Is DC more progressive than Marvel?

[Zeu]

Hasn't DC recently said that they have been too "white" for years?

Yeah, but they are taking steps to change this, starting by tunring Batgirl, one of the very few asian characters in their roster into.....a..... white..... er, nevermind.

 

[Herr Logan]

Its funny, my mom is always nagging that I spend too much money on comics, I always tell her I could be like the other kids and spend it all on drugs and beer. It keeps her quiet for a couple of days.

Heh!

Yeah, I never had any kind of problem with drugs or alcohol. You'd think that'd make up for the fact that I'm 24, not done with school yet and still leeching off my parents.

Hell, if I liked the taste of alcohol, or at least didn't hate it, I'd be drunk all the time.

 

[gildea]

Hell, if I liked the taste of alcohol, or at least didn't hate it, I'd be drunk all the time.

that soooo defeatist, there is a drink out there for everyone!!

 

[Darthphere]

Heh!

Yeah, I never had any kind of problem with drugs or alcohol. You'd think that'd make up for the fact that I'm 24, not done with school yet and still leeching off my parents.

Hell, if I liked the taste of alcohol, or at least didn't hate it, I'd be drunk all the time.

I only drink socially, its not like I go out of my way to drink a 6 pack or soemthing, and I never drink beer, I cant stand the taste.

 

[Herr Logan]

that soooo defeatist, there is a drink out there for everyone!!

This is why I come here.Only here do I find hope.

 

[The Batman]

DC may of created the template, but writers Stan Lee artists Jack kirby,steve ditko, and the other silver-age marvel comics writers modernized and revloutioned the superhero generation. Marvel has had ethnic characters for years, they had the first comic book about a Black character [Black Panther]. everything you see today in the modern superhero, their personal struggle their moral doughts, and their scarifices they must make. You have to thank Marvel comics for all that, because before spider-man,X-men,Hulk, and fantastic 4, superheros were seeminlgy flawless beings.

Nowadays Marvel comics seems to be going forward and not doing things they did in the past. DC comics seems to be trying and bring back silver-age elements, even though the silver-age is over and dead.

Sure, Marvel gave us Human superheroes.

But DC, with Books like Watchman, DKR, and Kingdom Come, took that to an even bigger level of complexity. They created The first truly adult superhero line with Vertigo, which marvel tried to copy with the MAX line. They were the first company to throw out years of continuity and start fresh, which marvel tried to do first with heroes reborn, and then the ultimate line. How about movies? Thanks to Superman: The Movie, it was a DC comic character that established the template which all superhero movies still follow today. Cartoons? It was Batman: The Animated Series that showed that Superhero cartoons can be credible, and broke new ground with its art style and production value. Sure, Marvel brought us complex and diverse heroes, as well as a universe that felt truly alive with interacting characters. But DC managed not only to create a whole industry, but it made comics credible in movies, cartoons, and an audience that thought comics were for children.

And nowadays, Marvel isnt as much about going forward than it is pissing on their characters and what they stand for. There's stuff like Daredevil and Captain America that is new and fresh, but then you have stuff like Sins Past and Avengers Dissembled. Is that the price for moving forward? Sacrificing what made the characters great in the first place? No wonder DC is stuck in the silver age. It seems like the alternative is much worse

 

[Darthphere]

But didnt you just make a thread a month or two ago talking about how DC has been ****ting on characters lately?

 

[The Batman]

That's a possibility, but even though I've grown cynical and bitter about the world in general, I've found reading certain issues from back in the Silver Age entertaining and actually intellectually stimulating. I don't see the same imagination and intelligence in today's Marvel. I certainly don't see the kind of respect for characterization and continuity. In terms of imagination, maybe that has something to do with the nature of storytelling and how there's only a few basic stories in the world, and everything now is just a combination or permutation of those, but as for the intelligence and integrity, there's just no excuse, especially for the latter. Is it unreasonable for me to compare newer writers to the likes of Stan Lee (who was verbally brilliant and genuinely likable as a writer) and Chris Claremont (when he was on top of his game... as in, not today)? Possibly, but I certainly expect more than what Brian Michael Bendis is slowly, gradually, moderately, piecemeal, imperceptibly trickling out in "decompressed" stories that are all talking heads that say nothing worthwhile and ridiculous, vicariously cathartic displays of anger and violence tht is clearly aimed at teenagers.
Above all, there is absolutely no excuse for rewriting major parts of continuity (that was created by real writers who knew how to deliver decent stories) and having superheroes acting completely out of character without being under alien mind control or whatever standard plot device allows superheroes to act out of character for very short periods of time.

