What is the difference between DC and Marvel?

[The Strategos]

I was thinking of maybe exploring some DC lately but, despite the fact I've only been into comics for about three quarters of a year, I already think of myself as a Marvel man. But why? What are the differences are are there in fact no differences - only different characters? I hoped that some dudes who have read a lot of both might enlighten me with their knowledge of The Force (yeah, I just wanted to use that smilie).
I know this is the DC section but I couldn't find a better place to put this.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Marvel's big powerhouse in the 60's was Stan Lee, who thought of comics as soap operas with superpowers. That the heroes should be a down to Earth average Joe.

DC wanted place their heroes on a pedestal and have them be the best humanity has to offer with larger than life concepts and characters, ultimate in every sense of the word.

That's about the simplest way to think about it, it's like determining the difference between Tekken, Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter. Technically, they are all fighting games.

 

[Hush]

Yeah llama really nailed it. They are both Superhero Universes one just handles their characters differently than the other. Marvel seems to tackle real world issues more head on and more often. DC is in my opinion more fantastical in it's approach to problems with glimmers of real world stuff.

One never in my opinion is really better than another but rather people usually prefer one over the other.

 

[Anubis]

Well, that USED to be true......but over the last 30 years or so DC has adopted the "Marvel Way" to comics. From Speedy being a Heroin Addict to Barry Allen being all emo over the death of his momma and f**king up the multiverse.

There isn't, and there never really was a difference. People just like to believe that there is to keep what I like to call the "US vs Them syndrome" going.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, there is effectively no difference between Matrvel and DC.

I mean, in terms of business practices and marketing, certainly, but thematically they're really similar. Any talk of how "DC are the heroes we aspire to be, while Marvel are the heroes we relate to" is a bunch of intellectual *********ion. The fact is, at this point, Marvel and DC both have a roughly equal measure of both.

 

[Baramos]

No big difference, honestly. The characters are different, and DC comics use fake city names (mostly) whereas Marvel uses real world places (mostly New York, it seems like)...

If you want some recommendations for New 52 titles, here are the ones I enjoyed;

Batman
Batman and Robin
All-Star Western
Wonder Woman
The Flash
Swamp Thing/Animal Man (you kind of have to read both, as the stories/universe overlaps. That said, it's probably my favorite series)
Demon Knights
Frankenstein, Agent of SHADE

Hmm, that might be it, actually...honestly I wasn't taken with the vast majority of their titles. In fact I disliked some of their major hero comic books like Superman, Action Comics, Green Arrow, Justice League, etc.

 

[Zatanna]

One never in my opinion is really better than another but rather people usually prefer one over the other.

I love both, actually, although most of my favorites are DC heroes.

But I've always been into both universes. With Marvel it's always been X-Men and Spider- Man that I've been the most obsessed with.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Well, at least until the 70s you could say it like that:

DC = plot-driven, often outlandish "adventure" stories, often more simple but more rich in subtext and also aimed at kids, basically.
Marvel = slugfests mixed with soap opera, often also talking down to his audience.

Since then it doesn't really matter since writers and artists moved back and forth between them. Guys like Mark Gruenwald, who are really DC guys at heart, working at Marvel, guys like Gerry Conway at DC. And John Byrne giving us a "Marvelized Superman" in 1986. And so on.

But overall, comics of today are largely an evolution of the classic Marvel style with DC being dead.

 

[The Question]

DC = plot-driven, often outlandish "adventure" stories, often more simple but more rich in subtext and also aimed at kids, basically.
Marvel = slugfests mixed with soap opera, often also talking down to his audience.

The bias is strong in this one.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

The bias is strong in this one.

You are right. I should've written "its audience".

 

[CConn]

It's simple. DC are a bunch of ****s while Marvel are a bunch of ****s.

 

[The Question]

You are right. I should've written "its audience".

Yeah that's not what I meant. But true.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Yeah that's not what I meant. But true.

You are right.

 

[The Question]

I gotta ask, "rich in subtext?"

What exactly does that mean?

 

[Baramos]

I gotta ask, "rich in subtext?"

