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

[Ben Urich]

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.

I never said that
I'm off to Flagler College.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Oh, I thought you meant you were from Flagler. I'm tired.

 

[Ben Urich]

It's in St Augustine, North Florida.
Get some sleep, dude.

 

[deemar325]

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.

I recognize what Supes is presented as now, I'm saying it happened in response to guys like Spidey showing up on the scene.

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.

Point taken.

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.

I agree with you here, but the truth of the matter if Stan Lee said "F-ck it!" and left comics before 1963 I'd put money on it that Supes would still be a lifeless bore with bully undertones and Batman would still be spouting "old Chum" to Robin. It probaly would go on like this until Alan Moore and Frank Miller hit in the 80's.

 

[Vanguard07]

When I first started reading comics I started reading both. My dad, who collected comics his whole life gave me boxes of old Spiderman, X-men, Batman, Legion of Superheroes, Avengers, Superman, Green Lantern, etc.
I read em all and i've found characters I like in both.

After reading a fair bit of both universes I decided I liked Marvel far more.
It was for two reasons.

My favorite characters were all Marvel
(Spiderman, X-men, Silver Surfer)
Not that I didnt like and DC characters. There are tons that I love (I just hate their three big ones)

and I just didnt like the way DC's world worked.

People in real life dont react well to what they dont understand. I couldnt relate what I read in DC comics with what I saw in the real world as well.

People in Marvel hate and fear what's different. They're afraid of the unknown to a far bigger degree than i've seen in DC and thats exactly what i'd expect of people.
People in DC find out that there's aliens living among them and they worship them as heroes. They build museums to their "capes" and they trust them far more than i find believable.

It's how people wish the world would react rather than how they see it actually happening. It's not as apparent in the title characters themselves but it's there and it's the reason i see DC as Iconic and Marvel as more down to earth.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I agree with you here, but the truth of the matter if Stan Lee said "F-ck it!" and left comics before 1963 I'd put money on it that Supes would still be a lifeless bore with bully undertones and Batman would still be spouting "old Chum" to Robin. It probaly would go on like this until Alan Moore and Frank Miller hit in the 80's.

I definitely don't think that would be the case. I think changing expectations in readers' tastes, along with a general increase in readers' ages and shrinkage of the comic market, would likely have pushed the maturity level of the comics up considerably regardless of Stan's contribution.

But ultimately that way lies solely speculation. Stan did create Spider-Man and characters across the board--Marvel's included--were revamped to be more relatable and soapish. That's basically indisputable at this point, and I never argued that.

 

[deemar325]

Corp it's like we are running in circles here.

Let's call it a day, I respect your opinion regardless if I agree or not (Which is more than I can say for most of the posters here.)

 

[Kevin]

if you ask me (which no one did by the way) DC has the gods while Marvel has the Humans. i'd roll with the Humans any day of the week.

 

[BrianWilly]

DC has as many humans as Marvel does. And Marvel has as many "gods" as DC does.

The pigeonholing here and there is really pointless; it's only because of popularity and perception that this outdated stereotype of Marvel being so "realistic" and DC being so "unrealistic" manages to stay alive. The Outsiders, a DC superteam, is currently going undercover in a totalitarian African country whereas the Uncanny X-Men are fighting a reality-warping anti-Phoenix destined to stop the cyclical nature of life throughout the cosmos. Which one is more realistic?

Green Lantern has stories about alcoholism and Spider-Man has stories about eye-eating mystic totem beasts. For every single "humane" Marvel story you can bring up, I can give an equally humane DC equivalent. Corp is completely right; at this late in the game where both companies switch writers all the time, how can you possibly assume that one company or another is going to automatically produce human stories as opposed to cosmic ones? It's just as possible for Ms. Marvel to fight aliens as it is for Power Girl. I mean, the Hulk of all people is fighting alien versions of himself in space right now. Marvel can advertise itself all it wants as the more grounded of the two universe and DC vice versa, but it doesn't change the reality that in terms of "groundedness," either universe is completely interchangeable.

As I said in another thread, the only real, solid difference I can perceive between the two universe currently is that in the Marvel universe, superheroes are feared and distrusted whereas in the DC universe, heroes are respected and renowned.