Maybe Marvel comics have outgrown me. That doesn't mean I'm immature, necessarily. To me, it means that Marvel is over the hill. Tired. Wretched. That dog won't hunt no more. Like I said before, it's a dissipated (as in a dirty old man) shell of its former self. It's absolutely appalling and pathetic how desperately Marvel tries to revamp itself every year and try to seem young and fresh. It's not young and fresh. It will never be young and fresh, although it certainly is becoming more and more immature. Introducing adult subject matter doesn't make the storytelling more mature. Children in the schoolyard use curse words and talk about stuff they don't understand, too. Give me Stan Lee and all his naive, non-lethal, idealistic heroes in brightly colored costumes over "realistic" superpowered enforcers who all either work for or have to speak to SHIELD every single issue. I don't care if there's a Patriot Act in real life-- I don't need to be reminded that the government is all up in everybody's business by having Nick Fury hop out and remind everyone he knows everyone's identities or that they have to clear it with the feds first if they want to throw down with some villains.

When the world made it clear it was going to continue to suck, I took solace in Marvel Comics, because even if a lot of the battles were pointless and I didn't agree with a lot of the characters' ethical codes (I think it's stupid not to kill villains in real life, but I accept it in superhero fiction), it was fun, intelligent, creative, and not out to cheat and insult me. All Marvel Comics do now is insult me with false advertising (what they call "The Amazing Spider-Man" is neither amazing nor the real Spider-Man anymore) and absolute trash for story content. Marvel is not a source for escapism or inspiration anymore. One of us outgrew the other, and I don't care which.

I'd say Marvel was pretty much perfection from 1961-1990 or so....

 

[Darthphere]

This is a fact, DC ****s up, Marvel ****s up. DC does great things, Marvel does great things. End of story.

 

[The Batman]

But didnt you just make a thread a month or two ago talking about how DC has been ****ting on characters lately?

I said that, but i dont necessarily see your point.

In fact, that pretty much goes in line with me *****ing about how everyones getting pissed on.

 

[gildea]

This is a fact, DC ****s up, Marvel ****s up. DC does great things, Marvel does great things. End of story.

amen.

I barely understand loyalty to companies anyway.

 

[Darthphere]

I said that, but i dont necessarily see your point.

In fact, that pretty much goes in line with me *****ing about how everyones getting pissed on.

No, because your last post was pretty much a "***** about Marvel" post.

 

[The Batman]

No, because your last post was pretty much a "***** about Marvel" post.

So, how come you didnt say anything when I *****ed about DC a month ago? But, basically, you're right. For every Return to classic Batman, theres Bart Allen as Flash acting widely out of character. For every Astonishing X-Men, there's JM'S Amazing Spider-Man.

 

[Darthphere]

So, how come you didnt say anything when I *****ed about DC a month ago? But, basically, you're right.

I did say something, I agreed with you.t: What im saying is, I was confused because you seemed to be contradicting yourself.

 

[The Batman]

I did say something, I agreed with you.t: What im saying is, I was confused because you seemed to be contradicting yourself.

Hmmm....i think it was cause i was responding to Eros' claim about DC reverting to silver age.

 

[Darthphere]

Hmmm....i think it was cause i was responding to Eros' claim about DC reverting to silver age.

Probably.

 

[Herr Logan]

I'd say Marvel was pretty much perfection from 1961-1990 or so....

Well, I'm too literal-minded to say "perfection," and I'm no expert on a lot of what happened in the late 80's, but yeah, I'll go with that.

The crappy thing is, I didn't get into comics until the 90's. Then again, reading crappier comics from my own lifetime is probably what made me so pleasantly surprised when I started reading the "Essential" publications for the X-Men and Spider-Man. I was like, "Damn, wish I grew up back then." Then again, I'm glad I read those when I was old enough and smart enough to see how brilliant that stuff was and how it relates to psychology, philosophy and sociology. I can't say they were all that accurate or insightful when it comes to real-life criminology (my major), but those stories are still pretty cool for someone interested in the social sciences and human nature, especially the Spider-Man stories.

 

[Ben Urich]

I think DC's the better company, but I don't think any company has done anything new or innovative recently. Maybe DC with 52, but that's not, like, re-inventing the comic book or anything.

 

[The Batman]

Well, I'm too literal-minded to say "perfection," and I'm no expert on a lot of what happened in the late 80's, but yeah, I'll go with that.

