What are the fundamental differences between DC and Marvel?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I've heard it argued that fundamentally, DC is about heroic/ethical archetypes, and Marvel is about psychological archetypes.

What do you think are the fundemental differences between each company and their universes..... not just at the moment, but over the decades?

[Red Jack]

DC is a fundamentally magic based system where magic almot invariably trumps science whenever they go up against each other.

Marvel is a fundamentally science based system where science (at least the comic book version of it) trumps magic almost every time.

[MartinRedmond]

DC is gory and Marvel is horny.

[Your Imaginary Pal]

that sounds about right.

I could say DC seems a bit more idealized, Marvel doesn't paint as rosie a picture for their characters.

Marvel's heroes all seem to struggle more in their personal lives. There's a more blue collar feel. DD on the brink of closing his firm, Spidey caring for his aged Aunt, short on money, while Bats, clearly doesn't have those issues, and Superman never has to beg Perry White for his check or a fair rate. I think the heroes in DC have an easier time in their secret identities and with the exception of Batman, are more accepted in their unuverse by the public.
So Marvel may seem more epic, the heroes have a lot more to overcome in their journeys.

[K-DoG7p7]

Marvel is about tracing .. DC is about letting noobs try out...


well.. thats the way it is for the art..

[Infra-Man]

If I remember right, Michael Chabon felt that fundamentally, Marvel was more about the interesting, tragic characters while DC was more about the imaginative, twisting plots.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

DC tends to be more epic and cosmic in scale, with many of their major heroes saving the entire world, multiple worlds, and the universe itself on a constant basis. Stupidly high power levels are more common, and there are more "epic" level threats.

Not that Marvel doesn't have that stuff as well, but Marvel's stuff is more down-to-earth on average.

[berk]

I don't see much real difference between them since some time around the mid-70s. It's more about the individual books and creators now. And those creators shuttle back and forth between the two fairly regularly.

[NickThompson]

DC is the costume, Marvel is what is behind the costume.


Obviously not 100%, but it works well enough. Neither's bad, just different :)

[Pink Bat Maxine]

DC is gory and Marvel is horny.

All I have to say is 'Judd Winnick'.

[Aggie]

I don't see much real difference between them since some time around the mid-70s. It's more about the individual books and creators now. And those creators shuttle back and forth between the two fairly regularly.

BINGO!!

the things that made them different have since evaporated and each respective universe is no longer that interesting, but that's just my take on it.

[Charles RB]

I'd have to agree - the Silver Age tradition and the perception is that DC is about the epic imaginative plots and Marvel about the flawed angsty regular-people, but that difference has been erased by decades of company-hopping writers and the dominance of Marvel's approach.

[ShaunN]

I tend to agree that there is not much difference, at least not today. I'm not enough of a comics historian to be able to speak to the issue of how the two companies evolved. I know that I did not buy DC throughout the 70s because I found it too childish - the characters were cardboard, the stories were not interesting to my teenage mind. I began buying DC when it became more "Marvel" - though it could be that the characters and stories just grew up and got better.

I hate to reference it again, but the JLA-Avengers crossover had an interesting take on this. In that series, Superman is angry at Marvel's heroes for not doing more to improve their world. He sees Genosha, he visits places in different parts of the world where, clearly, things are much more dark and violent than (supposedly) is the case in the DC universe. Supes take on it is that the Marvel heroes must not be trying hard enough. Quicksilver is amazed that the Flash has is own museum, and actually makes a comment to the effect that the people on the DC world genuinely love and appreciate their heroes.

Certainly, horrible atrocities have occurred in the DC universe - Black Adam's genocide against Bialya, for example, or the destruction of Coast City. But the general sense that DC has a slightly brighter world where the presence of superheroes actually makes a positive difference is a bit greater.


Sincerely,

Shaun

[ShaunN]

I tend to agree that there is not much difference, at least not today. I'm not enough of a comics historian to be able to speak to the issue of how the two companies evolved. I know that I did not buy DC throughout the 70s because I found it too childish - the characters were cardboard, the stories were not interesting to my teenage mind. I began buying DC when it became more "Marvel" - though it could be that the characters and stories just grew up and got better.

I hate to reference it again, but the JLA-Avengers crossover had an interesting take on this. In that series, Superman is angry at Marvel's heroes for not doing more to improve their world. He sees Genosha, he visits places in different parts of the world where, clearly, things are much more dark and violent than (supposedly) is the case in the DC universe. Supes take on it is that the Marvel heroes must not be trying hard enough. Quicksilver is amazed that the Flash has is own museum, and actually makes a comment to the effect that the people on the DC world genuinely love and appreciate their heroes.

Certainly, horrible atrocities have occurred in the DC universe - Black Adam's genocide against Bialya, for example, or the destruction of Coast City. But the general sense that DC has a slightly brighter world where the presence of superheroes actually makes a positive difference is a bit greater.


Sincerely,

Shaun

[ShaunN]

OK - how do I delete a double-post? I'm sure I've done it before, but I can't see how to do it this time... lots of editing functions, but no easy delete button that I can see...

Thanks,

Shaun

[K-DoG7p7]

DC has stuf like this
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h209/7p7/Omac.jpg

Marvel does not :p

[diana_fan]

I don't read much Marvel. It just doesn't interest me, really. I do like the MC2 universe, though. Spider-Girl is awesome. I'm looking forward to American Dream, and MC2 X-Men.

But in the little that I have read, it seems to me that the greatest DC heroes stand for grand ideals, and the greatest Marvel heroes don't. I'm not saying that they aren't heroic, but what they fight for, what they are driven by seems to be more personal.

[Tobias March]

I think whatever initial differences there may have been have eroded over the years. What with plagiarism, talent swapping and keeping up with the Joneses I don't think there are any remaining ideological differences as such.

Marvel likes to play the upstart, even while planning their film division's domination of the box office. And DC plays the traditional card, even though they'll sell their creations down the river just to suit the marketing on another medium.

Initially though Stan and Jack's creations had a certain adolescent self consciousness and neurotic confusion which DC lacked. Wolfman and Perez may have stolen the march on Marvel though with their Titans book, erasing that main obstacle of difference.

[Hybrid2]

I tend to agree that there is not much difference, at least not today. I'm not enough of a comics historian to be able to speak to the issue of how the two companies evolved. I know that I did not buy DC throughout the 70s because I found it too childish - the characters were cardboard, the stories were not interesting to my teenage mind. I began buying DC when it became more "Marvel" - though it could be that the characters and stories just grew up and got better.

I hate to reference it again, but the JLA-Avengers crossover had an interesting take on this. In that series, Superman is angry at Marvel's heroes for not doing more to improve their world. He sees Genosha, he visits places in different parts of the world where, clearly, things are much more dark and violent than (supposedly) is the case in the DC universe. Supes take on it is that the Marvel heroes must not be trying hard enough. Quicksilver is amazed that the Flash has is own museum, and actually makes a comment to the effect that the people on the DC world genuinely love and appreciate their heroes.

Certainly, horrible atrocities have occurred in the DC universe - Black Adam's genocide against Bialya, for example, or the destruction of Coast City. But the general sense that DC has a slightly brighter world where the presence of superheroes actually makes a positive difference is a bit greater.


Sincerely,

Shaun
The general population of both universe are diferent to.
in DC if something weird hapen they know that the superheroes will probably take care of itso they sit back and wait or get out of the way.
For Marvel it look like most peoples are real morons or/and racist.And would freak out seeing someone with a deformity.

[Sanagi]

DC has its basis in a more innocent time, even though it's been in a state of ironic subversion for a couple of decades.

[K-DoG7p7]

The general population of both universe are diferent to.
in DC if something weird hapen they know that the superheroes will probably take care of itso they sit back and wait or get out of the way.
For Marvel it look like most peoples are real morons or/and racist.And would freak out seeing someone with a deformity.

Like Mutants in the MU are hated and feared.. while Metas in the DCU are idolized.. even if they aren't superheroes..
Like Grant showed in the Bulleteer Miniseries

[AllisterH]

The general population of both universe are diferent to.
in DC if something weird hapen they know that the superheroes will probably take care of itso they sit back and wait or get out of the way.
For Marvel it look like most peoples are real morons or/and racist.And would freak out seeing someone with a deformity.

Actually, ShaunN et al pretty much hit the nail on the head with regard to the differences.

Its not that Marvel's regular citizens are morons, but the fact that many times, the original superheroes in marvel just were not that heroic.

Take Marvel's very first two superheroes. Namor and the Human Torch.

In Torch's first appearance in public, he literally caused a stampede of panicked people since he couldn't control his power and in Namor's first appearance to the public, he and Torch literally tore up a good chunk of Manhattan in their battle.

In marvel, originally, if it was something strange, it WAS trying to kill you (all those Weird Monster tales from the 50s are considered canon and are the basis for Marvel citizens fear of the strange).

The first time the public met a mutant, it was Magneto and he introduced himself by attacking a military base and by trying to steal their nukes.

Compare with say how many of the JSA's first public appearance seems to be accepted by the public. You had the guy in tights saving people from the bank robber. In fact, many of the original villains for the JSA were just regular mooks or guys with funky gadgets.

Throw in that the JSA were kept on the homefront and used for public morale and you get even more good vibes for superheroes in the DCU.

Of course the DCU citizen is going to be more positive.

[Stressfactor]

But I also think that is part of it... Up until recently, Marvel really didn't trot out their heroes of the 1940's. The JSA may get mothballed from time to time but they are always still there and they are always acknolwedged in one way or the other as the roots.

DC has a greater sense of history and (for good or for ill) trying to make sure ALL of that history fits into their universe.

Marvel seems to treat most of their history as starting in the 1960s.

[Corrina]

Brubaker is a good example of how a writer's tone doesn't really change between companies.

He first came to my attention writing Batman. And Bruce was doing *detective* work. Compared to what was going on with Rucka's Batman, Brubaker's seemed more faithful to O'Neil/Dixon and a lot more human. His characters are really messed up characters as a rule but when Brubaker finds a hero, he seems to both make them more three-dimensional at the same time as showing off their heroism.

His Steve Rogers was amazing--the Steve Rogers with hope in his heart still, the optimistic guy, though the pain and confusion was clearly there. This Steve Rogers is a good, good guy and still was three-dimensional.

So there's not much of a difference in tone from his jump from DC to Marvel. I guess you could say that with his work on Iron Fist--though that's more Matt Fraction, right?---that he's brought in a very new cool history and background that feels more DC-like, I suppose. Really enjoying Iron Fist, big time. I couldn't wait for the regular trade, I ordered the hardcover for May of the second arc.

[Netley]

DC is a fundamentally magic based system where magic almot invariably trumps science whenever they go up against each other.

Marvel is a fundamentally science based system where science (at least the comic book version of it) trumps magic almost every time.

