Why do you think Marvel outsells DC?

[Colossus77]

It can't just be a quality thing. DC has their fair share of great writers and artists. My guess is that Marvel characters and the MU itself are more fun to read, regardless of creators, than DC.

[juggling man]

Why do you think Marvel outsells DC?.
Branding and marketing.

[StoneGold]

Because Joe Quesada hates his marriage. Or something like that.

[Spaceman Spiff]

When I think of DC I think of
Superman: eh, overpowered hero. Boring
Batman: Kind of badass, but no flashy superpowers
Wonder Woman: she has whip, k

I know these characters probably do have very interesting comics, but I can't bring myself to read them because of these stupid stereotypes I have in my head. I'm sure they're a lot of people like me.

[Ullar]

The multiverse and crisis in general. A new reader could follow SI but not FC.

[StoneGold]

The multiverse and crisis in general. A new reader could follow SI but not FC.

While that may be an element of it, it's just a small sliver of the situation. When was the last time DC outsold Marvel?


At this point, Marvel outsells DC because we're basically talking about the same 100k people or so, and their buying habits are set. And it doesn't help that DC hasn't out out anything too amazing story-wise in a while.

[Capt USA]

continuity, with Marvel (with one major notable exception) when you read a story, you know it happened and will always affect the future, or at least existed. With DC there is zero continuity, they revise their series based upon the popularity of a tv show, they just whole sell delete history so you don't feel any reall connection to it. And then it makes it hard to return back to the title.


My first Captain America Comic book I read was over 25+ years ago, and the events that happened there still continue to exist in the marvel universe, at the same time I read a Wonder Woman comic, a Justice League America comic, a Flash comic and a Superman comic, the only book that actually 'happened' was the Flash story, the rest have been retconned out of existence. Not revised, not updated, just never happened. I have no connection to the characters wearing the costumes from those books (I still collect Flash to this day)


Then we will deal with the relatively real world consistency, obvious super powers aren't real, but with a Marvel comic you get a pretty good feel for the power levels that a character has, but with a DC comic the villains are all invulnerable until you find an achilles heel. Omac is ridiculously over powered, in the current issue of JSA, Gog is nearly invulnerable to the combined might of the JSA, which is standard fair for DC. The entire group beats up on the bad guy who shrugs off the attack, no matter what power level is attacking him, until someone comes up with a way to trick a victory. The heroes rarely win by fighting but have to resort to Mr Fantastic tactics to succeed, even if the story is just supposed to be fun slugfest. Heck the only character that actually is allowed to beat an opponent is the weakest of the heroes(batman) . Dc just doesn't have any definition to their powers or level of powers. The writers just make it up, once again that goes to continuity/consistency. An inexperienced Blue Beetle is easily able to beat a Green Lantern, an experienced Blue Beetle has 50/50 chance against a Green Lantern. Stuff like that just makes you scratch your head, happens enough you stop reading.

[Siddon]

Dc only really has Batman and Superman, most of DC's top 20 is either of those series.

[XPac]

I think marvel did it right and better right out of the gate, and has simply managed to roughly keep that lead ever since.

Unless marvel really drops the ball or DC does something incredibly ground breaking, I think things will stay as they are.

There are little things DC does wrong which I think can improve, but ultimately marvel created a brand name that I think MOST comic book readers are a bit more loyal too. The closet comparrison I can think of is WWF vs WCW. I thimk most people grew up watching the WWF more, and would watch that over WCW. For a time WCW did some cool things which attracted casual or non wrestling fans to watch, but I think the hardcore wresting fans more often than not stuck with WWF even when it wasn't necessary the better product.

[Brett P]

When I think of DC I think of
Superman: eh, overpowered hero. Boring
Batman: Kind of badass, but no flashy superpowers
Wonder Woman: she has whip, k

I know these characters probably do have very interesting comics, but I can't bring myself to read them because of these stupid stereotypes I have in my head. I'm sure they're a lot of people like me.

LOL Yeah I'm pretty much the same as this.

I actually thought the Justice League and Teen Titans cartoons were pretty decent but I didn't like the characters enough to start reading a whole new universe for.

Marvel seems to take more risks with characters and unique powers too.

[carabas]

My first Captain America Comic book I read was over 25+ years ago, and the events that happened there still continue to exist in the marvel universe,.Captain America was only thawed out of the ice some ten years ago though. So pretty much every Cap story that features the cold war has gone bye-bye. Similarly, tony Stark's origin was moved to the Middle-East years before the movie did it. Ben Grimm and Reed Richards WWII veterans and Flash Thompson in Vietnam? Not very likely. There's probably dozens of examples like that.

[NickThompson]

1 - Marvel promotes their stuff better. Marvel announce a big event and they hype it everywhere, put stuff online, get Quesada and Bendis doing interviews on TV. DC put out Final Crisis, and it wasn't that long ago that I even found out what it was about.

