've been saying, each has its faults and its fortes.

Flagler
They have a whole class on grammar theory. Sign me up!

Oh, you are coming to UF? Cool, I'll still be around. I graduated, but I'm on staff at the main UF library part-time and I'm looking for a full-time job around here to supplement that.

 

[deemar325]

Neither is "realistic" since people with power inherently are not realistic. However Marvel is set in modern day Earth (as in our Earth) as you point out. DC is more ICONIC, it tends to create heroes that resonate for very basic things, almost like ancient Gods. Their powers are more godlike, their personalities are more godlike, however the "realism" is dependent on the writer. Sure Batman seems less plausible than Punisher, but Punisher has probably had more "out there" stories than Batman. However DC has this more "mount Olympus" feel to it, it's suppose to be somewhat dated because the cities like Metropolis (which is reminiscent of the world's fair) and Gotham (reminiscent of old Boston and Chicago) are fictitious and respresent these different time periods both real and fiction. Whereas Marvel is just "our world with heroes" DC is more "what would the world have been like if heroes existed" at least thats how I see it.

That's definately how you see it, DC couldn't even respond somewhat realistically to 9/11.

 

[Kotagg]

I hate how fast these threads move.

Corp, your earlier comics statistics argument doesn't pan out, since Wolverine isn't at all a part of Uncanny or "Adjectiveless" X-Men.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

That's definately how you see it, DC couldn't even respond somewhat realistically to 9/11.

Well I think my point was that if the world had heroes you'd shift the entire timescale and the entire events and settings of the world would change based around these characters.

 

[deemar325]

Ah..ok.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Neither is "realistic" since people with power inherently are not realistic. However Marvel is set in modern day Earth (as in our Earth) as you point out. DC is more ICONIC, it tends to create heroes that resonate for very basic things, almost like ancient Gods. Their powers are more godlike, their personalities are more godlike, however the "realism" is dependent on the writer. Sure Batman seems less plausible than Punisher, but Punisher has probably had more "out there" stories than Batman. However DC has this more "mount Olympus" feel to it, it's suppose to be somewhat dated because the cities like Metropolis (which is reminiscent of the world's fair) and Gotham (reminiscent of old Boston and Chicago) are fictitious and respresent these different time periods both real and fiction. Whereas Marvel is just "our world with heroes" DC is more "what would the world have been like if heroes existed" at least thats how I see it.

Marvel's got its share of godlike powers, too. For all of DC's vaunted powerhouses, it hasn't got many people who could stand up to the likes of the Silver Surfer or several other ex-heralds. For all of DC's godlike characters, it hasn't got a bona fide god like Thor acting as a superhero protagonist. They're in Wonder Woman's comics and Captain Marvel's comics, yes, but they're always relegated to supporting cast members. Marvel, back in the days when Stan Lee was setting the precedent for everything the Marvel universe could be, included real, live gods in the mix. I think that speaks volumes towards debunking the myth that Marvel is somehow more down-to-earth. Once again, they've only recently made a conscious choice to start focusing on the street-level aspects of the multi-faceted universe that their primary architects set up decades ago. Thor, the Silver Surfer, Dr. Strange, et al. all worked within the mainstream Marvel universe for many, many years, just as the Blue Beetle, Green Arrow, all the multitudes of martial artists, and other street-level characters worked among DC's gods-in-human-clothing for many, many years.

 

[deemar325]

They still couldn't give a heartfelt response to 9/11.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

They made their tributes to 9/11, and I thought they were heartfelt. Plus, given some of the tribute issues to 9/11 that Marvel put out, you could argue that some of them were less realistic than simply not having a 9/11 catastrophe in the comic world at all. Dr. Doom crying for American lives lost? I get that it's symbolic of this tragedy touching the hearts of everyone around the world, but taken in context with Doom's character it doesn't make much sense. Still, I'll concede 9/11. Marvel handled it more as if they were directly affected by it while DC kept it out of the main continuity for the most part and just made ancillary tributes.

I hate how fast these threads move.

Corp, your earlier comics statistics argument doesn't pan out, since Wolverine isn't at all a part of Uncanny or "Adjectiveless" X-Men.

Oh, he was last time I read any of the X-Men comics. 4 of 13 vs. 2 of 7, then. Roughly works out to about .3 in both cases, which is still a similar ratio. So they'd be about as well off as each other without their staple cash cows, which is really all I was trying to prove.