Yeah I can totally see that dichotomy! Going along with that thought, I'd say the sciences of psychology and politics play a bigger role in the Marvel Universe, giving characters like Peter Parker and Iron Man and anchoring them to real world problems and gray morals; the magic of complete Good Guys vs. complete Bad Guys and the concept of legacy give DC more of a mythical quality (and I bet Grant Morrison will address this in some way soon).

Whoa, it just occurred to me - Is DC like the Old Testament and Marvel like the New Testament? Does that make any sense in the context of the above? (I'm not advocating any religion at all, just wondering if that comparison holds any water.)

[kingdom2000]

I think an excellent example of the differences between DC and Marvel is Justice League of America #0. Its the one that showed little snapshots of different periods of JLA history and potential future (and very well done). It was really a personal story of the Trinity.

The thing is that issue, as far as the personal impact of events is pretty common in Marvel. Not contant but frequent enough. In DC, it doesn't happen at all. Not really. All these massive events occur and the reader doesn't see the personal impact. An example is the Death of Superman - it took 14 years to see that snapshot of when Batman was informed his best friend had died. Its a "good" character moment. Its shows a depth of relationship between the two characters in just a few panels. It should have been part of the story at the time but because DC doesn't do moments like that, it probably never occured to the writers and editors at the time. It still doesn't.

So I guess my point about point is the DC Universe is where the heroes react to things that occur around them and don't really pause to absorb the impact for more then a few panels (Infinite Crisis, 52, Countdown) where in the Marvel universe things happen to the heroes and they constantly try to overcome and move on (House of M, Death of Captain America, Civil War, Secret Invasion). With Marvel, often the characters do change from before an event to after. It may not stick, it may only last a few issues, but there is change. With DC, the difference before and after for most of the characters is insignificant.

In the end, however you define the differences, those differences in approach to the heroes, their character, is why Marvel has remained at the top of the food chain for so long. DC editorial still thinks big events is the answer, just make it "bigger", and the readers will come (Final Crisis). Its not. It never will be. Its not just the event, its what it does to the characters that matter just as much (Secret Invasion "Who do you trust").

[Stressfactor]

I also have to say I think, over the aggregate of years, DC has done a much better job with their female heroes. Wonder Woman, Batgirl, and Supergirl are beloved icons who have been both solo acts AND parts of teams.

Which Marvel women have reached the same level of name recognition AND been long-running solo stars?

[AllisterH]

I also have to say I think, over the aggregate of years, DC has done a much better job with their female heroes. Wonder Woman, Batgirl, and Supergirl are beloved icons who have been both solo acts AND parts of teams.

Which Marvel women have reached the same level of name recognition AND been long-running solo stars?

*HEH* (I can hear Gail already shouting "OH NO!!")

I don't think Marvel has ever really NEEDED solo female stars. The stars you listed, 2 of them are knockoffs on the male character and the 1st was created to be "The female Superman".

I think most of the female marvel stars blossomed in team settings. I mean, there's a reason why we have the term Claremont-women and it just wasn't Claremont. Byrne as well really shined when writing female characters.

From Wasp's growth from vapid socialite to 2nd best Avengers leader, to Sue going from girl to woman to the Defenders and X-women basically stealing the spotlights in their team books, marvel females kicked ass when placed in settings WITH their male counterparts.

[Sam T.]

I also have to say I think, over the aggregate of years, DC has done a much better job with their female heroes. Wonder Woman, Batgirl, and Supergirl are beloved icons who have been both solo acts AND parts of teams.

Which Marvel women have reached the same level of name recognition AND been long-running solo stars?

She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel!

[JKCarrier]

DC has stuf like this
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h209/7p7/Omac.jpg

Marvel does not :p

What, lame re-imaginings of Jack Kirby concepts? Marvel's got plenty of those. :p

[ShaunN]

I think that, as a general principle, good stories do have a lot to do with character. How real the characters feel to us determines how much we care about them and, by extension, how much we enjoy the stories. As I noted in my post about George Perez's "Wonder Woman", his ability to evoke the sense of Diana as a wide-eyed newcomer to a strange world, and then surround her with interesting and recognizable people, was at the heart of the series. Of course, great art and interesting plotlines were essential, too, but I think that I can forgive a lot in a story if I feel that the characters are "real" and reacting to the world in a real way.

Right now, I think that Gail's handling of Diana's relationship with Hippolyta is demonstrative of this - Diana will do anything to save her mother. She loves her too much to give up trying to get back to Themyscira. It "feels" right.

If DC really is just about the "big event" then its editors have a problem. For one thing, I'd argue that DC hasn't done a really good "big event" since the first Crisis. For another, how those events affect the people they touch is critically important to making the characters come to life.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Stressfactor]

*HEH* (I can hear Gail already shouting "OH NO!!")

I don't think Marvel has ever really NEEDED solo female stars. The stars you listed, 2 of them are knockoffs on the male character and the 1st was created to be "The female Superman".

I think most of the female marvel stars blossomed in team settings. I mean, there's a reason why we have the term Claremont-women and it just wasn't Claremont. Byrne as well really shined when writing female characters.

From Wasp's growth from vapid socialite to 2nd best Avengers leader, to Sue going from girl to woman to the Defenders and X-women basically stealing the spotlights in their team books, marvel females kicked ass when placed in settings WITH their male counterparts.

I don't think "knock off" has anything to do with it. Batgirl and Supergirl went beyond being "knock offs" and became full-fledged characters in their own right.

Abd if you need one, shining example... Oracle. Not just Gail -- but other writers before her took something of a bad plot point and used it to create a character who was still a superhero in her own right and did it from a wheelchair.

Over on Linkara's "Atop the Fourth Wall" blog he recently skewered and issue of "Daredevil" and brought up something that has bugged me about the character for a long time. For all intents and purposes DD is not blind. I mean with all the super-senses Marvel piled on top of him he became, functionally little different than a sighted person and yet, he was still classified as "handicapped". Barbara Gordon saves the world without ever even standing up and, while some might have been tempted to give her bionic legs or something like that she remains a truly handicapped person who doesn't whine and moan about her situation but instead gets on with life.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I don't think Marvel has ever really NEEDED solo female stars. The stars you listed, 2 of them are knockoffs on the male character and the 1st was created to be "The female Superman".

On a side note, it's interesting that people see Wonder Woman that way, when it was clear that her creator, Charles Moulton Marston, created her to be anything BUT.

This is a pretty popular conception..... how'd it come about?

[Chiroptera]

On a side note, it's interesting that people see Wonder Woman that way, when it was clear that her creator, Charles Moulton Marston, created her to be anything BUT.

This is a pretty popular conception..... how'd it come about?

It came about because DC's editors hired Marston to "create a female Superman" literally their own words.
But Marston did better, he made a character who could be Supes' female equal but didn't have to be a total knock off.

[Aggie]

I don't think "knock off" has anything to do with it. Batgirl and Supergirl went beyond being "knock offs" and became full-fledged characters in their own right.

Abd if you need one, shining example... Oracle. Not just Gail -- but other writers before her took something of a bad plot point and used it to create a character who was still a superhero in her own right and did it from a wheelchair.

Over on Linkara's "Atop the Fourth Wall" blog he recently skewered and issue of "Daredevil" and brought up something that has bugged me about the character for a long time. For all intents and purposes DD is not blind. I mean with all the super-senses Marvel piled on top of him he became, functionally little different than a sighted person and yet, he was still classified as "handicapped". Barbara Gordon saves the world without ever even standing up and, while some might have been tempted to give her bionic legs or something like that she remains a truly handicapped person who doesn't whine and moan about her situation but instead gets on with life.

yeah, but look how long it took for her to get there...that's one thing i think marvel had over DC over the years, very strong female characters...let's face it, babs didn't become interesting until she caught a bullet in the back, and wonder woman was basically a joke up until george perez did something w/ her...and the rest of DC's female roster were either just lame or props for the male heroes...but as i said, those days are pretty much gone now and it really surprises me that this is still an argument.

[Chiroptera]

Oh and on the subject of fundamental differences...

I think Stan Lee himself said it best.
Marvel has heroes who you can relate to.
DC has the heroes who you can look up to.
That's the fundamental difference between them, and even with the back and forth writers that's one thing that's never changed, because it's how we the readers grew up knowing them and it's how the characters were designed from the start.

[Chiroptera]

let's face it, babs didn't become interesting until she caught a bullet in the back

I think you'll find a lot of fans who will disagree with that statement. Barbara was a favorite long before she was shot in the back, hell half the comic book fans I count amongst my friends still consider her to be Batgirl and Cassandra Cain to be a stand-in.
As interesting as Oracle was, it is not what made Barbara interesting. She was an intriguing character long before she became Oracle.

[OzBat!]

Compare with say how many of the JSA's first public appearance seems to be accepted by the public. You had the guy in tights saving people from the bank robber. In fact, many of the original villains for the JSA were just regular mooks or guys with funky gadgets.

Throw in that the JSA were kept on the homefront and used for public morale and you get even more good vibes for superheroes in the DCU.

Of course the DCU citizen is going to be more positive.This is a really strong point I hadn't considered before, but seems obvious in retrospect. The DC heroic tradition started at the ground roots, taking on common criminals and shoring up the home front; very relatable. And even with the introduction of the more cosmic and outlandish, DC History is treated as a legacy affair, so that guys named Flash, Green Lantern, Atom, Hawkman, Sandman etc have always been around and provide a sense of consistency throughout the decades. Superheroes woven into the fabric of the DCU consciousness and fully accepted in a way the Marvel heroes can only dream of, with the exception maybe of Captain America.

From the perspective of the average citizen of each of these publishing worlds, the differences are real, even if the storytelling tropes of each have blurred and merged over the years.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

It came about because DC's editors hired Marston to "create a female Superman" literally their own words.
But Marston did better, he made a character who could be Supes' female equal but didn't have to be a total knock off.

True.... but any editor asking for a superhero was saying 'make us a Superman!'

Marston was very critical of Superman and other superhero comics. He created HIS vision, not anyone else's.

[kingdom2000]

I could have sworn when WW was first created she was really an extension of Marston's S&M fetish. It probably wasn't until the 80s the character started being less Superwoman and more a seperate character but even then she is often portrayed as Superwoman, Amazon Warrior. I don't think she has yet to find her own voice yet that other writer's can pick up and move forward with. Rucka almost found it but that was washed away. Perez and co too maybe. Gail might, its too soon to say. I guess you will know when years after she is gone, that "voice" still carries on.

[Chiroptera]

True.... but any editor asking for a superhero was saying 'make us a Superman!'

Marston was very critical of Superman and other superhero comics. He created HIS vision, not anyone else's.