2 - Marvel capitalise on successful series better. If Marvel had done 52, they would have had spinoffs there and ready to go once it ended. With DC they won the Wizard fan award for best female character with Renee Montoya, and then months later a mini that didn't even say her name in the title was released.

3 - Marvel always have something big going. A major creative team starts, an event, whatever. They are constantly hitting the top 10 with something new. DC's are a lot more spaced out. Has there been any major sales hits between Countdown and Final Crisis, for example?

4 - Not as strong as the other three, but I think big Marvel stuff is often more accessable. Civil War could be somebodies first comic, all you need to know is maybe who the characters are. Could you say the same for Infinite Crisis? Personally I'd say not.




It's not quality, DC have good stuff out there. They just need to sell it better.

[Jadeskies]

If you watch the 'History of comic books' on History channel I think that they explain it best. "DC is for kids, Marvel is far more grown up." Marvel stories are far more complex, they are more cutting edge and have an abilty to read and predict the cultures of the times that the comics are produced.

This means anti-heroes who killed thier enemies were hot in the 80's, in the 70's the X-men who represented outcasts from the status Quo were popular. In the 60's the kid nerd with real life problems has to deal with supervillains as well, aka Spiderman BADP (Before the age of the Deamon pact.). In the 60's and 70's Superman was the status quo and Batman still ran around with a cleancut teen sidekick and an overly chumpish open mouthed grin with his hands on his hips and his chest stuck out.

[Karl O'Neill]

because people buy crap, I think final crisis and Trinity will be a massive coup de grace for DC.

you watch, Morrison kicks bendis arse in writing.

[IronStarks]

because people buy crap, I think final crisis and Trinity will be a massive coup de grace for DC.

you watch, Morrison kicks bendis arse in writing.

i have to dissagree on that,

I think it comes down to varity of characters, and choices

As people mentioned theres the big 2 for DC, Superman and Batman. Then big gap and then theres Wonder-Woman, then another big gap with the rest of the JLA, and thats it.

For Marvel we have the big 3 Avengers, Cap, Thor, and Iron Man. Then plenty of solid solo characters, Hulk, Spider-Man, Daredevil. Family Friendly Fantastic Four. Then of course theres the X-Teams, which have a huge fanbase of there own.


Another thing is definitly assesibility, i just started reading comics ala Civil War and 52 era. My friends who convinced me to read some comics showed me both of these storylines. Civil War was purely epic, i didnt know all of the characters yet, but most of the big names i recognized. And when Clor arrives and the Invisible Woman has to save the anti-reggers. Awsome. Then i (tried) to read Infinty Crisis and 52. The crisis was just a mess to me, i had no idea what was going on and even after my friends explained it to me i still had no clue. Then 52 was just confusing to me cause i didnt know 90% of the characters in the book, Im all fine with smaller characters getting some page time, but i realize i didnt know half as many DC chars as i did Marvel.

Marvel just pushs more characters i think

[IronStarks]

Another thing is marketing with the movie trend. DC has in the last few years made a kick-ass Batman film (with a likely kick-ass second one) and a below par Superman movie.....thats it, they cant even get Wonder-Women off the ground, let alone others like the Flash and Green Lantern

Marvel on the other hand is putting out movies every year, some of them great (Spider-man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, Iron Man) Some of them so-so (Fantastic 4 series) and some of them pretty sucky (The threequals come to mind) but at least they have something and it seems likely that Marvel with strike gold with its Avenger movies series thats coming up, while DC cant even get JLA to work.

[Karl O'Neill]

Green lantern is solid, Flash is soild, wonder woman is solid, Birds of prey, The teen titans, The legion is soild. Green arrow. the list goes on.

I agree though, 52 is a masterpeice.

[Shellhead]

Several factors at work:

1. Sales are massively down at both companies since the early '70s. The X-Men got cancelled in 1969 for *only* selling 200,000 copies per issue. Today that 200,000 would put it at the top of the heap for both DC and Marvel.

2. Once reason that sales are down is that there aren't a lot of new fans showing up. At $3.00 an issue, a modern comic book is a poor value for entertainment, compared to movies, music, and especially PC or console games.

3. At $3.00 an issue, readers tend to stick with the familiar instead of wasting money trying unfamiliar titles.

4. Marvel moved ahead of DC in sales by the late '60s, and has maintained that lead.

Because of #1 and #2, the existing fans are pretty much it. Because of #3 and #4, those existing fans are more likely to be Marvel fans and stay Marvel fans. Speculation about quality or crossovers or creators or whatever seems pretty irrelevant, since none of those are expanding the fanbase or creating a significant new advantage for either DC or Marvel.

Oh, yeah, and one more thing:

5. Since DC has been lagging Marvel for a long time, I think that also means that DC fans tend to skew older than Marvel fans. Certainly, the posts here at CBR seems to indicate a difference in age. So, DC fans are literally dying off faster than Marvel fans, because they were older in the first place.