 

[Kevin]

Tony Stark (iron man)
Steve Rogers (captain america)
Sue Storm (invisible woman)
but that's just me

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Marvel's got its share of godlike powers, too. For all of DC's vaunted powerhouses, it hasn't got many people who could stand up to the likes of the Silver Surfer or several other ex-heralds. For all of DC's godlike characters, it hasn't got a bona fide god like Thor acting as a superhero protagonist. They're in Wonder Woman's comics and Captain Marvel's comics, yes, but they're always relegated to supporting cast members. Marvel, back in the days when Stan Lee was setting the precedent for everything the Marvel universe could be, included real, live gods in the mix. I think that speaks volumes towards debunking the myth that Marvel is somehow more down-to-earth. Once again, they've only recently made a conscious choice to start focusing on the street-level aspects of the multi-faceted universe that their primary architects set up decades ago. Thor, the Silver Surfer, Dr. Strange, et al. all worked within the mainstream Marvel universe for many, many years.

Perhaps Stan tried a lot of characters, but because they also set a precedent for keeping these characters on our earth and making actual events affect the characters...sure you have some very popular exceptions like Dr Strange and Thor, but look at the rest: X-Men, Spider-Man, DareDevil, Punisher, Avengers, Fantastic Four....these characters were all much more "down to earth" than DC's. And actually in a very literal sense Marvel is as well. Aquaman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Superman, Hawkman and Captain Marvel for all intents and purposes are aliens not human beings....they are beyond human beings in ways that mutants and standard metas are not. DC does a lot to ground their characters, however this "iconic godlike" nature is much more inherent in them. Sure Marvel has Silver Surfer, but he doesn't have 4 or 5 titles...actually for quiet some time he did not have 1. In other words, even if Stan tried everything it's pretty clear within about 10 or 15 years they settled on a much more earthen Superhero Universe. Furthermore Marvel has always been more of a soap opera than DC...DC for better or worse does a better job of stabilizing relationships. Superman has not been married ten times, most characters haven't been married once. True this is changing a bit, but DC never hired romance artists and writers in the sixties to do their books either....that in and of itself set a precedent.

You can also look at their defining stories. Crisis on Infinite Earths is a powerful space epic which explores what it means to be a hero and perhaps some of the shortcomings of their old universe. Phoenix Saga which contains equally godlike characters, is at its essence a "love story". Love very much exists in DC but it has a different role. For example no one had a huge problem with Spider-Man 1 and 2 being having a love story, but Batman Begins biggest complaint from fans (despite being a killer film) was that there was a love story (however to be fair Katie Holmes couldn't hold her own in that film).

So they are different, and while Marvel has godlike and icons they are still very different than DC. Also DC probably has more of an image to maintain than Marvel does. As you said yourself in this thread, outside of Wolverine and Spider-Man not many people know many Marvels...whereas I bet a ton of people can rattle off the big three in DC and tell you at least 2 or the 3 secret IDs.

You can take it character by character, but in the end DC is more powerful than Marvel, their earth is bigger and more ficticious.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

The FF are as outlandish as characters come. Their adventures were very rarely limited to Earth, and were in fact just as weird and unearthly as the likes of Thor or the Silver Surfer. The Avengers handle big threats just as the JLA did--Korvac, Kang, intergalactic wars, etc. Green Lantern is not beyond a human in any way; he's a human with a weapon. Aquaman's as inhuman as Namor, Marvel's first character. The Martian Manhunter tackled many of the same issues as the Vision did, just from a different starting point--but really, isn't a machine with a soul as far from "down to earth" as an alien trying to fit in with humanity? Hawkman's original character was again simply a human with alien devices, no more inhuman than a man with a tool. Wonder Woman also didn't wield nearly as much power initially as she does now. For every down to earth character at Marvel, there's likely a DC counterpart. Again, people who don't know that much about DC simply might not be familiar with them.

I will never buy that anything other than a few cities' names--which are still excrutiatingly obvious metaphors for real cities nonetheless--is "more fictitious" from DC than from Marvel. They're different--that much is obvious. But they're each as unrealistic as the other in all the ways that count.