I know, that's what I just said. :p

Marston created his own character, but that still doesn't change that in nearly every biography about him, or about Wonder Woman, it is always mentioned that the editors hired him specifically to "create a female Superman."
That leaves an imprint on peoples minds, whether we want it to or not, and it helps reinforce the old idea that Wonder Woman is just a Superman knock off.

[Aggie]

I think you'll find a lot of fans who will disagree with that statement. Barbara was a favorite long before she was shot in the back, hell half the comic book fans I count amongst my friends still consider her to be Batgirl and Cassandra Cain to be a stand-in.
As interesting as Oracle was, it is not what made Barbara interesting. She was an intriguing character long before she became Oracle.

i doubt anyone who's read any depiction of batgirl pre crisis would agree...at best she was a stereo-type at worst she was just plain laughable and i think maybe nostalgia clouds the memory for the exact same reason you stated.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I know, that's what I just said.

Yep. Wasn't bein' contrary! We agree. :D

[Pink Bat Maxine]

i doubt anyone who's read any depiction of batgirl pre crisis would agree...at best she was a stereo-type at worst she was just plain laughable and i think maybe nostalgia clouds the memory for the exact same reason you stated.

My first encounter with Babs in the comics was in the late 70's and early 80's in backup stories. She was far from a stereotype in those tales... she was a smart detective lady.

[Chiroptera]

My first encounter with Babs in the comics was pre-crisis, in comics of the late 70's and early 80's. She was far from a stereotype in those tales... she was a smart detective lady.

Precisley.

A lot of women were a bad stereo type in comics, and that includes the marvel gals to, Sue, Marvel Girl, etc. All of them when they first started out were little more than damsels in distress.
That's not either companies fault, it was just the way of society at the time.

However, Batgirl became a well known and quite popular character before she became paralyzed.

[Tommy]

Marvel pushes villains.

DC pushes heroes.

[berk]

I don't think "knock off" has anything to do with it. Batgirl and Supergirl went beyond being "knock offs" and became full-fledged characters in their own right.I think that if this were true once they became independent characters they wouldn't need to be called Batgirl or Supergirl or Spiderwoman or She-Hulk any longer. Maybe Oracle is an example of that, don't know enough about the character to say for sure.

[Charles RB]

Marvel pushes villains.


Quite literally, in the case of Supervillian Team-Up: MODOK's 11. (Why did so few people buy that? :( )

[Sabrinaset]

DC has Gail, and Marvel has Wolverine!

[dogzilla]

Like people have said, the differences in tone are kind of broad generalisations anyway and have become increasingly grainy and blurred over the years

But I guess if I was trying to think about what feels more DC-ish or Marvel-esque...

In DC I get more of the sense that the main characters are the heroes in their costumes. You don't see as much of their personal lives, their secret identities seem more like cover stories for when they're not in action (the classic example of course being Bruce Wayne). All the important emotional and psychological stuff happens to them while they're suited up and flying around

Whereas in Marvel it feels more like the secret identities are more the real heart of the character. The costume and name they put on to fight crime is just there to disguise who they are, and all the really important stuff is what happens to them in their personal lives when they're not jumping about in tights

That's just my personal take on it, I'm sure lots of people probably think the exact opposite. And I'm sure there's lot of examples of both types of characterisation in both companies

[TomStillwell]

Marvel: Characters are made to fit the stories.

DC: Stories are told around their characters.

[AllisterH]

Marvel pushes villains.

DC pushes heroes.

Disagree with that. Suicide Squad has lon existed before the equivalent, Thunderbolts at marvel.

[Reptisaurus!]

i doubt anyone who's read any depiction of batgirl pre crisis would agree...at best she was a stereo-type at worst she was just plain laughable and i think maybe nostalgia clouds the memory for the exact same reason you stated.

Yeah.

I do often think whistfully back to the summer of aught six, where I was but a lad of 29 and reading those Gil Kane drawn Batgirl back-up stories for the first time. I can't say my appreciation of those stories HASN'T been colored by my nostalgic love for a year and a half ago.

Smiley face.

[Red Jack]

I think that if this were true once they became independent characters they wouldn't need to be called Batgirl or Supergirl or Spiderwoman or She-Hulk any longer. Maybe Oracle is an example of that, don't know enough about the character to say for sure.

Oracle is a far more complex and interesting character than any iteration of Batgirl.

[KevinTBrown]

Oh and on the subject of fundamental differences...

I think Stan Lee himself said it best.
Marvel has heroes who you can relate to.
DC has the heroes who you can look up to.
That's the fundamental difference between them, and even with the back and forth writers that's one thing that's never changed, because it's how we the readers grew up knowing them and it's how the characters were designed from the start.

The funny thing is though, the only time I ever related to any of their heroes is when Peter and Mary Jane got married. It happened around the same time I got married the first time. And since they've undone that.... well, back to the way it was.

[Spiffy]

Marvel: Characters are made to fit the stories.

DC: Stories are told around their characters.
This may be true today, but I don't think it always was.

Marvel once was the bright shining light in terms of characterization. During what were some pretty deep dark days for DC, Marvel stories were consistently more character based.

That's only fallen by the way-side in the "new Marvel". The ago of Bendis, Quesada, Millar, etc. Now its all about spectacle. Not so different than current DC. But DC's been doing it that way for so long, so they're BETTER at that. Their talent and their methods build better "big events".

So while my general preference is against "big events", if they are both going to be doing it anyway, DCs are likely to continue to be better. Marvel had me when they knew they couldn't do things the same way as DC. Now that they seem to have forgotten that? I might as well stick with the folks who do that better.

[Reptisaurus!]

Oracle is a far more complex and interesting character than any iteration of Batgirl.

But not as well drawn.

[TomStillwell]

This may be true today, but I don't think it always was.

Marvel once was the bright shining light in terms of characterization. During what were some pretty deep dark days for DC, Marvel stories were consistently more character based.

That's only fallen by the way-side in the "new Marvel". The ago of Bendis, Quesada, Millar, etc. Now its all about spectacle. Not so different than current DC. But DC's been doing it that way for so long, so they're BETTER at that. Their talent and their methods build better "big events".

So while my general preference is against "big events", if they are both going to be doing it anyway, DCs are likely to continue to be better. Marvel had me when they knew they couldn't do things the same way as DC. Now that they seem to have forgotten that? I might as well stick with the folks who do that better.

I totally agree with you. Marvel was great on characterization.

Now they just pick a character they want use and hammer them into a story to obtain their desired end result.

A perfect example is Civil War.

Tony Stark and Steve Rogers would have worked out the whole registration thing even having drastically different viewpoints. Yeah, there would have been major conflict. Each side should been sympathetic enough that the reader truly had a hard time deciding who they stood with. And it could have shaken the status quo as they planned.

But instead they needed guys punching each other.

They needed Iron Man to be the heavy, the establishment, so that's what he became. They needed Captain America to be stubborn and too proud, so that's what he became. They needed Mr. Fantastic to be devoid of soul and human compassion, strange things from a man who is all about his family & friends, but he became a walking computer.

[Tommy]

Disagree with that. Suicide Squad has lon existed before the equivalent, Thunderbolts at marvel.

That's a very... narrow response to what I said.

And completely irrelevant to it as well.

Marvel starting with Fantastic Four built up its villains into MAJOR players and kept them that way. Dr. Doom takes over Earth twice (neither time actually being forced to give it back), counter-earth once, steals the Beyonder's power, rebuilds a reality warping machine out of a crashed space ship, and has SHEILD basically saying "we're fucked" if Latveria ever decided to start WWIII (even counting in Atlantis and Wakanda). When Doom comes to play everyone shits themselves and calls in cosmic favors. It takes REED FREAKIN' RICHARDS and the most balanced and coordinated team in comics to stand up to him.

Kang is the pretty much the same. He has admitted that the only reason the Avengers stand a chance against him is that he considers certain things unsporting.

Thanos makes the universe shit itself in terror.

Magento is handed Genosha and turns it from an utter hell hole into an actual nation.

While DC villains are good and interesting they just can't stand up Marvel's. Batman has some interesting and twisted rogues, but he has moved to the point where he hopeless outclasses most of them (Thank you JLA).

Superman is leagues beyond most of his villains.

Jack Kirby's great creation Darksied since the Great Darkness Saga floundered into being Superman's punching bag.

[berk]

Oracle is a far more complex and interesting character than any iteration of Batgirl.Could be; I wouldn't know. If you're right, then I'd say that's an example of a derivative character being developed to the point where it really is independent of its derivative origin, and the name change is indicative of that. The point being that if the Batgirls, She-Hulks, Supergirls and Spiderwomen really were examples of successful character development they too would have dropped the blatantly derivative names in favour of something that reflected that independence.

[Tyr]

DC has stuf like this
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h209/7p7/Omac.jpg

Marvel does not :p

Is that from Mightygodking?

Well the big difference I see is how they handle retconning.

DC drops a big monty python foot on stuff and just starts over.

Marvel lets stuff quietly slip into oblivion and forgets.

[Red Jack]

Could be; I wouldn't know. If you're right, then I'd say that's an example of a derivative character being developed to the point where it really is independent of its derivative origin, and the name change is indicative of that. The point being that if the Batgirls, She-Hulks, Supergirls and Spiderwomen really were examples of successful character development they too would have dropped the blatantly derivative names in favour of something that reflected that independence.

What it's an example of is a couple of gifted writers taking a knockoff sidekick character and making her a layered and interesting hero in her own right. IMO the most interesting hero in the DCU.

Any good writer can do that to any character.


Except Gunfire.

Gunfire is death.

[stealthwise]

Over on Linkara's "Atop the Fourth Wall" blog he recently skewered and issue of "Daredevil" and brought up something that has bugged me about the character for a long time. For all intents and purposes DD is not blind. I mean with all the super-senses Marvel piled on top of him he became, functionally little different than a sighted person and yet, he was still classified as "handicapped".

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

I have to say b##&s*@) on that.

Ask Matt Murdock to read the expiration date on a carton of milk. Get him to tell you what that road sign up ahead says, you know, while you're driving his ass around because he can't do it for himself. Find out exactly what Karen Page looked like.

He can feel, he can hear, he can "radar-see," but he's still lacking a fundamental sense that most of us take for granted. He's limited in this way, especially in his civilian identity when he has to at least pay lip service to his disability in order to prevent even MORE people from figuring out that he's Daredevil.

Compare that to Oracle, who does indeed rock, and it's not that big of a difference. She has friends from Krypton, Themescarofaoofoaland (I can't spell Amazonian homelands this late at night), etc, and she can't get a rocket wheelchair? Or cybernetic legs? Her disability could be a lame plot device, but fortunately most writers are smart enough not to play it up and work it to their advantage, but if she ACTUALLY hobnobbed with all of the heroes that she knows and she really wanted to walk, she would.

[Red Jack]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

I have to say b##&s*@) on that.