 

[warren_sparta27]

Marvel Big 3:
Captain America
Iron Man
Spider-Man

 

[yahman]

I agree with everything the good Coperal has said .... I my oppinion the two are equaly as good as each other. Marvel does a slightly better job at chracterisation, where as D.C. are far better at producing awe inspiring moments. Marvel focus mainly on their street level realistic based storylines, where as D.C. achieve more sucess with the less realistic world threatening / cosmic story lines.

 

[Guyverjay]

You know Stan the man did create "human" characters like Spider-man, daredevil and the like. But he also created characters like Galactus, Eternity, the Living Tribunal, The vishanti etc etc


Stan rocks ass

 

[LadyVader]

Marvel doesn't have a big three because it's not in the Marvel nature to present a character as larger then life (except maybe for Wolverine). DC has a "big three" because these characters are written like they are "larger then life". Even Batman is more then a human.

 

[Ookami_Wolf1]

DC has been around longer.

Spidey was always meant to be the underdog.

DC only had about three year head start on Timely/Atlas/Marvel. However I believe that Marvel had the first crossover (making that Universe first) with Namor and the original Human Torch having a massive fight in which New York was hit by a tidal wave caused by the Sub Mariner. (Somewhere in 1940, I believe.)

 

[The Question]

I've been wondering why MAX hasn't been pushing the envelope more, myself. Nothing that's come out of the MAX imprint, other than Supreme Power and Punisher, has really used its explicit label to do anything really creative or interesting. You'd think it'd be a no-brainer to throw some more experimental comics under MAX and/or Icon and see how they go. But no. Just more standard Marvel fare, only this time it's got boobies and uncensored naughty words.

Something I think would work for MAX would be to have books centering around Marvel villains. Like, a series about Loki or Dr. Doom under the MAX imprint.

 

[Ben Urich]

Something I think would work for MAX would be to have books centering around Marvel villains. Like, a series about Loki or Dr. Doom under the MAX imprint.

A Doom origin in the MAX imprint would be ****ing dope, especially if Glenn Fabry drew it.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'd love to see a Loki MAX tale from back in the day, before the gods were toned down to fit in with the morals of the present.

 

[The Question]

Personally, were I writing a Loki MAX book, I'd use a characterization for Loki that generally isn't seen. That being, most of the time, he's not that bad a guy. He only really becomes an ******* when it has to do with his adoptive family.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I think his family's at the root of his problems, but he really does live up to his "god of evil" title. In fact, I'd basically make him the Asgardians' Satan figure. He'd be a deceiver and manipulator of the highest order, playing with the lives of mortals like toys while Thor struggles to play catch-up and figure out his next move. Loki's been woefully underutilized as the mastermind he could be, unfortunately.

 

[The Question]

Really, I've always prefered Loki to be portrayed as a con man on a cosmic scale. He's not pure evil, but he does like to manipulate people to reach his goals. And his main source of *******ishness stems from the fact that he really really hates his family.


Also, you mentioned satan. Personally, I've never liked when satan was portrayed as pure evil either. If you look at the bible, he almost never directly harms anyone. He's simply the fellow who questions authority. He's a rebel and an iconoclast. But he's not a genuenly bad guy.

 

[Kotagg]

Personally, I've never liked when satan was portrayed as pure evil either. If you look at the bible, he almost never directly harms anyone. He's simply the fellow who questions authority. He's a rebel and an iconoclast. But he's not a genuenly bad guy.

HAHA! You are my new favorite person.

 

[The Question]

Thanks. Really, I've had in my head an idea for a TV series (most likely an HBO series) in which Lucifer is a main character for some time now. He wouldn't be evil. Just a smooth talking, rebellious, and somewhat cynical diety.

 

[LadyVader]

I'd like to see a Joan of Arcadia type show, with the Devil instead of God. That'd be interesting.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I'd like to see a Joan of Arcadia type show, with the Devil instead of God. That'd be interesting.

Davie and Goliath on Mad TV

 

[Kevin]

Really, I've always prefered Loki to be portrayed as a con man on a cosmic scale. He's not pure evil, but he does like to manipulate people to reach his goals. And his main source of *******ishness stems from the fact that he really really hates his family.


Also, you mentioned satan. Personally, I've never liked when satan was portrayed as pure evil either. If you look at the bible, he almost never directly harms anyone. He's simply the fellow who questions authority. He's a rebel and an iconoclast. But he's not a genuenly bad guy.

i like that.

SATAN RULES!!