Is DC more progressive than Marvel?

[Herr Logan]

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

It can't be false advertising for the duration of "ever", at least as far as the name "Spider-Man" goes. Early on, for several years, Spider-Man behaved in a pretty consistent fashion, probably largely because he was plotted by the same person and then written by the same writer for even more years. That makes Spider-Man Spider-Man. If you change the character so he's inconsistent and are clearly paying more tribute to yourself than to the original creators and the character, then it becomes false advertising.

People say these characters are timeless and can exist in all contemporary eras (in this case, from 1962 forward), but when that stops being true, when the character changes drastically at the same time as new writers and/or new management come on the scene, then it's no longer timeless. If the character's essential elements (and yes, that always, always includes details and specific mannerisms, or else the character isn't a character, but an archetype, which is pretty much useless in this genre) have to change with the times, then he/she should stop being published in a modern setting. If Peter Parker/Spider-Man, in his classic costume with mechanical web-shooters, doesn't fit in today's world, then he only truly exists in the past.

Whenever someone makes a drastic departure from what has been established as the character's parameters (Daredevil cannot flip over a limosine, Wolverine is not an inch taller than 5'3" and certainly not 6', etc.) then they have either made a mistake (if it wasn't on purpose) or committed an act of dishonesty (if they knew what they were doing).
You cannot call Stan Lee's version of Spider-Man an example of false advertising, since that is the mold by which any variation is judged. Same goes for any character in terms of being first created.

In short (yeah, right), your statement doesn't make sense.

 

[Herr Logan]

Let me just say in general that valuing a comic series mostly on its allegorical meaning is the wrong way to view comics. Yes, it's great when people can send pro-social messages (subtle or not) through fantasy fiction, but the stories themselves are what's important. The characters behaving in the fashion they were meant to, with their specific attributes, are valuable (unless the writing or basis is crap) for what they are. Why do people choose one storytelling franchise over another? Because of the specific things they like about it, that's why.

Like I said before, when you strip characters of their specific attributes, you end up with an archetype, and that isn't nearly as interesting. This is a major problem with film adaptations that people don't seem to get. They talk about the "essence" of the characters, and they're really talking about the bare necessities to qualify for the superhero archetype, or the specific category of superhero. The characters written in the comics years ago are what made enough money and grabbed enough attention to warrant films and TV series, etc. That's why it's a betrayal of artistic integrity and false advertising when Spider-Man doesn't crack more than a couple of jokes. When Wolverine doesn't walk and talk like Wolverine and stands 6'1" (his shortness has always been a defining physical attribute, and it's as important for him to be very short as it is for Colossus to be very big), it's not Wolverine. When Cyclops doesn't actually lead his team and come across as impressive while doing it, it isn't Cyclops.

DC Comics has a little more leeway with the character/archetype problem, since their major players have undergone at least one major overhaul that is valid (as opposed to Spider-Man turning into what he is, etc., which is just writers satisfying his own ego and editors planning cheap stunts. Like Is said, I don't know nearly as much about DC Comics as I'd like, but I do believe that the Crisis overhaul was actually useful artistically for the fictional universe (it simplified things when there were too many versions of Earth at once), which makes it more respectable than an exploitative stunt which only serves to make the publisher richer and does nothing for the storytelling. Anyway, the point is, it's harder to argue about the core, essential aspects of Batman and Superman and nail it down, because there are several versions. Marvel never did a real "Crisis" type thing, nor did it need it, until possibly recently (and no, they certainly didn't do it in the last few years, since all these changes just complicate things instead of simplifying them).
"Ultimate Marvel" certainly doesn't count. You can't make Colossus a gay ex-Mafioso and have it still be Colossus, since it is written in Goddamn stone that Colossus was just a country farmboy in Siberia before he met Professor X and it is fact that his early sexual experiences were with women (in the Savage Land and wherever the hell they were during the Secret Wars). You can't make Jean Grey a punk chick who sleeps with Wolverine (who would never legitimately be 6' tall, since shortness is a defining attribute of his character) before she even dated Cyclops and have that be real. You can't make Nightcrawler a homophobic assassin for Weapon X. None of it can be seen as a replacement for the real Marvel Universe. Are these "edgy" and "modern" changes more interesting than what was in the real Marvel Universe? I don't give a flying feck. That's up to the individual, but nothing changes the fact that one universe is real and was written with talent and thoughtfulness, and one is spear-headed by Brian Michael Bendis, who symbolizes all that is wrong with comics today. Ah, I said he's a symbol, but in order not to undermine my own thesis, let me point out that he himself is an @sshole and, at least as far as most of his Marvel titles are concerned (I know nothing of 'Powers', so I'm not commenting on it), a ****ty, lazy, pompous, immature writer. His personal attributes are important to consider when discussing his sorry, Quesada-coddled ass.