Ask Matt Murdock to read the expiration date on a carton of milk. Get him to tell you what that road sign up ahead says, you know, while you're driving his ass around because he can't do it for himself. Find out exactly what Karen Page looked like.

He can feel, he can hear, he can "radar-see," but he's still lacking a fundamental sense that most of us take for granted. He's limited in this way, especially in his civilian identity when he has to at least pay lip service to his disability in order to prevent even MORE people from figuring out that he's Daredevil.

Compare that to Oracle, who does indeed rock, and it's not that big of a difference. She has friends from Krypton, Themescarofaoofoaland (I can't spell Amazonian homelands this late at night), etc, and she can't get a rocket wheelchair? Or cybernetic legs? Her disability could be a lame plot device, but fortunately most writers are smart enough not to play it up and work it to their advantage, but if she ACTUALLY hobnobbed with all of the heroes that she knows and she really wanted to walk, she would.

Daredevil has a minor handicap at worst. His compensatory senses make him, in most ways, SUPERIOR to a sighted person. He's little different than Cyclops who, of course, must be color blind as he sees everything through a red filter.

Oracle, by contrast, has NO compensatory abilities. Not only did she drive herself to the peak of human conditioning BEFORE she was assaulted, afterwards she did it again. Without help from Kryptonians or magic or even the Bat. She did it alone and she's even more formidable now than she was before. All because she wanted to stay in the game and make a positive difference in the world. She's not on a revenge kick. She's not empowered by cosmic forces or super technology. She's a normal woman with a drive to be Good. She not only survived her assault, she surpassed it. And everyone around her.

Nobody touches Oracle. She sets the bar for heroism in the DCU.

Hell, nobody even comes close.

I don't think Marvel has anybody even in the same stadium as her.

[Suzanne]

DC's heroes are generally appreciated by the public while Marvel's are feared; the opposite is also true. Otherwise, both have borrowed from, swapped, and ripped each other off so much the differences barely exist.

[berk]

What it's an example of is a couple of gifted writers taking a knockoff sidekick character and making her a layered and interesting hero in her own right. IMO the most interesting hero in the DCU.

Any good writer can do that to any character.


Except Gunfire.

Gunfire is death.This must be one of those cases where the internet doesn't convey the entire message. As far as I can tell from your words, you're agreeing with me, but at the same time I get the vibe that you're taking issue with something I said - or am I misreading that? If I'm not misreading it, what is it you disagree with, exactly?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Marvel: Characters are made to fit the stories.

DC: Stories are told around their characters.

That doesn't really describe IDENTITY CRISIS or Winick's DC stuff.

[JKCarrier]

Ask Matt Murdock to read the expiration date on a carton of milk. Get him to tell you what that road sign up ahead says, you know, while you're driving his ass around because he can't do it for himself. Find out exactly what Karen Page looked like.

DD has been shown "reading" a newspaper by feeling the ink impressions with his super-sensitive fingers. I can think of a couple of times he's driven a car, too. And then there was the notorious "Mike Murdock" subplot in the Lee/Colan years, where he was able to pass himself off as Matt's (not blind) brother. He gets around as well as any sighted person, and better than most.

[Reptisaurus!]

That doesn't really describe IDENTITY CRISIS or Winick's DC stuff.

Well, we have to talk in really general terms to get to any sort of conclusion, here.

Even back in the sixties, when the two companies did have really seperate and distinct identities - Hell, with DC's editorial fiefdoms it had MULTIPLE distinct identities - There was DC stuff like Doom Patrol and Deadman that aligned much more closely with the Marvel style.

[LewisH]

(yes I am that old) the difference was much more pronounced. Marvel had a more real world feel where you actually felt the heroes could lose and DID experience tragedies on a fairly regular basis. The DC heroes never even seemed like they were challenged. The stories were often fun but without a lot of depth.

However, as you got later into the decade DC evolved to where it pretty much had as much of a real world feel as Marvel. The turning point that I remember (and it may have come earlier than this) was Joker's 5 Way Revenge. After that Batman got back to his noire roots and other heroes began dealing with real world issues.

These days Marvel is still a darker setting than DC but not by much. After all you can pretty much find at least one character death per month at BOTH companies these days. Still the characters at Marvel still seem a bit greyer
than the ones at DC for the most part. There are very few characters at
Marvel that haven't done something questionable at some point.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, we have to talk in really general terms to get to any sort of conclusion, here.

Even back in the sixties, when the two companies did have really seperate and distinct identities - Hell, with DC's editorial fiefdoms it had MULTIPLE distinct identities - There was DC stuff like Doom Patrol and Deadman that aligned much more closely with the Marvel style.

True enough.

In any case, I think it's pretty obvious that with time, DC's approach has come closer and closer to the classic "Marvel style." This started as far back as the Wolfman/Perez NEW TEEN TITANS and has only become more prevalent with time.

And of course right now both of them are relying way too much on cross-continuity books and big crossover "event" stories, making them appear even more alike.

[Reptisaurus!]

Actually, at this point, I'm thinking that Marvel books are best read in trade paperbacks, DC books are more formatted as single issues.

And DC has a backlist of steady "literary" sellers, like Watchmen and Sandman.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Actually, at this point, I'm thinking that Marvel books are best read in trade paperbacks, DC books are more formatted as single issues.
I don't buy enough DC books to really have an opinion on that for their line as a whole, but of the ones I do read, it's definitely true of JONAH HEX, DETECTIVE and ALL-STAR SUPERMAN. WONDER WOMAN and BATMAN also read well as single-issues due to both writers having a good understanding of how to produce fulfilling chapters while writing in a serial format.

The few Marvel books I currently buy also read pretty well issue to issue, but they do tend toward longer storylines and very few self-contained stories. DAREDEVIL probably would read even better in trades, though.

So, yeah, from my limited perspective at least, that seems a valid point.

And DC has a backlist of steady "literary" sellers, like Watchmen and Sandman.

That's very true.

[Red Jack]

This must be one of those cases where the internet doesn't convey the entire message. As far as I can tell from your words, you're agreeing with me, but at the same time I get the vibe that you're taking issue with something I said - or am I misreading that? If I'm not misreading it, what is it you disagree with, exactly?

Hm.

I don't think there was any desire, certainly no editorial plan, to "develop" Babs from Batgirl to Oracle.

Alan Moore wrote a one-shot called THE KILLING JOKE in which the character was assaulted by the Joker (crippled, in fact) but he has said repeatedly that he never meant for the injury to be permanent or to evolve the character one way or the other. He was treating Babs as most writers had treated her before: in this case as a secondary bit of plot device to show how crazy and lethal the Joker really is.

Subsequently three writers OSTRANDER, YALE and DIXON, instead of doing the pat comic book thing and getting Babs out of her wheelchair instantly, created the character Oracle which was ultimately developed into the the character she is today. Gail Simone has added considerably more flesh to Oracle's bones, making her perhaps the definitive Oracle scribe, and DC has thus far resisted calls from fans to put Barbara back in the bat tights (and I hope they aren't foolish enough to use Final Crisis to reboot her as well).

It wasn't a conscious editorial decision to develop a knockoff character into uniqueness; it was a bunch of writers, initially anyway, being damned good writers and using what was there to make something interesting rather than more of the same.

Ostrander, in particular, is a genius at that and doesn't get nearly the props he deserves for his magnificent skills and creativity.

[berk]

Actually, at this point, I'm thinking that Marvel books are best read in trade paperbacks, DC books are more formatted as single issues.

And DC has a backlist of steady "literary" sellers, like Watchmen and Sandman.Yes, this is one case where the roles have very much reversed. What few innovative works that have appeared from the Big 2 in the last 25 years or so have mostly come from DC, and most of those from the same few writers - Moore, Morrison - having been given free reign, usually on creator-owned books. Marvel hasn't been able to emulate this. I can't think of anything from their creator-owned line - "Icon", is it? - that's I'd consider worth a look. I don't think DC itself has done much in recent years either, but they do have that backlog.

This reminds me, I think a lot of people have the impression that the reason there's less difference between the 2 big companies is that DC has gradually become more like Marvel. I think that's true only at a superficial level. Early on, with Moore's Swamp Thing, it did look like DC was becoming the place where innovative, original work might be given a chance, but as time went on they alienated Moore and ended up being influenced only by the superficial elements of Marvel - Crisis, the increased emphasis on the shared universe, characters a little more angsty, etc.

The more significant development, I think, was from the Shooter era onwards, Marvel becoming a lot more like DC: a tightly run business enterprise with strict editorial control over its product. Which might have made excellent business sense , but killed them creatively.

[berk]

Hm.

I don't think there was any desire, certainly no editorial plan, to "develop" Babs from Batgirl to Oracle.

Alan Moore wrote a one-shot called THE KILLING JOKE in which the character was assaulted by the Joker (crippled, in fact) but he has said repeatedly that he never meant for the injury to be permanent or to evolve the character one way or the other. He was treating Babs as most writers had treated her before: in this case as a secondary bit of plot device to show how crazy and lethal the Joker really is.

Subsequently three writers OSTRANDER, YALE and DIXON, instead of doing the pat comic book thing and getting Babs out of her wheelchair instantly, created the character Oracle which was ultimately developed into the the character she is today. Gail Simone has added considerably more flesh to Oracle's bones, making her perhaps the definitive Oracle scribe, and DC has thus far resisted calls from fans to put Barbara back in the bat tights (and I hope they aren't foolish enough to use Final Crisis to reboot her as well).

It wasn't a conscious editorial decision to develop a knockoff character into uniqueness; it was a bunch of writers, initially anyway, being damned good writers and using what was there to make something interesting rather than more of the same.

Ostrander, in particular, is a genius at that and doesn't get nearly the props he deserves for his magnificent skills and creativity.We seem to be talking at cross purposes. Anyway, I don't see anything I'd disagree with there, as far as I can tell without knowing more about the characters.

[Gothos]

Yes, this is one case where the roles have very much reversed. What few innovative works that have appeared from the Big 2 in the last 25 years or so have mostly come from DC, and most of those from the same few writers - Moore, Morrison - having been given free reign, usually on creator-owned books. Marvel hasn't been able to emulate this. I can't think of anything from their creator-owned line - "Icon", is it? - that's I'd consider worth a look. I don't think DC itself has done much in recent years either, but they do have that backlog.

This reminds me, I think a lot of people have the impression that the reason there's less difference between the 2 big companies is that DC has gradually become more like Marvel. I think that's true only at a superficial level. Early on, with Moore's Swamp Thing, it did look like DC was becoming the place where innovative, original work might be given a chance, but as time went on they alienated Moore and ended up being influenced only by the superficial elements of Marvel - Crisis, the increased emphasis on the shared universe, characters a little more angsty, etc.

The more significant development, I think, was from the Shooter era onwards, Marvel becoming a lot more like DC: a tightly run business enterprise with strict editorial control over its product. Which might have made excellent business sense , but killed them creatively.