[Kevinroc]

Green lantern is solid, Flash is soild, wonder woman is solid, Birds of prey, The teen titans, The legion is soild. Green arrow. the list goes on.

I agree though, 52 is a masterpeice.

Flash is most definitely not solid. The entire situation with Flash screams of disaster. Bart's series was dropped and the decision was made to kill Bart after one arc. The fall-out from that has been the failure of Wally's Flash series (combined with a general apathy to Wally's current status quo). The whole Barry Allen situation screams of desperation.

Teen Titans is just plain not any good right now. It's truly terrible. And the less said about "Titans", the better.

BoP? Well, I knew replacing Gail would be hard but it doesn't seem to be winning people over (seriously, the Bedard/ McKeever/ Bedard thing is not proof of how solid the title is).

Legion? Is Shooter on or off that?

This is not to say that DC does not have solid super hero titles on the market today. But it's pretty clear the company has some serious problems.

[NickThompson]

1. Sales are massively down at both companies since the early '70s. The X-Men got cancelled in 1969 for *only* selling 200,000 copies per issue. Today that 200,000 would put it at the top of the heap for both DC and Marvel.

2. Once reason that sales are down is that there aren't a lot of new fans showing up. At $3.00 an issue, a modern comic book is a poor value for entertainment, compared to movies, music, and especially PC or console games.

They're down from decades ago, but if you go on a closer timeframe they are rising. When I got into comics about 5 years ago the only books that the sales estimates said were over 100k were Hush and The Ultimates. Now we sometimes have many books over that, and some significantly so.

[DeadXMan]

Captain America was only thawed out of the ice some ten years ago though. So pretty much every Cap story that features the cold war has gone bye-bye. Similarly, tony Stark's origin was moved to the Middle-East years before the movie did it. Ben Grimm and Reed Richards WWII veterans and Flash Thompson in Vietnam? Not very likely. There's probably dozens of examples like that.

No, Commie smasher Cap is in Continuity. In fact That Captain America is in the current issue of Capitan America

and everything has moved up do to sliding time line

And as for why Marvel is out selling

Marketing. Plan and simple.

Go top any department store and you'll find more Marvel product's then DC.
Not to mention marvel's endenvers in other Media. (IE Movies and tv shows)

in this year alone Marvel will have 3 movies in theaters while DC only one

and Two cartoons by fall
Dose DC have any going at all?

[Shyft]

Green lantern is solid, Flash is soild, wonder woman is solid, Birds of prey, The teen titans, The legion is soild. Green arrow. the list goes on.

I agree though, 52 is a masterpeice.

Just saying it doesnt make it so.

Personally i always really disliked the fact in the DC universe that so many characters had really lame old-school origins. This tied in with the fact that hardly any DC characters seem to stick to the same secret identity+power set, and it makes for one hell of a confusing setting. Which Flash is THE Flash? etc.

[Lex]

I think it comes down to varity of characters, and choices

As people mentioned theres the big 2 for DC, Superman and Batman. Then big gap and then theres Wonder-Woman, then another big gap with the rest of the JLA, and thats it.

For Marvel we have the big 3 Avengers, Cap, Thor, and Iron Man. Then plenty of solid solo characters, Hulk, Spider-Man, Daredevil. Family Friendly Fantastic Four. Then of course theres the X-Teams, which have a huge fanbase of there own.
There have been many good and interesting points in this thread, but I think "variety of characters" comes down more to personal preference than anything.

I'm more of a DC fan, so I could do the same thing for them. DC has the big three: Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. And there's a TON of great secondary characters all of the company like Captain Marvel (when written correctly), Flash, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Hawkman, Barbara Gordon, Nightwing, Black Canary, the Titans, the Justice Society and on and on. Plus fan favorite characters like Booster Gold, Blue Beetle, Zauriel (my fave), etc.

Whereas I look at Marvel and see the top as Spider-Man and Wolverine. Then a little later is Hulk. And after that are characters like Iron Man, Captain America, the rest of the X-Men. And then you get a ways down the popularity ladder to characters I enjoy like the Runaways and Avengers Initiative.

It's all about perspective. :)

[Shyft]

Its generally accepted that team books do better than solo attempts. So i wonder if the fact that Marvel has alot more team books (as far as im aware?) has anything to do with it?

As far as i know DC has the JLA, JSA, Outsiders,Birds of Prey, Teen Titans, Green Lantern Corps? ( ithink they are the main ones?)

Whereas Marvel has

New Avengers, Mighty Avengers,Young Avengers, Avengers Initiative, Uncanny X Men, Astonishing X-Men,Young X-Men, X-Force, X-Factor, Excalibur, X-Men:Legacy (sort of), Thunderbolts,New Warriors, Guardians of the Galaxy, Fantastic Four, Runaways and then various Marvel Adventures and various other imprint/incarnations of the above. And all of the above are mainstream big selling teams with well known creative teams.