Marvel didn't have Earths 1, 2, A, B, whatever.. that needed consolodating or downsizing. I'm not knocking DC when I say this; I'm saying there was a real issue at hand, for whatever reasons, and they tried to clean it up. Again, I'm no DC expert, and I've heard a lot has reverted since then, so maybe it wasn't completely successful. In any case, I consider the Crisis on Infinite Earths, from what I know of it, to be a valid Universe-wide move.

"Ultimate Marvel" is just a way to cross-promote with the movies and squeeze more dollars from MTV-gen kiddies who actually pay attention when publishers use the buzzword "Ultimate".
"Disassembled," another big Marvel deal, didn't fix a Goddamn thing. Help, the Marvel Universe is in danger of becoming a jumbled mess! I know, let's kill off Vision and Hawkeye and remove the Scarlet Witch from active duty! All better. What? That's not enough universe-shaking drama? I know, let's actually create more alternate universes and leave extensive changes when everyone goes back home. What's that? Too many mutants in the Marvel Universe?? Heavens, no! Let's take powers away from not only the generic mass of mutants in the background (who huff a power-enhancing drug called "Kick"... thank you very much, Grant Morrison, you selfish, arrogant @sshole), but also from heavy hitters like Mystique and the Blob! God knows, the X-Men had too many of those classic, decent villains running around.


Yeah, anyway, I don't know who's the more exploitative publisher and who's the more "progressive" publisher (or what that's even supposed to mean), but... what was my original point? Right! Allegories should be secondary to what's going on in the actual story. You want allegories and archetypes? Try Greek myths or the Bible or something with far less "relatability" than DC or Marvel characters.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

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".

I never said Superman was Jewish. I said the early Superman, as created by Siegel and Schuster, represented a fictional idea of the Jewish people being able to stand up and fight back in a way they'd never been allowed to do to that point. He comes from the same place, spiritually, as militant Zionism in Israel since 1948. This is not something I made up. This is a pretty prevalent theory about Superman, among academic critics of superhero fiction.

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.

Now THAT is reaching. Was it explicity stated that Prof X was supposed to be an analog for MLK?

Heck I can't think of 5 black DC superhero's

Black Lightning, Mr. Terrific, John Stewart, Thunder, and new Spectre. All of them at least somewhat significant in the past three years of DC continuity. Not really that hard to remember. There's also Jakeem Thunder, the recently Spectre-ized Crimson Avenger, Cyborg, the short-lived Dr. Midnite II, John Henry Irons, Onyx, the dearly departed Orpheus, the Power Company guy, the new Firestorm, and Vixen.

If you broaden the definition to "people of color," then you can include Black Adam, Dr. Light (the Japanese female version), Bushido, Thunder and Lightning (nobody remembers them, but they were another social commentary), Tsunami, Isis (but who knows where that whole thing is going), and that guy from Justice League Elite.

Also, I was recently informed that Director Bones is black. Never knew that.

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.

The fact is, I don't dismiss everything Marvel does out of hand. I simply dismiss the notion that they are "The House of Ideas," and that they have made significant progress in the medium that DC didn't do first or wouldn't have eventually accomplished in not too much more time.

Astonishing X-Men is great, for example. I just tend to believe that Marvel is generally derivative, and DC is generally innovative.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

Lots of things followed by a Wolverine smiley

Generally, I agree with what was said there. As a DC continuity buff, you've got a pretty good grasp on the whole COIE issue, and why it was valid, etc., etc.

The way that Marvel was always about false advertising was not specifically about Spider-Man, but the way that they always claimed that they were fresh and new, giving you characters you could relate to, when in fact any relatability was entirely reader-generated. A superhuman is a superhuman. Not relatable. Their characters were always rehashed archetypes. The art didn't match up to with the script. Heroes fighting each other as a boring plot device was used and reused so many times, it was almost like this postmodern statement about the nature of morality, and the validity of terms like "hero" and "villain," but totally unintentionally.