What exactly does that mean?

I honestly don't think there are many comics that are "rich in subtext". Usually what you see is what you get. There are not a lot of deeper thematic issues at play, in most mainstream comic books, anyway. If we are to learn something about the character's motivations they are exposited in some way.

Now if you want to talk some of the great DC graphic novels of the past, like The Killing Joke, I think there is definitely subtext at play. But it's rare in the monthlies...

 

[CConn]

I honestly don't think there are many comics that are "rich in subtext". Usually what you see is what you get. There are not a lot of deeper thematic issues at play, in most mainstream comic books, anyway. If we are to learn something about the character's motivations they are exposited in some way.

Now if you want to talk some of the great DC graphic novels of the past, like The Killing Joke, I think there is definitely subtext at play. But it's rare in the monthlies...

It's really just certain writers who can capture that.

Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, and Neil Gaiman being at the forefront.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I gotta ask, "rich in subtext?"

What exactly does that mean?

That (old) DC stories weren't on your nose. For example, the Superman story "Invasion of the Red Ants" by Hamilton, often used as an example of a "silly" story is in fact a take on the Cold War. And then there's the whole psychological baggage injected by Mort Weisinger who used his therapy sessions as a source for plots.

This wasn't usually there at Marvel. They would simply show you a nuclear war and have someone say "That's horrible". And meanwhile Peter Parker would have to find a way to pay the rent while Doc Ock was trying to steal precious diamonds. That's Marvel.

I honestly don't think there are many comics that are "rich in subtext". Usually what you see is what you get. There are not a lot of deeper thematic issues at play, in most mainstream comic books, anyway. If we are to learn something about the character's motivations they are exposited in some way.

Now if you want to talk some of the great DC graphic novels of the past, like The Killing Joke, I think there is definitely subtext at play. But it's rare in the monthlies...

Most aren't. But DC hired lots of sci-fi writers under Julie Schwartz who knew exactly what they were writing (stories for kids) but at the same time they tried to inject some subtle messages. Modern writers were mostly raised on comics and often lack classic education.

 

[The Strategos]

Wow, thanks for all the comments guys ! I'm starting to get the idea that the difference between the two were more pronounced in the old days but that now they are much of a muchness, except in as much as DC has a slight tendency to jet of into the far reaches of the universe and be less concerned with the character's day-to-day issues whereas Marvel tends to stay on the earth and is very much concerned with how, for instance, Spidey is going to pay the rent. Is that getting there?
On a slight tangent, I was watching Big Bang Theory and I saw the guy in glasses without glasses and thought how much he looked like a Superman. Marry this with Sheldon playing the Flash and you have two actors who already know how to work with each other adn could help make an awesome JL film! Just a thought lol.

 

[Anubis]

Parsons for Flash? WTF you smokin'.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Parsons for Flash? WTF you smokin'.

And Johnny Galecki as Superman.

Which poster here looks like Johnny Galecki? Was it hippie?

 

[The Strategos]

O.K. clearly I'm way off on that tack!

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I think the only real difference at this point is the size of their respective reboots. Marvel nips and tucks things as necessary but leaves the majority of their continuity intact (unless some big shot writer comes along and just changes whatever they want because f*** you); DC tends to change everything in one big, fell swoop, then figure out what that actually means (or not, as the current reboot illustrates) after the fact.

 

[Scourge2099]

I think the only real difference at this point is the size of their respective reboots. Marvel nips and tucks things as necessary but leaves the majority of their continuity intact (unless some big shot writer comes along and just changes whatever they want because f*** you); DC tends to change everything in one big, fell swoop, then figure out what that actually means (or not, as the current reboot illustrates) after the fact.

Unless it's Batman or Hal Jordan.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

That's DC's version of the big shot writer exception. Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns are big enough names that they get to say, "Hey, f*** you, I built a bunch of stuff in these comics over the past few years and I'm more important than the scrubs who were writing Superman or the JLA, so they're staying the same."

 

[Scourge2099]

They should just do a Batman/Hal Jordan team up book at this point.