That's all true, but keep in mind that Marvel had a period of innovation, roughly 1970-1976 (which I arbitrarily end with the introduction of the X-Men), and that Shooter's micro-managing reign was something of a reaction against the creative freedoms that had obtained there.

I grew up in the 60s, and enjoyed both Marvel and DC, but was closer to a Marvel fan in thinking that Marvel was always in the forefront of innovative storytelling. Books of the early 70s, like the early CONAN, KILLRAVEN, and HOWARD THE DUCK seemed far beyond the comparable works at DC.

However, Shooter's period proved a retrenchment that, aside from some bright spots, mostly gave us Lee/Thomas/Kirby/Ditko filtered through a kind of Mort Weisinger consciousness, and Marvel's never been the same since.

In contrast, though we all tend to think of DC in terms of its more innocent superheroes, the early 80s gave us the proto-Vertigo books, which were more important over time to shaping the current field than, say, the Wolfman-Perez TITANS.

In the late 60s I would never have dreamed of stodgy DC doing books like a genre-bending book like SANDMAN, even though there was kind of a mini-tradition born in 60s books like DEADMAN and the first SWAMPY.

It could be argued that in the early 60s DC had a more "bookish" feel, especially in Julie Schwartz's works, and so that has ironically fed into their desire to develop more refined talents like Moore and Gaiman.

In contrast, who did Marvel develop at that time?

Frank Miller.

[Tommy]

And DC has a backlist of steady "literary" sellers, like Watchmen and Sandman.

Actually that is just because DC bought up Alan Moore's back catalog and hired him to write Swamp Thing. Had Marvel got to him first and hired him to write Man Thing all the Vertigo books would be at Marvel now. While they have it, it is because of DC's predatory buying practices (Hi Captain Marvel!).

[Gothos]

Actually that is just because DC bought up Alan Moore's back catalog and hired him to write Swamp Thing. Had Marvel got to him first and hired him to write Man Thing all the Vertigo books would be at Marvel now. While they have it, it is because of DC's predatory buying practices (Hi Captain Marvel!).


Weeeeelll-- not sure if you're joking, but as I see it I don't think any editors at Marvel would've had the latitude to pursue a barely-known entity like Alan Moore. Shooter reportedly kept a tight rein on things. I think Len Wein brought both Moore and Gaiman to DC, didn't he? And the fact that he had that much autonomy reminds me of how DC, being much bigger than Marvel, was divided in a number of separate feifdoms in the Silver Age, with the result that a Robert Kanigher-edited book wasn't much like a Mort Weisinger-edited book.

One might add Kanigher's ENEMY ACE to the list of "proto-Vertigo DC features," BTW.

[Red Jack]

Actually that is just because DC bought up Alan Moore's back catalog and hired him to write Swamp Thing. Had Marvel got to him first and hired him to write Man Thing all the Vertigo books would be at Marvel now. While they have it, it is because of DC's predatory buying practices (Hi Captain Marvel!).

I think that's a reach.

Moore asked to do Swamp Thing. he wasn't "hired" to do anything with the title. Also there was no Vertigo when Moore began and no reason to assume there would be.

Moore had written [the first arc of] MIRACLE MAN by then so, if DC had bought up his back catalogue, where is the hardcover Absolute Miracle Man book?

THe two editorial approaches are totally different with DC being, BY FAR, the more experimental and innovative.

Marvel plays catchup in that arena, creating the ULTIMATE and MAX lines in RESPONSE to the success of DC's Vertigo.

While Marvel certainly began as the innovative wild child, slapping DC around for a good couple of decades, once they realized what was possible post Moore, DC opened the door to innovation and never looked back.

And I don't put the inception of the All New X-Men as the problem with Marvel. It is, very specifically, the DAYS OF FUTURE PAST two-issue arc that destroyed Marvel as a viable creative entity. Subsequent to that story (a very good one in itself) the mutant crutch became more and more pronounced, spreading throughout the line like a cancer. Origin stories became outmoded;everybody was a mutant. The future gave us apocalyptic end times that began to permeate the mythos of all the books. The X-Men were no longer fighting for acceptance and tolerance (very hopeful goals) but to stave off an increasingly inevitable Holocaust. Brrr.

Xavier's Dream is dead. Reed Richards is a soulless autocrat. Iron Man is a fascist. Spider-Man sells a piece of his soul. The Scarlet Witch is a mass murderer. Etc.

Marvel, rather than being simply darker and more grounded in reality than DC, became increasingly dystopian and nihilistic. And the trend continues to today with the mostly lackluster CIVIL WAR (yeah, there were some highlights here and there but really, IRON MAN as a fascist? CAP as an intractable anti-government rebel? Sorry. Ridiculous.). Which, like the HOUSE OF M and the completely ludicrous failure that was HEROES REBORN, were attempts by Marvel to re-create the success and rebooting aspects of DC Crisis on Infinite Earths.

Marvel has been playing catch-up since Claremont and then Leifeld were given free reign. (thank God for the Cosmic stories. At least those are fun)

DC is a hopeful place, even with the shadows that have recently been injected. Even DC's darkest hero, the BAtman, is motivated by hope for a better future rather than, like Marvel's Punisher, a simple revenge fantasy. Marvel is, for the most part, a place without hope. Everyone lives in fear. Of the future, of attack, of themselves, of one another.

If they were real places and I was offered a choice of where I wanted to live, despite the lilly-straight-whiteness of most of its history, the DCU is where I'd hang my hat.

Because change for the better is possible there. It's not in the MU.

[AllisterH]

Um, wasn't both Alan Moore and Morrison writing for Marvel UK LONG before coming over to DC?

I always wondered how DC was able to trump marvel in that regard. The funny thing is that looking back, Marvel should easily have had the Vertigo style books before DC.

1. Marvel Uk division had long been hiring British writers and letting them do their own thing BEFORE Moore/Gaiman were brought over to DC. I mean, seriously look at the lineup of writersMarvel UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_UK) had access to way before DC did.

2. Marvel had the original EPIC offshoot before Swamp thing birthed Vertigo. Marvel was setup about a decade before Vertigo with Epic and really, look at the wide-non superhero list of titles that Epic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Comics) had.

With having access to those British writers long before DC even bothered looking AND having a creator-owned imprint at least a decade before DC even created its own, how the hell did Marvel NOT create the Vertigo marketplace is what one should ask.

I don't understand how Marvel failed here. Only guess is that EPIC was just ahead of its time.

[Red Jack]

Um, wasn't both Alan Moore and Morrison writing for Marvel UK LONG before coming over to DC?

I always wondered how DC was able to trump marvel in that regard. The funny thing is that looking back, Marvel should easily have had the Vertigo style books before DC.

1. Marvel Uk division had long been hiring British writers and letting them do their own thing BEFORE Moore/Gaiman were brought over to DC. I mean, seriously look at the lineup of writersMarvel UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_UK) had access to way before DC did.

2. Marvel had the original EPIC offshoot before Swamp thing birthed Vertigo. Marvel was setup about a decade before Vertigo with Epic and really, look at the wide-non superhero list of titles that Epic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Comics) had.

With having access to those British writers long before DC even bothered looking AND having a creator-owned imprint at least a decade before DC even created its own, how the hell did Marvel NOT create the Vertigo marketplace is what one should ask.

I don't understand how Marvel failed here. Only guess is that EPIC was just ahead of its time.

Epic was a response to HEAVY METAL and WARREN. And it was unsuccessful precisely because it was unable to provide what those other lines were.

ULTIMATES is an interesting approach but, as Marvel is Ultimate-izing its main line, I'm not sure what the point is of having both.

[Tommy]

Moore asked to do Swamp Thing. he wasn't "hired" to do anything with the title. Also there was no Vertigo when Moore began and no reason to assume there would be.
There wasn't because Alan Moore created it with Swamp Thing.

Moore had written [the first arc of] MIRACLE MAN by then so, if DC had bought up his back catalogue, where is the hardcover Absolute Miracle Man book?
DC owns Miracle Man and has released hardcovers of it in the past. However right now the series is in a legal limbo.

THe two editorial approaches are totally different with DC being, BY FAR, the more experimental and innovative.
Only because Alan Moore pushed things in Swamp Thing, which resulted in them rereleasing V for Vendetta and after fucking him over putting out Watchmen. Those projects caused people like Neil Gaiman to want to work with DC.

Marvel plays catchup in that arena, creating the ULTIMATE and MAX lines in RESPONSE to the success of DC's Vertigo.
No, Marvel started the trend with Howard the Duck and Squadron Supreme. However they weren't quick enough to transfer Alan Moore to a major book when he worked with them on Marvel UK.

[Black Atom]

I don't think there are any "fundamental" differences. Decades ago, you could've said it was that Marvel has more "human" heroes or that DC was about idols in an idealized world whereas Marvel was idols in a human world, but neither is true anymore. Oddly, DC has become better at the latter thing more recently.

[Tommy]

With having access to those British writers long before DC even bothered looking AND having a creator-owned imprint at least a decade before DC even created its own, how the hell did Marvel NOT create the Vertigo marketplace is what one should ask.

To be fair to Marvel DC offered Moore one of their lowest selling titles that was (at that point) destined for cancellation. Moore being able to turn Swamp Thing around was quite a shock to the entire marketplace.

[Red Jack]

DC owns Miracle Man and has released hardcovers of it in the past. However right now the series is in a legal limbo.

Explain that. it doesn't make sense to me. Miracleman was published by ECLIPSE comics in the US and there was some friction of McFarlane acquiring the rights. How does DC own any of that?

No, Marvel started the trend with Howard the Duck and Squadron Supreme. However they weren't quick enough to transfer Alan Moore to a major book when he worked with them on Marvel UK.

Howard the Duck? Are you kidding? All apologies to the Late Mr. Gerber but Howard never had the widespread success or influence of Swamp Thing and never inspired a massive change in comics or inspired the creation of an entire line of comics. Two if you count the defunct HELIX line.

Swamp Thing was seminal. Howard was quirky.

[AllisterH]

Epic was a response to HEAVY METAL and WARREN. And it was unsuccessful precisely because it was unable to provide what those other lines were.

.

EPIC illustrated WAS successful and that created the EPIC imprint. I'm not sure why the EPIC imprint is seen as a challenge to WARREN or HEAVY METAL since the format was way different (EPIC comics were regular comics while those were magazines with multiple storylines).

I would certainly put Elquest up against Moore's Swamp thing in terms of quality so it's not even the question of "quality" works.

I suspect the reason WHY swamp thing was so successful and birthed Vertigo was that it initially WAS a DC superhero comic. Here was a superhero comic that went beyond what DC was producing at the time.

I doubt if Moore had been writing Man-thing it would've been seen as "ground-breaking" at Marvel as it was at DC.