The crappy thing is, I didn't get into comics until the 90's. Then again, reading crappier comics from my own lifetime is probably what made me so pleasantly surprised when I started reading the "Essential" publications for the X-Men and Spider-Man. I was like, "Damn, wish I grew up back then." Then again, I'm glad I read those when I was old enough and smart enough to see how brilliant that stuff was and how it relates to psychology, philosophy and sociology. I can't say they were all that accurate or insightful when it comes to real-life criminology (my major), but those stories are still pretty cool for someone interested in the social sciences and human nature, especially the Spider-Man stories.

Those first thirty years pretty much define marvel for me. Those years were some of the best of the best. Everything you need to know about the characters came from those years. After that, the characters changed, but the changes dont seem to stick that much, or are pretty much forgettable for the most part.

 

[twylight]

The Batwoman thing smacks of gimmickry.

Indeed.

Heh!

Yeah, I never had any kind of problem with drugs or alcohol. You'd think that'd make up for the fact that I'm 24, not done with school yet and still leeching off my parents.

Wow, so it's NOT just me?

 

[Purple Man]

Batwoman a cheap gimmick?

As opposed to the original who was such a serious and well thought out chara-- Hahahaha!

I'm sorry, I couldn't type that out without laughing and making my fingers type out an identical expression.

Batwoman is a gimmick, Supernova is a gimmick, 52 is a gimmick.

Superman back in 1938 was a gimmick, Superman in 2006 is a gimmick that makes a lot of money.

 

[gildea]

point.

but theres gimmickery and then there's gimmickery pandering to cheap sterotypes to titilate fanboys.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

Sure, Marvel gave us Human superheroes.

But DC, with Books like Watchman, DKR, and Kingdom Come, took that to an even bigger level of complexity. They created The first truly adult superhero line with Vertigo, which marvel tried to copy with the MAX line. They were the first company to throw out years of continuity and start fresh, which marvel tried to do first with heroes reborn, and then the ultimate line. How about movies? Thanks to Superman: The Movie, it was a DC comic character that established the template which all superhero movies still follow today. Cartoons? It was Batman: The Animated Series that showed that Superhero cartoons can be credible, and broke new ground with its art style and production value. Sure, Marvel brought us complex and diverse heroes, as well as a universe that felt truly alive with interacting characters. But DC managed not only to create a whole industry, but it made comics credible in movies, cartoons, and an audience that thought comics were for children.

And nowadays, Marvel isnt as much about going forward than it is pissing on their characters and what they stand for. There's stuff like Daredevil and Captain America that is new and fresh, but then you have stuff like Sins Past and Avengers Dissembled. Is that the price for moving forward? Sacrificing what made the characters great in the first place? No wonder DC is stuck in the silver age. It seems like the alternative is much worse

See, I think you're still giving Marvel more credit than they deserve. This argument that always gets bandied around, that they created "human superheroes"...what? They created caricatures of humanity. Spider-Man was never that relatable, Marvel fans just wanted him to be. He's a GODDAMN GUY WITH THE ABILITIES OF A GODDAMN SPIDER. There is no relating to that. Marvel didn't create "human superheroes," they created weaklings and emo-boys. DC was right to keep their heroes iconic, and through all these trends of gritty realism, and the current Silver Age realism, DC heroes have stayed iconic. At the end of the day, there are no greater heroes than the Big Seven.

As for "social relevance," the argument about the X-Men representing racial tensions for the first time in superhero comics ever, that also rings hollow. Superman was an update of the Jewish folk legend of the golem. His creators were Jewish, and he was invented during a time of great anti-semitism in Europe and in the USA. He was the answer, for these two Jews, to millennia of abuse. No, the allegory was not as blatantly obvious as the X-Men allegory, but allegorical storytelling is much stronger if it requires multiple levels of perception. Any **** can hit you over the head with something. That's why people don't like Winick's incessant AIDS rampage. There's no subtlety to it like there was at the beginning, with Pedro and Me. It's a big AIDS-colored turd, squatted all over the page.

And Marvel, for all its touted social posturing, never was able to come up with as good of a CONVERSATION (not diatribe, not polemic, not rant) about the state of the nation in the 1970s as DC did with Green Lantern-Green Arrow. DC successfully discussed what was going on at that time, and while they may have come out on a leftist side, there was always a very clear notion that this country is not a monolith, and neither is truth.

Marvel has never been able to deal with issues such as drugs and sexual crimes in as respectful and serious a way as Grell's Green Arrow did.