Could this have anything to do with it?

[juggling man]

If you watch the 'History of comic books' on History channel I think that they explain it best. "DC is for kids, Marvel is far more grown up." Marvel stories are far more complex, they are more cutting edge and have an abilty to read and predict the cultures of the times that the comics are produced.

This means anti-heroes who killed thier enemies were hot in the 80's, in the 70's the X-men who represented outcasts from the status Quo were popular. In the 60's the kid nerd with real life problems has to deal with supervillains as well, aka Spiderman BADP (Before the age of the Deamon pact.). In the 60's and 70's Superman was the status quo and Batman still ran around with a cleancut teen sidekick and an overly chumpish open mouthed grin with his hands on his hips and his chest stuck out.

That's a good summation. I'll add that DC is no longer necessarily "for kids" anymore but perhaps that's what the brand perception is... ?

[Kutulu]

Personally when I talk with people about this they often state that the DC characters are so ridiculously overpowered with virtually no weakness, so there is no attachment to them; nothing that really makes them human.

Sentry for example is like a DC character but with a real spin - people suffer mental issues trying to cope just with everyday society, and Sentry fits that mold. Hulk - classic tragedy, the guy just can't get a break. I mean he basically sacrificed his life to save someone and what happens - he turns into a beast and constantly is being chased and harassed and never has peace. Xavier - he's a mutant that could change humanity but because of his own moral code he cannot, so has to live with the consequences of his actions and inactions every day.

Basically it seems like half the DC super characters have the auto DC powerset - Superspeed, Superstrength, Flight, Invulnerability. They just don't have much weakness in the same way Marvel characters have. It makes it hard to relate. Where is the tragedy?

You know why Shakespeare made such good stories? Because it's about people doing the same ol' stuff for the past thousand years, and the drama continues in the real world, to this day - people continuing to make those same mistakes over and over, repeated down through the generations, learning their lessons but letting the next generation make those same mistakes again. Marvel writers seem to at least reflect a little on this; DC generally doesn't.

[HeckBoy]

Personally when I talk with people about this they often state that the DC characters are so ridiculously overpowered with virtually no weakness, so there is no attachment to them; nothing that really makes them human. Yeah, I've heard that plenty of times. I've even echoed that same sentiment a couple times myself. Since I was really little I always made mine exclusively Marvel, but since I restarted reading comics about 2-3 years ago, I've also dipped into DC a little. In some respects, the DC books I read do have a lighter feeling (at least my perception colors it that way) and to me, that's quite different from some of the more gritty, "darker" stuff at Marvel. And sometimes, b/c of that "darker" stuff, I like to read something more straightforward and "classicly comicbook-y" where the hero beats up the villain and goes home happy. But as a whole, I still enjoy Marvel better.

[Shellhead]

Personally when I talk with people about this they often state that the DC characters are so ridiculously overpowered with virtually no weakness, so there is no attachment to them; nothing that really makes them human.


That's the stereotypical Marvel fan response, but they're really talking specifically about Superman. You know, the guy that Marvel keeps copying: Gladiator, Sentry, and Hyperion I, II, III and IV, as well Count Nefaria, in terms of power set. So that's kind of irrelevant, seeing as how Marvel fans are digging that power set, too.

Superman has several weakness: he's vulnerable to magic, kryptonite messes him up in various ways, and his strong sense of morality prevents him from doing all kinds of ruthlessly efficient things to his enemies. So what are Spider-man's weaknesses? When his spider-sense is written properly, most of his enemies shouldn't be able to touch him, which is better than invulnerability in many situations.

What really makes the older DC heroes inhuman is that they have been around too long, with too many changes back and forth in terms of personality, power level, motivation, even costume. And Marvel heroes are beginning to catch up in that area, with the Ultimate versions adding to the problem. At various times, Spider-man has had six arms, worn an alien symbiote as a costume, lost his powers, gained the Captain Universe powers, married MJ, backhanded MJ, lost MJ due to some retcon deal with the devil, and dated various other women.

When there have been too many changes, fans ultimately cling to a few basic concepts about the character, reducing a character from realistic to iconic. I say that's a reduction, because an icon doesn't really have the same depth of personality as a more human character.

[DaeJi]

DC heroes tend to be written as gods among men. But Marvel heroes tend to be men among gods. People respond better to one.

[Expletive Deleted]

Thing is, I don't think they really do anymore. Most of the differences between the two companies' approaches to their characters have been lessened over the years by the creative cross-pollination that's gone on. Marv Wolfman, especially, brought a lot of Marvelness to DC in the '80s.

[Mister Mets]

I think all things being equal, Marvel has the edge in terms of the quality of the characters and the Marvel Universe. There's also a lot to be said of the vast majority of the great Marvel stories being set in one of two universes (the classic Marvel Universe or the Ultimate Universe) which helps make Marvel comics more addictive. It's pretty damn cool that most of the heroes gather in one city.