What you see as modern Marvel's garbage...that's how Marvel has always been, as a general rule.

 

[Tropico]

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.

What guarantee do you have that it wouldn't have been DC if Marvel hadn't done it?

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

With minorities and such,i belive Marvel to be in that sence.DC is very old school,and does not often touch such themes.

 

[Herr Logan]

Generally, I agree with what was said there. As a DC continuity buff, you've got a pretty good grasp on the whole COIE issue, and why it was valid, etc., etc.

The way that Marvel was always about false advertising was not specifically about Spider-Man, but the way that they always claimed that they were fresh and new, giving you characters you could relate to, when in fact any relatability was entirely reader-generated. A superhuman is a superhuman. Not relatable. Their characters were always rehashed archetypes. The art didn't match up to with the script. Heroes fighting each other as a boring plot device was used and reused so many times, it was almost like this postmodern statement about the nature of morality, and the validity of terms like "hero" and "villain," but totally unintentionally.

What you see as modern Marvel's garbage...that's how Marvel has always been, as a general rule.

Holy crap...

I wrote a big, long post (the kind I usually write) a couple hours ago to respond to this and thought it went through... but it didn't. Now the window for it is gone. All of it, gone!

I'm in too much grief for that lost post to try again so soon. Such a senseless tragedy...

 

[Docker2.0]

The Batwoman thing smacks of gimmickry.

I soooooo agree!

I think Marvel started out with more real life issues becuase their characters are based on the real world while DC's are built in imaginary places(Gotham, Metropolis). But I think that these days both companies are equal when it comes to gimmicks and progression cuase its all about money. Any other reason would only be a lie in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Docker2.0]

double post

 

[Arach Knight]

First and foremost, I must commend the following list of people;

droogiedroogie2
Herr Logan
The Batman
Darthphere

You are all responsible for taking this thread to greater heights than I originally intended. I first crafted this as a response to the "Stan Lee Superman vs. Hulk" thread, in the Marvel forum. I was just looking to stir up controversy with some random thoughts...but you fine gentleman have crafted this into an epic and utterly worthy debate. You each brought up points that I want to respond to...but I fear my post reaching a perposterous size. So i'll keep to what I feel is important

1)Stan Lee's given reasoning for the X-Men, is that they represent the time in a teenagers life, in which they feel like social outcasts. That is how he themed the X-Men. The entire MLK/Malcom X correlation is entirely fan driven, even if it is a worthy allegory. Otherwise, wouldn't there have been minority mutants introduced far sooner? And for the record, DC has dealt with Racism. Here is one good example. "The DC Comics's Detective Comics # 631 features the beginning of a two-part Batman story: "The Golem of Gotham". In it, Batman confronts a clay golem made by an elderly Holocaust survivor, in the context of modern race riots."

2)Herr Logan, I agree that Marvel has pretty much pissed on the childhood of people our age (I myself am 23). What I don't understand, is how people just sit around and take the abuse. I drop bad comics or aggrivating companies at the drop of a hat. When Superman went electric, I stopped reading DC. When Ben Reily took over as Spider-Man, I stopped reading Marvel. Any time I find the situation too disagreeable, I just stop spending my money on the books. Glad to see somebody else with that stance, even if your reasoning behind it, may differ.

3)Gildea, brand loyalty tends to develop based on three factors. A)General experince with the company B)Nostalgia C)Liquid finance. If you have a good experince with a brand, you are likely to be a repeat cutomer. If you become a repeat customer, then you are likely to have some bit of nostalgia toward it. With those factored in, the amount of available funds always comes into mind. Herr Logan said it himself. He never had the money to keep up with DC and Marvel, so he just kept up with Marvel. Brand loyalty is as simple as that.

4)For all of my disdain with Marvel currently, I must side with those who feel that Marvel introduced the relatable hero. I think as themes have been more fleshed out with DC characters, we are quickly seeing them as relatable in the same fashion (Bruce's constant guilt, Clarks desire to be seen as human. Wonder Woman trying to do everything right while trying to be herself). However, Marvel did pretty much create the standard. Before then, Batman was just a wealthy recluse with an arsenal and Superman was a god (as he was the first super hero, he has pretty much always been top of the foodchain). DC however, has done a far better job of maintaining this M.O. than Marvel has, for the past 5 years, easily.