[Red Jack]

EPIC illustrated WAS successful and that created the EPIC imprint. I'm not sure why the EPIC imprint is seen as a challenge to WARREN or HEAVY METAL since the format was way different (EPIC comics were regular comics while those were magazines with multiple storylines).

I would certainly put Elquest up against Moore's Swamp thing in terms of quality so it's not even the question of "quality" works.

I suspect the reason WHY swamp thing was so successful and birthed Vertigo was that it initially WAS a DC superhero comic. Here was a superhero comic that went beyond what DC was producing at the time.

I doubt if Moore had been writing Man-thing it would've been seen as "ground-breaking" at Marvel as it was at DC.

Man-Thing was never anything more than a Swamp Thing knockoff. Even the origin stories are nearly identical.

The [AMAZING] Pinis were already doing ELFQUEST when EPIC came knocking and they had done all the work necessary to build their sizable audience. Nothing innovative about grabbing something that already works and sticking your stamp on it. The Epic line was a spin-off from (resurrection of?) EPIC magazine which was, very clearly, created to compete with HEAVY METAL and [to a lesser degree] WARREN and which failed just as clearly.

The Epic line was simply EPIC ILLUSTRATED broken into individual books. DREADSTAR, began in EI. They added other books over the years- ALIEN LEGION, MOONSHADOW, ELFQUEST (IIRC) and they were followed by several others. Coyote I think was one. All creator-owned.

Moonshadow ended up at Vertigo. The Pinis went back to doing it themselves. Dreadstar ended up on the web (I think). Etc. HM is still here. Warren books still come out. Vertigo is the definition of crossover popcultural asskickery. Both EI and the Epic line are defunct. The Epic line and the Vertigo line have nothing in common.

The idea behind EPIC was to give creator-owned projects a wider distribution than they could achieve on their own (attractive to the creators) while letting Marvel claim an editorial and, presumably, financial victory simply by slapping their stamp on the properties.

By contrast the VERTIGO line was not simply a clearing house for private projects or pre-existing ones but a legitimate IMPRINT with an editorial ethos and a decidedly uniformly adult approach to product creation.

It was something new.

[AllisterH]

Man-Thing was never anything more than a Swamp Thing knockoff. Even the origin stories are nearly identical. .

Hmm? I'm pretty sure Man-Thing actually came first.

By contrast the VERTIGO line was not simply a clearing house for private projects or pre-existing ones but a legitimate IMPRINT with an editorial ethos and a decidedly uniformly adult approach to product creation.

It was something new.

Which I think only worked at DC. Vertigo, with Swamp Thing initially stood at stark contrast to what DC was publishing at the time in their main line of superhero comics.

Take for example, any of marvel's BW comics from the 70s (Jungle Tales and Kung-Fu) and many of them had writing as adult as anything you had in Swamp Thing. I don't think Moore's work would've been seen as ground-breaking at Marvel as it was at DC. Marvel had Squadron Supreme already, it had done mature topics like alcoholism, rape, drugs in titles like Iron Man, Jungle Tales and Kung-fu all back in the 70s.

[Red Jack]

Hmm? I'm pretty sure Man-Thing actually came first.


Which I think only worked at DC. Vertigo, with Swamp Thing initially stood at stark contrast to what DC was publishing at the time in their main line of superhero comics.

Take for example, any of marvel's BW comics from the 70s (Jungle Tales and Kung-Fu) and many of them had writing as adult as anything you had in Swamp Thing. I don't think Moore's work would've been seen as ground-breaking at Marvel as it was at DC. Marvel had Squadron Supreme already, it had done mature topics like alcoholism, rape, drugs in titles like Iron Man, Jungle Tales and Kung-fu all back in the 70s.

The original appearances of ST and MT were within one month of each other from their respective companies and, I'm sorry, I'm giving the edge on this one to WEIN and WRIGHTSON in terms of having developed the original character first. It is possible they are both knockoffs of an earlier pulp property but I doubt it. Marvel has a pattern of knocking off DC characters while the converse is not true of DC.

I think it's a reach to describe any of those Marvel BW titles as even remotely as adult as Moore's Swamp Thing and it wasn't juxtaposition with the rest of DC's line that made it stand out. It simply stood out as something new. Against all books. And, as a result, opened the door for a new expression of American comics.

[Tommy]

Howard the Duck? Are you kidding? All apologies to the Late Mr. Gerber but Howard never had the widespread success or influence of Swamp Thing and never inspired a massive change in comics or inspired the creation of an entire line of comics. Two if you count the defunct HELIX line.

Swamp Thing was seminal. Howard was quirky.

Howard the Duck was a huge success and the first comic book from the big two marketed to adults. And it had most obvious influance on Grant Morrison but also on Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman.

The original appearances of ST and MT were within one month of each other from their respective companies and, I'm sorry, I'm giving the edge on this one to WEIN and WRIGHTSON in terms of having developed the original character first. It is possible they are both knockoffs of an earlier pulp property but I doubt it.
That "earlier pulp property" was The Heap. I do find it somewhat doubtful you'd even add that last sentence unless you knew before hand about The Heap's existence.

Marvel has a pattern of knocking off DC characters while the converse is not true of DC.

That's because it is easier to make a Superman pastiche than it is to make a Spider-Man.

[Red Jack]

Howard the Duck was a huge success and the first comic book from the big two marketed to adults. And it had most obvious influance on Grant Morrison but also on Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman. Okay. That's a stretch too. I'm sure a great many things influence Moore and Gaiman of which Howard is a relatively minor example. Lovecraft, King, Shakespeare, Keats, Carroll, Shelley, Wild and Twain are more obvious and more profound influences on both men.


That "earlier pulp property" was The Heap. I do find it somewhat doubtful you'd even add that last sentence unless you knew before hand about The Heap's existence.

Thanks. I couldn't remember the name and I have no idea whether or not the two companies decided to update the Heap at the same time or not but somehow I doubt it. Marvel had no real history of horror comics (dabbling for bit in the mid 1970s and not much beyond) while DC has a long one.

That's because it is easier to make a Superman pastiche than it is to make a Spider-Man.

No. That's bias. There's nothing more original about Spider-man or more complex. Marvel does knock-offs of DC characters on a regular basis. DC has done like two.

[AllisterH]

Thanks. I couldn't remember the name and I have no idea whether or not the two companies decided to update the Heap at the same time or not but somehow I doubt it. Marvel had no real history of horror comics (dabbling for bit in the mid 1970s and not much beyond) while DC has a long one.
.
If anything, Marvel WAS HORROR. Pre Comic code (which killed all horror), marvel had Strange Tales and was producing things like Tales to Astonish which were all monster movie fare. In the 70s, Marvel was Horror as this was the heyday of marvel great horror titles. I'm really blanking on what DC was producing in these same eras.


No. That's bias. There's nothing more original about Spider-man or more complex. Marvel does knock-offs of DC characters on a regular basis. DC has done like two.

Kyle Rayner. Ron Marz has ALWAYS said that Kyle was Peter Parker in the DCU and that's a prime example of the difference.

The difference is that a DC knock-off is more easily identified. Does your character have a strong chin, can fly, has a cape and is very strong? Then he's a Superman knockoff.

Is he dark, brooding, works in the shadows and beats up criminals? Batman knockoff.

Visually, it is easy to identify a DC knockoff just on their looks/powers alone.
A Marvel knockoff isn't that easy to identify since you actually need to read the history of the character.

[Charles RB]

I don't understand how Marvel failed here. Only guess is that EPIC was just ahead of its time.



Well, to quote Richard Starkings (http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=42) on his Marvel UK editorship:

"I argued with the powers-that-be that, had we offered Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons - who had worked on CAPTAIN BRITAIN and DOCTOR WHO respectively - more than just work-for-hire rates and licensed properties, we might have found ourselves publishing WATCHMEN, which had gathered a lot of press and publicity at the time.

And he's basically right. Warrior, original home of V For Vendetta and Marvelman, was created because Dez Skinn left Marvel UK and decided to set up a creator-owned version of the strips he'd started there (V evolved out of a desire for a Warrior version of M-UK's Night-Raven). if things had been slightly different, V could've been published by Marvel.

By the time Epic did turn up, it was too late.

[siuntres]

If anything, Marvel WAS HORROR. Pre Comic code (which killed all horror), marvel had Strange Tales and was producing things like Tales to Astonish which were all monster movie fare. In the 70s, Marvel was Horror as this was the heyday of marvel great horror titles. I'm really blanking on what DC was producing in these same eras.


1970's dc was also doing quality horror, like neal adams and bernie wrightson on tales of the unexpected, the witching hour and swamp thing .

they were also doing sword and sandals, pulp heroes, and jungle men...just like marvel was

[JKCarrier]

The original appearances of ST and MT were within one month of each other from their respective companies and, I'm sorry, I'm giving the edge on this one to WEIN and WRIGHTSON in terms of having developed the original character first. It is possible they are both knockoffs of an earlier pulp property but I doubt it.

The idea that Marvel had spies watching Wein, somehow guessed that this one-shot anthology story would inspire a regular series, and then rushed to create a knock-off, is pretty far-fetched. Swamp monsters weren't a new idea, even then; besides the Heap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heap_(comics)) character, there's Theodore Sturgeon's 1940 story "It" (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/ittheodoresturgeon.htm), and DC's Solomon Grundy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Grundy_(comics)). Marvel had a couple of their own, like The Glob (http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix2/globtimmshulk.htm), who fought the Hulk in the '60s. Swamp Thing and Man-Thing are two unusually good iterations of a generic monster type that just happened to show up around the same time. (see also: Doom Patrol, X-Men)

[Red Jack]

If anything, Marvel WAS HORROR. Pre Comic code (which killed all horror), marvel had Strange Tales and was producing things like Tales to Astonish which were all monster movie fare. In the 70s, Marvel was Horror as this was the heyday of marvel great horror titles. I'm really blanking on what DC was producing in these same eras.

You're conflating Timely and Atlas comics and the Golden Age marvel with the one Stan Lee invented in the 60's. The are not the same animals. Marvel comics is a post-code creation as far as I know.

By contrast, DC comics, the one with Superman and Batman et al, was publishing horror comics in 1950s and earlier.

Kyle Rayner. Ron Marz has ALWAYS said that Kyle was Peter Parker in the DCU and that's a prime example of the difference.

The difference is that a DC knock-off is more easily identified. Does your character have a strong chin, can fly, has a cape and is very strong? Then he's a Superman knockoff.

No. I'm talking about Hyperion. Gladiator. Sentry. etc.

Is he dark, brooding, works in the shadows and beats up criminals? Batman knockoff. Are you talking about Moon Knight? I think you are. Or maybe Nighthawk?

Visually, it is easy to identify a DC knockoff just on their looks/powers alone. A Marvel knockoff isn't that easy to identify since you actually need to read the history of the character.