 

[deemar325]

They made their tributes to 9/11, and I thought they were heartfelt. Plus, given some of the tribute issues to 9/11 that Marvel put out, you could argue that some of them were less realistic than simply not having a 9/11 catastrophe in the comic world at all. Dr. Doom crying for American lives lost? I get that it's symbolic of this tragedy touching the hearts of everyone around the world, but taken in context with Doom's character it doesn't make much sense. Still, I'll concede 9/11. Marvel handled it more as if they were directly affected by it while DC kept it out of the main continuity for the most part and just made ancillary tributes.

Point and point.


Oh, he was last time I read any of the X-Men comics. 4 of 13 vs. 2 of 7, then. Roughly works out to about .3 in both cases, which is still a similar ratio. So they'd be about as well off as each other without their staple cash cows, which is really all I was trying to prove.

End the DC has it's strengths and so does Marvel.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The FF are as outlandish as characters come. Their adventures were very rarely limited to Earth, and were in fact just as weird and unearthly as the likes of Thor or the Silver Surfer. The Avengers handle big threats just as the JLA did--Korvac, Kang, intergalactic wars, etc. Green Lantern is not beyond a human in any way; he's a human with a weapon. Aquaman's as inhuman as Namor, Marvel's first character. The Martian Manhunter tackled many of the same issues as the Vision did, just from a different starting point--but really, isn't a machine with a soul as far from "down to earth" as an alien trying to fit in with humanity? Hawkman's original character was again simply a human with alien devices, no more inhuman than a man with a tool. Wonder Woman also didn't wield nearly as much power initially as she does now. For every down to earth character at Marvel, there's likely a DC counterpart. Again, people who don't know that much about DC simply might not be familiar with them.
.

However every parrallel character you list is second tier in Marvel...Marvel makes it bucks off of these human characters. Fantastic Four at it's roots is about a family, not about wild adventures. Avengers may fight cosmic epics, just like X-Men but the undertones of the stories are still different. Your hung up on this "realism" thing, perhaps your having trouble convincing yourself of it, but as I said neither is "realistic". However Marvel deals with issues that are different from DC. Are their icons in real life, yes. Are their Willie lowman's as well, absolutely. Marvel's prominent characters are much more human and less godlike than DC, that in itself is a fact. Captain America, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, X-Men have far different feels to them than JLA, Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman. Just look at Frank Miller's DareDevil and Batman, you'd be hard pressed to say there is not some inherent difference that drove those characters in different directions. As I say DC has an image to maintain, and it's a godlike one....Until Spider-Man gets a fortress of solitude and DareDevil is not working out of a one bedroom apartment (and has a Devil cavern) and both work out of fictional cities which are obviously built up around the characters...you'll have trouble making the case that DC is more or the same "down to earth" (literally) as Marvel.

 

[deemar325]

However every parrallel character you list is second tier in Marvel...Marvel makes it bucks off of these human characters. Fantastic Four at it's roots is about a family, not about wild adventures. Avengers may fight cosmic epics, just like X-Men but the undertones of the stories are still different. Your hung up on this "realism" thing, perhaps your having trouble convincing yourself of it, but as I said neither is "realistic". However Marvel deals with issues that are different from DC. Are their icons in real life, yes. Are their Willie lowman's as well, absolutely. Marvel's prominent characters are much more human and less godlike than DC, that in itself is a fact. Captain America, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, X-Men have far different feels to them than JLA, Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman. Just look at Frank Miller's DareDevil and Batman, you'd be hard pressed to say there is not some inherent difference that drove those characters in different directions. As I say DC has an image to maintain, and it's a godlike one....Until Spider-Man gets a fortress of solitude and DareDevil is not working out of a one bedroom apartment (and has a Devil cavern) and both work out of fictional cities which are obviously built up around the characters...you'll have trouble making the case that DC is more or the same "down to earth" (literally) as Marvel.

Damn!! That's a good point!!!

Now that I think about it, never once have I felt like the DC characters were real people or felt real, I've always been aware of their falseness. While Spidey(Peter Parker) hell Tony Stark felt like actual people not proto-typical personalities or blank 'place heroic personality' here types like Superman.