5)Darthphere, I agree. Every comic company f**** up...and each does something amazing. To that affect, I can sympathize. Sometimes however, some screw ups, are just too bad, to let go. Especially when you are partial to the company in question. otherwise, I do agree with your sentiment.

 

[Arach Knight]

lol. Thank God for Goliath. t:
Hey can you post the rest of this? This parody was great.

And before I forget. For your amusement, from the members of the KMC forums, I present...other Marvel Civil War parodies.

 

[Fading]

What guarantee do you have that it wouldn't have been DC if Marvel hadn't done it?

None honestly, but they didn't. They were out at the same time, they both had the comics code on them, but Marvel was the one that broke it. Maybe DC would have given time, but Marvel did do it and not only did it, but second that first story went thru they started doing all kinds of stories soon after while DC was still acting close to the code. I see what your saying, and maybe DC would have, but they didn't. That's not a bash on DC, it's just history, good point tho.

 

[Fading]

I never said Superman was Jewish. I said the early Superman, as created by Siegel and Schuster, represented a fictional idea of the Jewish people being able to stand up and fight back in a way they'd never been allowed to do to that point. He comes from the same place, spiritually, as militant Zionism in Israel since 1948. This is not something I made up. This is a pretty prevalent theory about Superman, among academic critics of superhero fiction.

Now THAT is reaching. Was it explicity stated that Prof X was supposed to be an analog for MLK?

Astonishing X-Men is great, for example. I just tend to believe that Marvel is generally derivative, and DC is generally innovative.

Sry on the Jewish thing, was tired when I posted and didn't fully read out and misinterpreted what you meant.

I honestly do however thing it's not a far reach to connect Prof X to MLK. Prof X is a peaceful man that wants equality for a minority mistreated because of how they were born by a world that hates them simply because they are different.

As for the last sentence, like Darth said, both have innovative spots and spots where they take a step or two back and go gimmicky. Marvel was def innovative and comics wouldn't be what they are now if Marvel hadn't existed. DC has done it's fair share too, and I feel both would be better served to take a step back and do things like they did when they were putting character over gimmick and making statements. I just don't agree that DC is the end all be all of good change, Marvel was doing good for comics when comics were being burned and being blammed for bad children's behavior while DC wasn't. DC's done good since, I just want to give credit where credit is due, and not just say ones done more than the other because I like one company better.

 

[Arach Knight]

I'll have to stop you right there. You are giving Marvel entirely way too much credit. The government approached Marvel and Stan Lee, to write that issue about Harry Osborn. That was not a Marvel driven idea. It wasn't as if they suddenly felt rebellious and decided to go against the comics code authority. They had a government request, versus the edict of a minor organization. It's a no brainer that Marvel would defy the code, when they had government approval behind them. And the comics code is really nothing more than the equivalent of an MPAA movie rating or the ESRB for video games. There were plenty of comics back then that didn't follow their rules, and just didn't receive their approval. Just like movies get released that are unrated, and games get released that are unrated (for PC of course, not consoles). In fact, it wasn't until what...2000...2001, that Marvel finally dropped the comics code authority, in favor of their own unnecessary comics rating system. So don't go labeling them the champion of the cause.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

Holy crap...

I wrote a big, long post (the kind I usually write) a couple hours ago to respond to this and thought it went through... but it didn't. Now the window for it is gone. All of it, gone!

I'm in too much grief for that lost post to try again so soon. Such a senseless tragedy...

That's really tough man. I feel your pain. Do you remember what it was about generally?

 

[droogiedroogie2]

I'll have to stop you right there. You are giving Marvel entirely way too much credit. The government approached Marvel and Stan Lee, to write that issue about Harry Osborn. That was not a Marvel driven idea. It wasn't as if they suddenly felt rebellious and decided to go against the comics code authority. They had a government request, versus the edict of a minor organization. It's a no brainer that Marvel would defy the code, when they had government approval behind them. And the comics code is really nothing more than the equivalent of an MPAA movie rating or the ESRB for video games. There were plenty of comics back then that didn't follow their rules, and just didn't receive their approval. Just like movies get released that are unrated, and games get released that are unrated (for PC of course, not consoles). In fact, it wasn't until what...2000...2001, that Marvel finally dropped the comics code authority, in favor of their own unnecessary comics rating system. So don't go labeling them the champion of the cause.

Point!