Plus, the core concepts behind Marvel events are easier to sum up than those of DC events. This makes them more accessible.

Plus, Marvel makes more intelligent use of their artists, and probably the writers, too. They're better at fostering talent, and putting A-list creators on great books than DC, especially with DC's habit of releasing filler issues between issues of major arcs.

[Tobias Drake]

For me, it's characters who feel human. Flawed, imperfect people with reasons and motivations for what they do. People who are not Shimmering Beacons of Truth and Justice, who make mistakes, because even though they are all ultimately trying to do the right thing, they disagree on what, exactly, the right thing is and how it should be done. Everyone has their own distinctive viewpoint and comes at the superhero game from a different angle, and often these angles clash with each other.

DC has always struck me as the pearly white world with very clearly defined heroes fighting very clearly defined villains and no gray anywhere to be seen. Which may be good for some people who just want to see White Hats versus Black Hats, but it's just not for me.

[DaeJi]

Thing is, I don't think they really do anymore. Most of the differences between the two companies' approaches to their characters have been lessened over the years by the creative cross-pollination that's gone on. Marv Wolfman, especially, brought a lot of Marvelness to DC in the '80s.

I do agree with you to a point, but the approach to either company's characters are still colored by the original vibe. Could be a reason why Morrison is seen as the DC writer (since he has and does write the DC heroes as gods among men, even saying that his run on JLA was a story of gods) and Bendis is seen as the Marvel writer (love him or hate him, his storys are hauntingly human and his greatest skill is cutting to the heart and humanity of the characters).

[xarathos]

I always thought Marvel had the best characters and stories to go with them. I used to read about some of the lesser characters in HBOTMU and even their stories seemed interesting. Like the stories of people killed by Scourge and stories about the Zombie and Thanos. That's what made Marvel great. DC is a great competitor, but the multi-universe stuff really confuses me.

Basically, they're still playing off these old characters now days. A new character wouldn't hurt. Something that is his/her own, not bound by the big Intiative story and is something that has it's own vibe.

That's my opinion.

[carabas]

No, Commie smasher Cap is in Continuity. In fact That Captain America is in the current issue of Capitan America Unles that somehow is Steve Rogers as well, I was right and the stories frol the sixties though eighties that feature the cold war (or Nixon as president for that matter) did not include Steve Rogers as he was in an ice block at the time.

[sHayden]

I'm not someone who considers myself in the camp of either company. But DC, I only buy two of their books, one of which is reportedly being cancelled soon. The rest of my buys are heavily Marvel with some indies.
I buy more Marvel because I like their characters better and their comics don't suck as bad. All of DC's weekly series I think have sucked. Any DC Character I'd like to see more often I don't, or they're not done right.

[Abrojo]

Lots of Excellent points

I do agree with you to a point, but the approach to either company's characters are still colored by the original vibe. Could be a reason why Morrison is seen as the DC writer (since he has and does write the DC heroes as gods among men, even saying that his run on JLA was a story of gods) and Bendis is seen as the Marvel writer (love him or hate him, his storys are hauntingly human and his greatest skill is cutting to the heart and humanity of the characters).

I think this sums up my opinion, its the take on the characters that perhaps is what makes them more appealing. Its about the mindset, the consequences of their actions on the world they leave in. Marvel digs more into their interaction with the normal world allowing for more distinction between characters depending on how each behaves.

Though i will also say, with lots of DC books, like Justice League, i always have such a hard time reading them not understanding what is happening and stuff. I dont know how to put it in words well but i think there is a different writing style.

[deadpool2008]

Growing up when I first read comics, you are just lead to Marvel comics. That is how my comic store was set up. I remember DC comics were in the corner. While I do read a few DC comics, I really don't get much into their stuff. I just think Marvel does a great job of adding new readers and keeping them. Also, you have to think about how much an individual person has to spend on comics. Is someone going to buy a bunch of DC comics and can only discuss those comics with about 15% of comic book readers or buy Marvel that you can discuss with almost any comic book reader.

[carabas]

Is someone going to buy a bunch of DC comics and can only discuss those comics with about 15% of comic book readers or buy Marvel that you can discuss with almost any comic book reader.People who buy books to fit in with the in-crowd rathe rthan buy what they enjoy the most, are frelling idiots.

[deadpool2008]

People who buy books to fit in with the in-crowd rathe rthan buy what they enjoy the most, are frelling idiots.

I agree, but I wouldn't say to fit it. I assume most of the recommendations they get though are for Marvel books. At least for me that is the case.

[hawkeye comeback]

I think marvel is more diverse and focus more on the man in the costume not the hero itself

[hawkeye comeback]

I agree, but I wouldn't say to fit it. I assume most of the recommendations they get though are for Marvel books. At least for me that is the case.

i agree i heard so much recommendations for cap that i bought it.
I heard so much about Annhilation that i bought it.