What's really original or specific (personality wise) about Clark Kent from Hal Jordan from Barry Allen from Wonderwoman? There are exceptions like Green Arrow, but really it wasn't until later on that Ollie became a bleeding heart liberal he was as cardboard as the rest of them.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

However every parrallel character you list is second tier in Marvel...Marvel makes it bucks off of these human characters. Fantastic Four at it's roots is about a family, not about wild adventures. Avengers may fight cosmic epics, just like X-Men but the undertones of the stories are still different. Your hung up on this "realism" thing, perhaps your having trouble convincing yourself of it, but as I said neither is "realistic". However Marvel deals with issues that are different from DC. Are their icons in real life, yes. Are their Willie lowman's as well, absolutely. Marvel's prominent characters are much more human and less godlike than DC, that in itself is a fact. Captain America, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, X-Men have far different feels to them than JLA, Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman. Just look at Frank Miller's DareDevil and Batman, you'd be hard pressed to say there is not some inherent difference that drove those characters in different directions. As I say DC has an image to maintain, and it's a godlike one....Until Spider-Man gets a fortress of solitude and DareDevil is not working out of a one bedroom apartment (and has a Devil cavern) and both work out of fictional cities which are obviously built up around the characters...you'll have trouble making the case that DC is more or the same "down to earth" (literally) as Marvel.

Exactly, Marvel makes its money on the perception from its fans that they're more down to earth, so they've focused on a specific group of characters that fit that mold while marginalizing the ones who don't. Hence, Thor is dead, the Silver Surfer hasn't had a decent ongoing in years, Dr. Strange hasn't had a decent ongoing in even longer, and the only time their really big, outlandish villains like Fin Fang Foom ever show up anymore is to be parodied in the likes of Nextwave. DC, on the other hand, has found that a broader range of characters and situations sell well for them, so they've focused on inclusiveness. Creators can pull from practically everywhere--mythology, cosmic space operas, sci-fi, gritty crime drama, basic superhero action, and more--to tell their stories, resulting in comics like Firestorm and Green Lantern Corps running right alongside the political intrigue of Checkmate or street-level action of the Bat-family's titles. Regardless of what sells, however, both publishers have the same things, ranging from the grit of the Punisher or Batman to the far-flung space adventures of Green Lantern or the Silver Surfer. Neither is more down to earth than the other because these things exist in both; people have simply come to perceive Marvel as being down to earth and Marvel has accomodated by cutting the other stuff out of the picture--relatively recently, I might add. Fifteen or twenty years ago, Thor and the Silver Surfer sold almost as well as Spider-Man and the X-Men.

And I know that the FF is a family, but the wild adventures is every bit an integral part of their comics as the family aspect. The FF without crazy sci-fi is like Dr. Strange without magic; you can't have one without the other. Hell, Kirby partially defined his super-sci-fi, colossal machine style on the FF. Reed develops patent-worthy inventions before breakfast, they ride around in a detachable vehicle called "the Fantasticar," and they have interdimensional portals and time machines strewn about their house. Oh, their giant, skyscraper-with-a-"4"-on-top house, I might add. The FF are science fiction as much as they are a family. That's why the best runs--Waid's, Lee's, Byrne's--have all incorporated a good mix of the two.

 

[deemar325]

Exactly, Marvel makes its money on the perception from its fans that they're more down to earth, so they've focused on a specific group of characters that fit that mold while marginalizing the ones who don't. Hence, Thor is dead, the Silver Surfer hasn't had a decent ongoing in years, Dr. Strange hasn't had a decent ongoing in even longer, and the only time their really big, outlandish villains like Fin Fang Foom ever show up anymore is to be parodied in the likes of Nextwave. DC, on the other hand, has found that a broader range of characters and situations sell well for them, so they've focused on inclusiveness. Creators can pull from practically everywhere--mythology, cosmic space operas, sci-fi, gritty crime drama, basic superhero action, and more--to tell their stories, resulting in comics like Firestorm and Green Lantern Corps running right alongside the political intrigue of Checkmate or street-level action of the Bat-family's titles. Regardless of what sells, however, both publishers have the same things, ranging from the grit of the Punisher or Batman to the far-flung space adventures of Green Lantern or the Silver Surfer. Neither is more down to earth than the other because these things exist in both; people have simply come to perceive Marvel as being down to earth and Marvel has accomodated by cutting the other stuff out of the picture--relatively recently, I might add. Fifteen or twenty years ago, Thor and the Silver Surfer sold almost as well as Spider-Man and the X-Men.