 

[Sloth7d]

And before I forget. For your amusement, from the members of the KMC forums, I present...other Marvel Civil War parodies.

lol, thats right... merchandising!
Thanks for the post. I love this parody.t:

 

[BrianWilly]

Where's the option for "both"?

Unless we're all prepared to sit here and list off every. Single. Moment. Of progressive writing from both companies, I don't think it's even remotely fair to place one in front of the other as if it were a tally or something. And likewise, "neither company is progressive" isn't a very accurate answer either because both have had great track records.

 

[gildea]

There were plenty of comics back then that didn't follow their rules, and just didn't receive their approval. Just like movies get released that are unrated, and games get released that are unrated (for PC of course, not consoles).

The difference being though none of those comics were as big as spiderman. There a significant scale issue you're not really looking at here. Its easy to release something unrated if the circulation is next to nothing but when your talking about a pop culture icon like spiderman it immediately becomes much more significant.
True the issue had government backing but stan lee could have easily relegated it to some lower selling title or even published a forgettable one shot. (it was stans choice to use spidey).

For that they deserve credit.

In fact, it wasn't until what...2000...2001, that Marvel finally dropped the comics code authority, in favor of their own unnecessary comics rating system. So don't go labeling them the champion of the cause.

And when did DC drop it? (i don't know)

 

[Darthphere]

They havent. Some DC comics still carry the logo.

 

[gildea]

They havent. Some DC comics still carry the logo.

cripes, arach is very selective with his points.....

 

[Eros]

well i also have to give it to marvel comics for creating thier "Ulimate line" to appeal to new readers.DC has its All-star Line, which harkins back to an age that i[andalot of people] was not alive to care about. Dc needs to start their "ultimate" line and try and bring in new readers that were not born in the 60s or 70s. Dc big problem is that they depend on a ageing fanbase instead of trying to bring in some fresh readers. All-star superman only works if you have a vast knowledge of superman in comics, All-star Batman on the other hand only works if you have vast knowledge of Frank Millar. Why not release books for younger and new reader, Marvel has it mangaverse,A-next,its Mary Jane loves spider-man and a entire brand for teenage comics and for young reader. DC has not done enough to connect to todays generation.

 

[Varient]

impressive.
I didn't EVEN try to go that deep into the question.
Props to those of you who exercised brain cells on this.

Peace.

 

[Docker2.0]

Where's the option for "both"?

Unless we're all prepared to sit here and list off every. Single. Moment. Of progressive writing from both companies, I don't think it's even remotely fair to place one in front of the other as if it were a tally or something. And likewise, "neither company is progressive" isn't a very accurate answer either because both have had great track records.

Most sensible post here. This thread is a Marvel vs. DC thread all over again with people stating that their company is better than the other company. I don't know what this thread hoped to accomplish other than attack the other company. You see the same people who are pro DC and pro Marvel bashing the other company and not surprisingly stating how much better their company is. You posted a better post than me man!

 

[Arach Knight]

1) Of course it is a competitive thread. I'm American. This is a capitalist nation. We thrive on competition, as a means of driving invention and creativity. If we all sat around thinking everything was completly equal, there would be no real reason to read DC or Marvel or Image or Arctic Press (if they still exist). If all companies equally approachced things, you might as well just merge them. Deep down inside, even if you read books from other companies, you will still have an opinion, in which one company exceeds the other, in some fashion.

2)The All Star Line, is DC's approach to the Ultimate line. They are all non canon reboots essentially. They retell the origins and situations of the characters. From what i've read, you need no prior knowledge of DC, to jump on All Star books. Also, DC rarely needs to try new appeal tactics, because they are frequently rebooting their entire universe. Which can be frowned upon, in terms of having to do so in the first place, but it can also be admired for the fortitude required, to under take such a task.

3)Gildea, I never said DC didn't abandon the comics code authority. I was not selective with my point. I was quite clear. Your original statement implied that Marvel was more progressive, because of their defiance of the comic code. I outlined the fact that it was per government request, and not because of any internal decision. I stated the time frame in which Marvel abandoned the comics code authority (although marvel books are still rated...it is through self regulation), to highlight the fact that writing the drug issue was neither self driven or a frequent point of story telling in their books. Because otherwise, Marvel adhered to the standard for a very long time. And yes, DC does still use the comics code authority, but not on all titles. JLA for instance, is CCA approved. Wonder woman however (the new run) has not been (yet). I seriously doubt that books like Infinite Crisis or Identity Crisis were CCA approved.