I cant really say that about DC i only have a few dc graphics which are dark night returns (?) and watchmen both set in non continuity

[Wild Card13]

I'll say that DC's imprint comics are generally stronger than Marvel's. Not necessarily better, per se, but most definitely DC cultivates them more intelligently, in my opinion, than Marvel does. The exception, of course, is the Ultimate imprint, which is not only pure genius (telling sort of the same stories, but not quite...just enough to justify money spending), but also has some top-notch creators working on it (Kirkman excluded).

As for the main universe...I'll have to agree with sentiments that DC focuses on the costume, while Marvel focuses on the man inside it. Even Batman, arguably DC's flagship character, keeps up his Bruce Wayne persona as a facade, which makes him just that much harder to identify with emotionally. Compare to people like Matt Murdock and Peter Parker, whose personal problems are laid bare across every page for readers to see.

Also, I do agree that DC's heroes are portrayed as godlike in power, and that as such their villains have to be even more ridiculously powerful to present any kind of credible threat. Yes, we know, Marvel has six different Superman knockoffs, but each of them has a few nuances that make them very Marvel-esque in character. Gladiator's powers hinge on his ability to believe in himself, while the Sentry is a huddled wreck of a man who just happens to have incalculable power. By comparison, Superman is on a pedestal even above his fellow heroes, and the threats he faces on a regular basis would be worthy of an entire event in Marvel's universe.

And finally, continuity. DC's is a complete mess. It's been decades, and we still don't know if Wonder Woman was a founding member of the JLA or not. Every new Crisis mucks it up some more, makes it more convoluted, and either takes old comics out of continuity or brings in formerly non-canonical ones into continuity. On the other hand, Marvel may use some pretty heavy-handed retcons, but at least the things they're retconning happened on some level. Spider-Man and MJ may not have been married the past thirty years, but the stories in those years still happened (ish). And it may have been Xorn-Created-By-Wanda-And-Possessed-By-Sublime-But-Not-The-Real-Xorn who devastated New York, and NOT Magneto, but it's still in continuity that someone with a mug like Erik's tore it up in Manhattan. Confusing as it can be, it's still a good deal more accessible than DC's setup.

Also, Marvel has Deadpool, the Irredeemable Ant-Man, and Nextwave. Insta-win.

[SeritoNiN]

Marvel is there for grit, and realism. Heroes as if they were on earth right now, in 2008, with what's going on in the world.

DC is this fantasy land with fantasy cities and God-like fantasy characters. In my opinion, the entire universe is stuck in a 1960's b-movie. Doesn't help that a lot of the heroes and especially villans costumes are so over the top that in this day and age they just look plain, silly.

I love Geoff Johns, I have his entire run on Flash, I follow him still, in a few books through trades, but overall, he's the only writer I care about there.

To be perfectly blunt, a lot of dc's writers are a lot like their characters, old and stale. Busiek, Waid, Morrison, Dixon. Yeah, these guys were the greats, but how many stories can you tell before you start slipping?

DC needs a new breed led by Johns, not an old breed led by Johns.

[DeadXMan]

Unles that somehow is Steve Rogers as well, I was right and the stories frol the sixties though eighties that feature the cold war (or Nixon as president for that matter) did not include Steve Rogers as he was in an ice block at the time.

No, that wasn't Steve in the 50's (Read the Grand Dictaior arc)

Nixon has been replaced by Regan or Bush sr. Just like Clintion replaced Carter in The champions Story in WWH

[Shellhead]

Most talented comic writers and artists eventually do work for both DC and Marvel. And there isn't a consistent pattern of starting at DC and then working for Marvel, or vice versa. So any talk of higher quality at either company is obviously wrong. So let's dispense with the partisan foolishness now.

I suspect there is an element of sour grapes involved, because it's too expensive now for most people to keep up with both DC and Marvel, so there is a tendency to choose one and then badmouth the other. Personally, I try to avoid the big, lame crossover events and focus on the decent titles that are mostly independent of continuity.

So what significant differences remain? The basic settings, the major characters and the editors-in-chief at DC and Marvel.

Setting: As mentioned upthread, Marvel primarily uses real locations, especially New York City, though there are some fictional loctions, too, such as Latveria and Wakanda. Most DC heroes are based in fictional cities, like Metropolis, Gotham, Star City, Opal City, etc. While fictional cities give the writers more options with less research, fans probably relate better to real locations, even if they are often portrayed in a sketchy manner. In particular, Marvel's New York City was a great location, especially back when the writers and artists could actually afford to live and work there.

Characters: Comics were different in the Golden Age and early Silver Age, primarily because they were written for kids. Costumes were bright and bold, plots were more imaginative than realistic, and characterization was minimal. With a later start, Marvel had to try different things, and so they took a somewhat more realistic approach, especially focusing on better character development. And for a long time, Marvel could pretend that their heroes were aging in real time, even though that wasn't going to remain plausible for too many years. DC on the other hand had to take action at the dawn of the Silver Age, rebooting all of their heroes for a market that wanted more science-fiction and less pulp.