And I know that the FF is a family, but the wild adventures is every bit an integral part of their comics as the family aspect. The FF without crazy sci-fi is like Dr. Strange without magic; you can't have one without the other. Hell, Kirby partially defined his super-sci-fi, colossal machine style on the FF. Reed develops patent-worthy inventions before breakfast, they ride around in a detachable vehicle called "the Fantasticar," and they have interdimensional portals and time machines strewn about their house. Oh, their giant, skyscraper-with-a-"4"-on-top house, I might add. The FF are science fiction as much as they are a family. That's why the best runs--Waid's, Lee's, Byrne's--have all incorporated a good mix of the two.

That's the thing Marvel has over DC from the beginning, the FF are a family in wild sci-fi setting it's big cosmic stuff, but the core of it is family Stan Lee from the beginning created these characters to at it's core be about common relatable issues wrapped in fantastic trappings. If anything DC ripped off Marvel's deal. Yeah DC has legacy heroes, but it was more or less cause of the how dated or out of print alot of their characters where.

DC was generic as hell from the get go and when Stan Lee started injecting a soul into his superheroes during the 60's DC was like "f-ck! Marvel has fantastic adventure mixed with real personalities with flaws and emotions. We got Papa Smack!"


That's the difference Marvel had 'Ben Grimm loveable&loyal who also felt trapped and ashamed of his own visage, while still being the guy who yells It's Clobberin' Time!' While DC was stuck with 'Bland Clark Kent who's also Blank Slate Superman.'

It wasn't until after Stan&Ditko did DC really invest in bringing a soul as it where to it's heroes.' so Marvel has been more realistic on an emotional level from the start.

 

[Teen Lantern]

Cap
Iron Man
Mr. Fantastic

 

[TheCorpulent1]

That's the thing Marvel has over DC from the beginning, the FF are a family in wild sci-fi setting it's big cosmic stuff, but the core of it is family Stan Lee from the beginning created these characters to at it's core be about common relatable issues wrapped in fantastic trappings. If anything DC ripped off Marvel's deal. Yeah DC has legacy heroes, but it was more or less cause of the how dated or out of print alot of their characters where.

DC was generic as hell from the get go and when Stan Lee started injecting a soul into his superheroes during the 60's DC was like "f-ck! Marvel has fantastic adventure mixed with real personalities with flaws and emotions. We got Papa Smack!"


That's the difference Marvel had 'Ben Grimm loveable&loyal who also felt trapped and ashamed of his own visage, while still being the guy who yells It's Clobberin' Time!' While DC was stuck with 'Bland Clark Kent who's also Blank Slate Superman.'

It wasn't until after Stan&Ditko did DC really invest in bringing a soul as it where to it's heroes.' so Marvel has been more realistic on an emotional level from the start.

Stan revolutionized comics with Spider-Man's everyman archetype and soap opera trappings, I'll grant you that. But everything else you mentioned is totally subjective and, at this late stage in the game, entirely moot. Superman may have started out a "strange visitor from another world," but great pains have been made for the last several decades to make him more relatable. Greg Rucka's recent Adventures of Superman run didn't present an implacable alien, it presented a man who bears the weight of the world on his shoulders because he has the powers to make the most difference. Read Joe Kelly's Superman stories and then tell me that he's not every bit as human at this point as any of Marvel's characters. No offense--this may not be the case for you personally--but by and large, it seems that most people who write Superman off as unrelatable simply haven't read that much with him.

The Fantastic Four all filled archetypes as much as Superman did initially, too. Reed was the brainy inventor, Johnny was the hotheaded kid, Ben was the stubborn strongman, and Sue was the token girl who never really did anything useful. They've grown far beyond those initial bounds, of course, but so has Superman, by your own admission. Stan Lee got the ball rolling on those kinds of developments and growth, granted, but my argument is--and has been from the start--that in the here and now, neither DC nor Marvel is better than the other at being "down to earth." They've all got fleshed out heroes with a lot of character developments under their belts.

Also, there's something to be said for unrelatability, on the other hand. Gaiman's Sandman is a shining example of godlike characters played entirely as godlike characters and still being completely engaging--even engrossing. And again, Marvel's own Silver Surfer presented a totally unrelatable alien with godlike powers who waxed philosophic on the nature of existence, but he sold well once upon a time. When Marvel recently tried to humanize him by grounding him on Earth and making him interact with humans, it didn't take. That's why this Annihilation Surfer mini has been such a godsend to his fans. He's finally the Surfer we want to see again, not one with the ill-fitting trappings of humanity foisted upon him.