Well, not to disagree with his creator but that's a steaming load. Kyle has almost nothing in common with Peter Parker beyond gender. Hell, Kyle was already an adult before he got his powers. And Mr. Leifeld seemed to manage a pretty much constant stream of obvious Marvel knock-offs before the bottom fell out. It's not hard if somebody wants to do it. DC obviously doesn't.

Do I really have to make a list of all the obvious rips from DC that Marvel has done over the decades? I mean it's not even close. The Imperial Guard. the Squadron Sinister/Supreme? Hell, Captain Marvel.

[Gothos]

Red Jack said to Tommy:

"And I don't put the inception of the All New X-Men as the problem with Marvel."

I mentioned the inception of the X-Men, not Tommy, and I wasn't saying that it was a problem as such. It just happened to come together at the time when Jim Shooter came to prominence, and it marks the end of the "edgy" Marvel and the growth of a more wholly "mainstream" Marvel. That's not to impugn the work of Claremont, Cockrum and Byrne-- we needed good mainstream comics then, even as we do now-- but its rise to prominence happens to parallel the downturn of the edgy stuff, for whatever reason.

[Gothos]

Hmm? I'm pretty sure Man-Thing actually came first.


Which I think only worked at DC. Vertigo, with Swamp Thing initially stood at stark contrast to what DC was publishing at the time in their main line of superhero comics.

Take for example, any of marvel's BW comics from the 70s (Jungle Tales and Kung-Fu) and many of them had writing as adult as anything you had in Swamp Thing. I don't think Moore's work would've been seen as ground-breaking at Marvel as it was at DC. Marvel had Squadron Supreme already, it had done mature topics like alcoholism, rape, drugs in titles like Iron Man, Jungle Tales and Kung-fu all back in the 70s.

I agree that Moore's SWAMP THING wasn't all that ground-breaking in terms of *content* when compared, say, to Gerber's MAN-THING, but remember, there is a more significant break in editorship at Marvel. Shooter's reign was essentially a repudiation of the edgy side of Marvel under the early 70's editors (Thomas, Wolfman and Wein, if memory serves), and when the Moore SWAMP THING came along, there was little if anything at Marvel to compare with it, except, as I said before, Miller's DAREDEVIL.

[Gothos]

Tommy said:

"Howard the Duck was a huge success and the first comic book from the big two marketed to adults. And it had most obvious influance on Grant Morrison but also on Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman."


FWIW-- and I don't have a source on this-- someone once reprinted a fan article Morrison wrote, in which he was gushing about all the edgy stuff that "the cool fans" liked at early 70s Marvel.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

FWIW-- and I don't have a source on this-- someone once reprinted a fan article Morrison wrote, in which he was gushing about all the edgy stuff that "the cool fans" liked at early 70s Marvel.

'Cool Fans'..... isn't that an oxymoron? :confused:

[Red Jack]

Red Jack said to Tommy:

"And I don't put the inception of the All New X-Men as the problem with Marvel."

I mentioned the inception of the X-Men, not Tommy, and I wasn't saying that it was a problem as such. It just happened to come together at the time when Jim Shooter came to prominence, and it marks the end of the "edgy" Marvel and the growth of a more wholly "mainstream" Marvel. That's not to impugn the work of Claremont, Cockrum and Byrne-- we needed good mainstream comics then, even as we do now-- but its rise to prominence happens to parallel the downturn of the edgy stuff, for whatever reason.

I don't always refer to every individual quote in a response. Sometimes I just respond to the preceding posts in a single go.

[Tommy]

Okay. That's a stretch too. I'm sure a great many things influence Moore and Gaiman of which Howard is a relatively minor example. Lovecraft, King, Shakespeare, Keats, Carroll, Shelley, Wild and Twain are more obvious and more profound influences on both men.
Yet none of those people were comics writers.

No. That's bias. There's nothing more original about Spider-man or more complex. Marvel does knock-offs of DC characters on a regular basis. DC has done like two.
Nope. Simple fact. Warren Ellis can make an obvious pastiche of the JLA in a single panel with no words. Mark Millar struggled through four issues of the Authority to recreate the MU. At best you can say they kind of, sort of look like the traditional Avengers.

The Fantastic Four are the only people who can be made into a quick pastiche from Marvel. Which DC did with Hank Henshaw.
Do I really have to make a list of all the obvious rips from DC that Marvel has done over the decades? I mean it's not even close. The Imperial Guard. the Squadron Sinister/Supreme? Hell, Captain Marvel.
The Squadron Supreme? The group created specifically for the Non-crossover event where the JLA fought the Champions of Angor? Marvel simply made them three dimensional characters rather than an in joke to trot out every once and a while.

[Reptisaurus!]

Ya know, folks, we all do have access to the internet, right?

UGO: The Man-Thing movie is coming. I always wondered what you and Bernie thought of that.

Len Wein: There are a couple of elements to that particular question. One of which is that I was rooming with Gerry Conway who wrote the first Man-Thing story. It was just independent creation. We were doing Swamp Thing and Gerry and I think Gray Morrow was doing Man-Thing. Neither of us knew the other was doing the same thing. The weirdest aspect is that I actually wrote the second Man-Thing story; the whole "Whatever knows fear burns at the Man-Thing's touch". In Gerry's first story anything the Man-Thing touched burned. It was a protagonist who could never interact with anybody so I came up with the idea of fear.

[Red Jack]

Yet none of those people were comics writers.

Right. Because GOOD writers are influenced most by more things than comic books.


The Fantastic Four are the only people who can be made into a quick pastiche from Marvel. Which DC did with Hank Henshaw.

You really think Marvel characters are inherently more complex than DC characters? I think they were when Stan started because that was the point of Marvel comics then. now? Not so much.

The Squadron Supreme? The group created specifically for the Non-crossover event where the JLA fought the Champions of Angor? Marvel simply made them three dimensional characters rather than an in joke to trot out every once and a while.

3dimensionality wasn't the issue. Ripping was. The primary reason there's less ripping from DC is because DC clearly doesn't do it as often. Not because of some inherent complexity in Marvel characters that prevents copying.

[Red Jack]

Ya know, folks, we all do have access to the internet, right?

Great minds, then. Unusual. I learned something new today. Thanks.

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

The difference? 90% of all of marvel's characters are underdogs. With the exceptions of Iron Man, Thor, Silver Surfer, Dr. Strange and the Fantastic Four, virtually every hero in marvel is an underdog. They don't have all the answers, nor are they always noble in what they do. It's easier to connect to most of the marvel characters because we're all underdogs in life. It's also why lately Marvel has only retried telling some of the grander cosmic stories like Silver Surfer or Dr. Strange. Those characters are not underdogs and honestly, I'm not sure Marvel is comfortable telling other tales as often. That doesn't mean they don't do it, but I find with them it's a harder struggle than with the characters at DC.

DC on the other hand 90% of the time focuses on legacy. Green Lantern, Flash, even Batman have great examples of characters filling in the mantles of their predecessors or establishing their own identities. The appeal of DC is that more the most part their characters are people we want to be. Who doesn't want to be Superman? Or the Flash? Or Batman? DCs appeal is that their characters can inspire. That said, we can't fly or have a batcave. DC seems to have a hard time writing characters that can relate to the audience. (With some very notable exceptions!)

If Marvel is Perceval, DC is King Arthur in terms of archetype.

JP

[John Hays]

DC's rock. Marvel's jazz.

[berk]

Came across this quote from a Grant Morrison interview at Newsarama & thought it might be of some interest here:NRAMA: And now, a personal question. I know you were a fan of Steve Gerber…I was wondering if you had any thoughts on his recent passing.

GM: I grew up with his stuff, and he was one of my basic templates for how a good comic should be, and how the mainstream and the experimental could be combined.

It’s always seems a shame…Gerber and his contemporaries established all the rules of the so-called ‘Dark Age’ of comics in the mid-70s. They planted the seeds that grew to fruition in Dark Knight and Watchmen…but they rarely get accorded their place in the history books. Gerber, along with Steve Engelhart, Doug Moench, Jim Starlin, Don McGregor and others, worked with some amazing artists to bring elements of cynical humor, real world violence, psychedelic storytelling, poetry, philosophy, cinematic panel transitions and experimental layouts to mainstream comics, but they rarely get credit for it.

There was an incredible period of innovation and progress at Marvel during the post-Vietnam year, when writers were allowed to edit their own books and break the rules a bit. It really is time to start re-evaluating these guys as pioneers and give them the respect they deserve while they’re still around to enjoy it. Don McGregor retrospective now please!

Howard the Duck was always my favorite of Steve’s stuff. I remember buying three copies of the first issue thinking they’d be worth a fortune – which they were for about three years until the Duck bubble burst and they were worth less than I’d paid for them. I’ve still got every copy in a box at home - my first and last venture into the speculator’s market. I loved that book - the Chair-Thing! Turnip Man! That amazing autobiographical “deadline doom” issue where, instead of handing in a Howard script, Gerber does an experimental illustrated essay about how he couldn’t make his deadline!

And The Defenders stuff with the Headmen and the Bland guys. Amazing, insane villains. That incredible panel where Doc Magnus becomes sane, after murdering his Metal Men, with the tear running down his face and the tiny word balloon going “Tina ?” That stuff really sticks with me.

And I’ll always remember how I first heard about the destruction of the ozone layer by aerosols in his first issue of Guardians of the Galaxy. And that beautiful phrase he wrote…”lightning gerrymandered the sky,” which has been flashing up in my head for the last thirty years every time there’s a storm…

Inspiration gets passed on like a baton in a relay race.

[AllisterH]

I agree that Moore's SWAMP THING wasn't all that ground-breaking in terms of *content* when compared, say, to Gerber's MAN-THING, but remember, there is a more significant break in editorship at Marvel. Shooter's reign was essentially a repudiation of the edgy side of Marvel under the early 70's editors (Thomas, Wolfman and Wein, if memory serves), and when the Moore SWAMP THING came along, there was little if anything at Marvel to compare with it, except, as I said before, Miller's DAREDEVIL.

True.

I remember reading Jungle Action and Killraven a few years ago and wondering how Marvel got away with producing these great comics during the era of the Comics Code. The worse thing is that people have forgotten what "outside the box mainstream" titles that Marvel had been producing long before Swamp Thing.

It looks like Shooter really screwed the pooch here I'm sorry to say.

Looking at what Marvel had going for them, pre Swamp Thing,
1. Marvel had access to the UK writers before DC even knew about them
2. Marvel had created the EPIC imprint
3. Marvel had a great history of mature comics that dealt with more than just punching in the early 70s.

Really, with all of that behind them, for Marvel to not have created or had a Vertigo style success boggles the mind.