Editors-in-Chief: Which leads us to the really big difference, the specific editors-in-chief at each company. Every one of them had the opportunity to have a major impact on the direction of all their titles. And every one of them had to cope with an increasing load of continuity, a non-issue in the Golden Age but a significant factor for the older readers of the late Silver Age and afterwards. Because of the success of their Silver Age reboot, DC editors tend to think in terms of major re-sets to reality, Crisis events where cosmic events are used to justify heavy-handed editorial mandates. Stan Lee set a different tone at Marvel, trivializing continuity issues by offering No-Prizes, empty envelopes in tribute to clever reader solutions to nit-picky errors. In practice, subsequent Marvel editors tend to deal with retcons in a low-key manner, generally on a case-by-case basis over time, and often simply by ignoring the previous handling of a given concept.

In recent years, Marvel fans have gotten some doses of DC-style editorial mandates, with the Xorneto fiasco and the recent disaster involving Peter and Mary Jane. Judging from comments here at CBR, they didn't enjoy it. But maybe they will need to get used to it, because maybe Marvel has been around long enough that the editorial mandates need to get just as heavy-handed as what DC has been doing for years. But until then, I think Marvel will continue to stay ahead in sales, because the lack of major re-sets leaves them more accessible to casual fans. Not counting a few major botches like Onslaught, of course.

[Herr Mike]

It can't just be a quality thing. DC has their fair share of great writers and artists. My guess is that Marvel characters and the MU itself are more fun to read, regardless of creators, than DC.

I think it IS a quality thing. Marvel has more talent and they use it more effectively.

Who draws the Vertigo series' Northlander? DiFelice? Man, the guy is brilliant. Why isn't he drawing Batman? He'll piddle around on Northlander for another year, then he'll sign a fat exclusive with Marvel and become a "Young Gun" star. Don't get me wrong, I love having talent on low selling books but if I put myself in Didio's shoes, I'm going to want to do something with this guy.

Instead, we get Tony Daniel and a Batman that looks like a 90's Image title.

But I also agree that Marvel has a more bankable stable of characters and tremendously better marketing people.

[XPac]

I think it IS a quality thing. Marvel has more talent and they use it more effectively.

Who draws the Vertigo series' Northlander? DiFelice? Man, the guy is brilliant. Why isn't he drawing Batman? He'll piddle around on Northlander for another year, then he'll sign a fat exclusive with Marvel and become a "Young Gun" star. Don't get me wrong, I love having talent on low selling books but if I put myself in Didio's shoes, I'm going to want to do something with this guy.

Instead, we get Tony Daniel and a Batman that looks like a 90's Image title.

But I also agree that Marvel has a more bankable stable of characters and tremendously better marketing people.

The thing about talent though is that it largely drifts back and forth between the companies these days. A guy that's working for marvel now could easily get a DC exlcusing 2 years from now, before being back at marvel in 4 years.

That said, I do think to some degree marvel perhaps has had more "cutting edge" people for their mainstream stuff. And they do often seek out fresh talent from other areas like TV shows and novelists. So I think to some degree marvels talent often seems fresher, but not necessarily better.

[hierro_boshid0]

Variety, plus Marvel's chactors look cooler.

And visual stimulation is half the battle.

[Herr Mike]

As far as talent going back and forth goes, yeah, that's what we've come to expect. But it's not really been like that in recent years. Has anyone significant left Marvel? JMS has taken up some DC work but still has his foot in the door at Marvel.

Millar is always talking about doing some DC stuff but I'll bet he re-signs with Marvel after this year. Bendis and Brubaker aren't going anywhere. Ellis hasn't done anything for DC in ages.

[XPac]

As far as talent going back and forth goes, yeah, that's what we've come to expect. But it's not really been like that in recent years. Has anyone significant left Marvel? JMS has taken up some DC work but still has his foot in the door at Marvel.

Millar is always talking about doing some DC stuff but I'll bet he re-signs with Marvel after this year. Bendis and Brubaker aren't going anywhere. Ellis hasn't done anything for DC in ages.

Depends on who you consider is significant. Busiek, Waid, and Morrison left Avengers, Fantastic Four and Xmen to do DC stuff, for example. But now we have Bendis, Millar, and Brubaker so it's not like marvel skipped a beat at all.

Both companies will gain and lose people.

[chickrockguitar]

Well, for me personally, I could never get into DC stuff, the characters just don't seem to generally interest me. Tv wise, I did get into Lois and Clark in the 90s, I did enjoy the whole series (I was a kid back then), and then Smallville, but even then after season 4 I seemed to stop watching. I did try with the new Gen13. Got to 3 issues and then, no. Never could get into Batman, at all, comics or Tv/Movies.

Art is another big factor for me, and I personally think DC generally fall short.