I'm sorry, I just really don't see any time when Marvel was on the cutting edge of anything.

And for the record, I'm pleased with DC's Silver Age redux. Spliced together with less grim realism, it works quite well.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

All Marvel Comics do now is insult me with false advertising (what they call "The Amazing Spider-Man" is neither amazing nor the real Spider-Man anymore) and absolute trash for story content.

I hate to keep saying this, but that's all they were ever doing.

 

[Fading]

See, I think you're still giving Marvel more credit than they deserve. This argument that always gets bandied around, that they created "human superheroes"...what? They created caricatures of humanity. Spider-Man was never that relatable, Marvel fans just wanted him to be. He's a GODDAMN GUY WITH THE ABILITIES OF A GODDAMN SPIDER. There is no relating to that. Marvel didn't create "human superheroes," they created weaklings and emo-boys. DC was right to keep their heroes iconic, and through all these trends of gritty realism, and the current Silver Age realism, DC heroes have stayed iconic. At the end of the day, there are no greater heroes than the Big Seven.

They gave us the most human a comic character can be tho. Superman is unrelatable, Spiderman started out as a bullied kid who got powers that changed his life around (akin to hitting puberty and getting confidence). Marvel gave us the flawed superhero that we can relate too better, DC was about the Superhero better than the rest of us we can look up to.

As for "social relevance," the argument about the X-Men representing racial tensions for the first time in superhero comics ever, that also rings hollow. Superman was an update of the Jewish folk legend of the golem. His creators were Jewish, and he was invented during a time of great anti-semitism in Europe and in the USA. He was the answer, for these two Jews, to millennia of abuse. No, the allegory was not as blatantly obvious as the X-Men allegory, but allegorical storytelling is much stronger if it requires multiple levels of perception. Any **** can hit you over the head with something. That's why people don't like Winick's incessant AIDS rampage. There's no subtlety to it like there was at the beginning, with Pedro and Me. It's a big AIDS-colored turd, squatted all over the page.

And Marvel, for all its touted social posturing, never was able to come up with as good of a CONVERSATION (not diatribe, not polemic, not rant) about the state of the nation in the 1970s as DC did with Green Lantern-Green Arrow. DC successfully discussed what was going on at that time, and while they may have come out on a leftist side, there was always a very clear notion that this country is not a monolith, and neither is truth.

No offense, but your grabbing and severely at the Superman thing. He never celebrated any Jewish holidays, never said so much as a single Jewish word, never talked about not being able to eat something not Kosher and so on. Superman's name isn't Jewish either. I never once picked up a Superman comic and thought "Wow he's really sticking up for the Jewish ppl, and someone they can look up to". Let's face it with the X-Men thing, sure it wasn't as deep as other books that came later on, but it was among the first to take such a deep meaning. It isn't like talking about racism now or even 2 or 3 decades ago, this is about making a comic celebrating a Black hero in Martin Luther during a time not far removed from segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains. Heck I can't think of 5 black DC superhero's, but with Marvel as said above Storm became leader of the X-Men, married Black Panther who was an Avenger, who are both now leaders of the MU's most powerful country. X-Men their best seller for a long time dealt with racism and bigotry at it's very core, it didn't just feature minorities, it centered around them.

Marvel has never been able to deal with issues such as drugs and sexual crimes in as respectful and serious a way as Grell's Green Arrow did.

I'm sorry, I just really don't see any time when Marvel was on the cutting edge of anything.

And for the record, I'm pleased with DC's Silver Age redux. Spliced together with less grim realism, it works quite well.

Like I said above, Marvel was the FIRST to deal with drugs. In a way as in-depth as now? No of course not. Fact is when that Spidey drug story came out, that was when comics weren't allowed to write stories about drugs from threat of the government because of the comics code. Marvel writing that story at that point and taking that first step is the reason Green Arrow could talk about drugs and sex. If Marvel hadn't done it and broken the code making them look at it again, DC wouldn't have been able to write that story.


I'll just agree with some of the above, both have their ups and downs and to simply bash one doesn't work. Fact is Marvel pushed the envelope earlier and allowed DC to do some bigger things, and DC then took that ball and ran with it for a bit and did it a bit better. Now both are taking some good and bad steps, and you have to recognize that both are why comics are where they are, no one company can take all the credit. Simply going fanboy and saying ones favorite company is the best therefore the best at everything just looks like fanboy ravings. Way I look at it, both are good companies and I enjoy both (tho I do lean towards Marvel admittedly), but what one does to push the envelope in the right way helps all of comics in the long run.