[Tommy]

Right. Because GOOD writers are influenced most by more things than comic books.
That sentence doesn't make much sense, but what I'm getting from it is that: writers are influenced by lots of different things. Which of course is cheep way of ignoring the obvious STATED influence of Howard the Duck. Without Howard the Duck there would be no Moore Swamp Thing which would mean no Vertigo.

You really think Marvel characters are inherently more complex than DC characters? I think they were when Stan started because that was the point of Marvel comics then. now? Not so much.
You're misstating what I said. I said it is easier to do a Superman pastiche than a Spider-man. It has nothing to do with complexity at all. It has to do with the Justice League being bland easily recognizable easily reproduced archetypes. Warren Ellis made at least three (four if you count the Authority itself) for Wildstorm. His only Marvel pastiches were the Fantastic Four and the Hulk. Which of course are both bland easily recognizable easily reproduced archetypes. Alan Moore couldn't even make really good versions of the MU characters for 1963.


3dimensionality wasn't the issue. Ripping was. The primary reason there's less ripping from DC is because DC clearly doesn't do it as often. Not because of some inherent complexity in Marvel characters that prevents copying.
No, as I said before it is simply harder to copy Marvel's characters. In Top Ten every Marvel character looks EXACTLY like they look in Marvel, the DC characters not so much.

[Red Jack]

True.

I remember reading Jungle Action and Killraven a few years ago and wondering how Marvel got away with producing these great comics during the era of the Comics Code. The worse thing is that people have forgotten what "outside the box mainstream" titles that Marvel had been producing long before Swamp Thing.

It looks like Shooter really screwed the pooch here I'm sorry to say.

Looking at what Marvel had going for them, pre Swamp Thing,
1. Marvel had access to the UK writers before DC even knew about them
2. Marvel had created the EPIC imprint
3. Marvel had a great history of mature comics that dealt with more than just punching in the early 70s.

Really, with all of that behind them, for Marvel to not have created or had a Vertigo style success boggles the mind.

EI didn't sell well enough to be competitive or it would still be around. EPIC illustrated floundered, ultimaley breaking into its creator-owned components. Isn't it possible that , despite the position they hold in some peoples' memories, that those works just weren't that great or groundbreaking? I'm not saying they didn't impact young minds (obviously they did) but that, in any fair comparison, Moore's stuff was simply better written and more innovative.

The fat that MARVEL did not avail themselves of the british writers tells you that they had no idea what they had or the difference between what they had and what they might have become. DC figured it out and took the lead towards the cutting edge.

They certainly don't hold up to modern scrutiny whereas Moore's SWAMP THING absolutely does. Hence the bigger and more significant ripples left by the latter work.

[Red Jack]

That sentence doesn't make much sense, but what I'm getting from it is that: writers are influenced by lots of different things. Which of course is cheep way of ignoring the obvious STATED influence of Howard the Duck. Without Howard the Duck there would be no Moore Swamp Thing which would mean no Vertigo.

And without Shakespeare and aborigine mythology there would be no Sandman. So what? The connection you're drawing is too tenuous to be considered the sole inspiration. All these writers read considerably more than comics and are therefore inspired by considerably more as well.

You're misstating what I said. I said it is easier to do a Superman pastiche than a Spider-man.

I didn't misstate anything. Rob liefeld did copies of Marvel characters all through the 90's. marvel characters aren't harder to copy or do riffs of.

It has nothing to do with complexity at all. It has to do with the Justice League being bland easily recognizable easily reproduced archetypes.

What you just said is that they are not complex. That's what bland means.

Warren Ellis made at least three (four if you count the Authority itself) for Wildstorm. His only Marvel pastiches were the Fantastic Four and the Hulk. Which of course are both bland easily recognizable easily reproduced archetypes. Alan Moore couldn't even make really good versions of the MU characters for 1963.

I highlighted those portions because they are examples of personal bias. Alan Moore can write rings around just about any practitioner in comics today. He's the Michael Jordan of comic book writing. Most prolific. Most versatile. etc. And Warren Ellis is no slouch. I think, if he wanted to, he'd have no trouble aping any character he wanted, Marvel or DC. The characters themselves are essentially interchangeable as many here have implied.

Do you seriously imagine that the 1963 characters were failed attempts to copy the Marvel characters? I think you're missing something. They were a parody and a homage. A difficult trick to pull off and Moore did it effortlessly.

His SUPREME was the best Superman comic on the market at the time and his FURY was a near perfect distillation of Stan and Steve's Spider-Man. Personally I preferred the Fury at the time. Busiek's Jack in the Box is at least as interesting a version of Spider-Man as Spider-Man.

People do riffs on Marvel characters. Just not as often. It's not because the the DC charaters are "bland" (except Hal Jordan. Him, I give you). The fact that so many seem to want to do versions of the DC heroes goes a long way to proving they are more interesting to play with than the Marvel stable.

Good comics are about execution, not the relative ease of making a "pastiche."

No, as I said before it is simply harder to copy Marvel's characters.

No. It's not. DC just doesn't do it as much as Marvel.

In Top Ten every Marvel character looks EXACTLY like they look in Marvel, the DC characters not so much.

I doubt that's true. Marvel is pretty lawsuit happy when people infringe.

[Tommy]

And without Shakespeare and aborigine mythology there would be no Sandman. So what? The connection you're drawing is too tenuous to be considered the sole inspiration. All these writers read considerably more than comics and are therefore inspired by considerably more as well.
You mean when Grant Morrison says "It’s always seems a shame…Gerber and his contemporaries established all the rules of the so-called ‘Dark Age’ of comics in the mid-70s. They planted the seeds that grew to fruition in Dark Knight and Watchmen…but they rarely get accorded their place in the history books." Being influenced by Shakespeare is a completely irrelevant attempt to side track the real issue.

I didn't misstate anything. Rob liefeld did copies of Marvel characters all through the 90's. marvel characters aren't harder to copy or do riffs of.
I didn't read any Rob Liefeild work, however WildC.A.T.s was often said to be a rip off of the X-men. But really it is a few superficial elements of the X-men reworked. In no way a pastiche, and barely a rip off. The closest true rip off I can find from that period is a Cyberforce character named "Psyblade" who had telepathic powers that manifested in psychic blades (obviously a rip off of Psylocke). Of course it takes about half an issue for someone familure with the orrigonal character to figure that out.

What you just said is that they are not complex. That's what bland means.
No I said bland...archetypes The characters can be any level of complexity, but the archetypes themselves are bland.

I highlighted those portions because they are examples of personal bias. Alan Moore can write rings around just about any practitioner in comics today. He's the Michael Jordan of comic book writing. Most prolific. Most versatile. etc. And Warren Ellis is no slouch. I think, if he wanted to, he'd have no trouble aping any character he wanted, Marvel or DC. The characters themselves are essentially interchangeable as many here have implied.
You're projecting. Alan Moore and Warren Ellis are my two favorite comics writers. It has nothing to do with personal bias.

Do you seriously imagine that the 1963 characters were failed attempts to copy the Marvel characters? I think you're missing something. They were a parody and a homage. A difficult trick to pull off and Moore did it effortlessly.
No Moore had serious problems with the Spider-Man pastiche and the Hulk pastiche in which neither of them seemed at all like the characters they were supposed to be based on. The only ones that came off successfully were Mystery Incorporated.

His SUPREME was the best Superman comic on the market at the time and his FURY was a near perfect distillation of Stan and Steve's Spider-Man. Personally I preferred the Fury at the time. Busiek's Jack in the Box is at least as interesting a version of Spider-Man as Spider-Man.
The Fury was not anywhere near Spider-Man. Given that issue of 1963 to anyone devoid of context, no one would pick up that it was supposed to be Spider-Man.

People do riffs on Marvel characters. Just not as often. It's not because the the DC charaters are "bland" (except Hal Jordan. Him, I give you). The fact that so many seem to want to do versions of the DC heroes goes a long way to proving they are more interesting to play with than the Marvel stable.
Nope, it has to do with the fact that it is simply harder to write a Marvel pastiche. Plus the bland archetypes of DC allow for many different personalities to be swapped in.

No. It's not. DC just doesn't do it as much as Marvel.
If they could they probably would. The Champions of Angor barely managed to be an in-joke.

I doubt that's true. Marvel is pretty lawsuit happy when people infringe.

Well I happen to have some panels in my photobucket account right now...

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a98/thanatos101b/img002.jpg

Why look it is Xavier... looking exactly like he does in Marvel.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a98/thanatos101b/img001.jpg

There's Emma Frost and Dazzler.

(And they're all appearing in a DC BOOK!)

Comparatively Seven Sentinels where vastly different from the JLA, and yet instantly recognizable.

[Red Jack]

You think the artist drawing Prof. X in the bg of one panel constitutes a "character rip off"" I doubt it's an accident that his back is to the camera while Oracle and the Chief and the Dalek are visible.

How about Josie and the Pussycats in the second one?

That's an artist goofing around, not a writer stealing characters. Terry Austin used to put Popeye and Gumby into crowd shots too.

So what?

And the entire point of the 1963 mini was to reference the first years of Marvel comics even down to the "letters page" and ads. Just as Moore did when he revamped Supreme to include "reprints" of his "silver age" and "golden age" appearances.

Without the context of the first modern Marvel comics I can see why the mini series went over your head. But that doesn't mean Moore got it wrong. He didn't.

[Sanagi]

DC's rock. Marvel's jazz.
This analogy fails, for many reasons. DC and Marvel are in the same genre. DC is older than Marvel, jazz is older than rock. DC is not distinctly accessible when compared to Marvel; Marvel is not distinctly sophisticated when compared to DC. The greatest DC comics artists are not primarily black people; Marvel is... Um, well, anyway.

[TomStillwell]

Those Marvel characters from Top Ten you posted? They are supposed to be Marvel characters, not characters based on Marvel characters.

That's an artist using the background to make a sight gag. Top Ten was riddled with stuff like that. Those aren't actual characters in the story.

[Gothos]

Thanks for reprinting that Morrison excerpt, Berk.

One niggling point: Gerber must've set up the idea of the Chair-Thing, but he never put it into print. It must be something he alluded to, though, because Bill Mantlo actually translated it to actuality in the b&W HOWARD #1:

Here's Gerber's explanation from his blog:

'Micah: “Who was the friend the Kidney Lady was talking about who was going to get Howard from issue 2?”

Chair-Thing, I think — or its Platonic essence. Somehow, I never quite got around to that story.'

[JKCarrier]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a98/thanatos101b/img001.jpg

There's Emma Frost and Dazzler.

And Apollo and Midnighter and Captain Caveman and Josie and the Pussycats and Element Lad. What's your point?

[berk]

Thanks for reprinting that Morrison excerpt, Berk.

One niggling point: Gerber must've set up the idea of the Chair-Thing, but he never put it into print. It must be something he alluded to,