I also think Marvel make the characters more relatable than DC.

As others have said, I don't think DC has as much going for it as Marvel, in terms of interest. There's like Superman/Supergirl, Batman.... Uhm.... JLA, WonderWoman, and that's about it - for the big stuff. On the flipside, Marvel, we have Spidy, The Avengers, Fantastic Four, Cap (well kinda, I guess), and the big one - X-Men.

Also as others have said, Marvel seemed to promote more. They seem to get more movies out (of late) which is a big help to comics because a lot of people watch these and want to know more, then get into comics.

There's more household names in Marvel then DC. Marvel: Spidy, Fantastic Four, Cap, X-Men - DC: Superman, Batman.

Anyway, that's my 2Cents.

[XPac]

Well, for me personally, I could never get into DC stuff, the characters just don't seem to generally interest me. Tv wise, I did get into Lois and Clark in the 90s, I did enjoy the whole series (I was a kid back then), and then Smallville, but even then after season 4 I seemed to stop watching. I did try with the new Gen13. Got to 3 issues and then, no. Never could get into Batman, at all, comics or Tv/Movies.

Art is another big factor for me, and I personally think DC generally fall short.

I also think Marvel make the characters more relatable than DC.

As others have said, I don't think DC has as much going for it as Marvel, in terms of interest. There's like Superman/Supergirl, Batman.... Uhm.... JLA, WonderWoman, and that's about it - for the big stuff. On the flipside, Marvel, we have Spidy, The Avengers, Fantastic Four, Cap (well kinda, I guess), and the big one - X-Men.

Also as others have said, Marvel seemed to promote more. They seem to get more movies out (of late) which is a big help to comics because a lot of people watch these and want to know more, then get into comics.

There's more household names in Marvel then DC. Marvel: Spidy, Fantastic Four, Cap, X-Men - DC: Superman, Batman.

Anyway, that's my 2Cents.

I do think on a whole DC does come off better on TV than marvel. Their Teen Titans and Justice League cartoons may be the finest comic adaptiations ever (frankly, I've often wondered why the characterization and power levels on the JLU cartoon couldn't be applied to the comics).

Marvel on the whole I think makes better movies now (though that's depatable since the last few DC movies were pretty good), and marvel leads in the comic department. But in terms of TV shows and cartoons, DC usually does a better job.

Though I am digging Spectacular Spider-Man.

[Exo]

Perhaps Marvel caters to a different crowd of readers? The DCU is too "gold age-ish" and colorful for my taste.

[AllisterH]

I wonder though if videogames have replaced cartoons as the social "connector" among fans.

While DC has had better cartoons, (the Timmverse), it's hard to argue that marvel has dominated with the videogame segment.

Take something like Marvel:Ultimate Alliance. I have a suspicion that Marvel:ultimate Alliance created more fans for marvel (especially for the second tier characters like Ms. Marvel and Dr. Strange) than Justice League unlimited did for DC (and its second tier characters like Booster Gold and the Question)

How much influence does games like M:UA or Marvel vs Capcom factor into Marvel's popularity? I know in japan, more people recognize Iron Man (even before the movie) than Hawkgirl.

[XPac]

I wonder though if videogames have replaced cartoons as the social "connector" among fans.

While DC has had better cartoons, (the Timmverse), it's hard to argue that marvel has dominated with the videogame segment.

Take something like Marvel:Ultimate Alliance. I have a suspicion that Marvel:ultimate Alliance created more fans for marvel (especially for the second tier characters like Ms. Marvel and Dr. Strange) than Justice League unlimited did for DC (and its second tier characters like Booster Gold and the Question)

How much influence does games like M:UA or Marvel vs Capcom factor into Marvel's popularity? I know in japan, more people recognize Iron Man (even before the movie) than Hawkgirl.

Yeah, I do think marvel had dominated DC in the video game department now that I think about it. I can't recall the last really good DC game off the top of my head.

The Justice League game was okay... but Marvel Ultimate Alliance blew it away on pretty much every level.

That said, I'm really looking foreward to MK vs DC.

[Tobias Drake]

Yeah, I do think marvel had dominated DC in the video game department now that I think about it. I can't recall the last really good DC game off the top of my head.

The Justice League game was okay... but Marvel Ultimate Alliance blew it away on pretty much every level.

That said, I'm really looking foreward to MK vs DC.

So am I, but even then, the most that can be said for it if it turns out to be a huge success is that DC can make some really nice video games when an outside source comes in and makes it for them. It really is an MK game that just happens to have some DC characters participating.

[AllisterH]

So am I, but even then, the most that can be said for it if it turns out to be a huge success is that DC can make some really nice video games when an outside source comes in and makes it for them. It really is an MK game that just happens to have some DC characters participating.

Right now, we don't have enough information as to how integrated this will be with the DCU. Biggest problem is that this game is about a decade too late.

One of the things that really make the marvel videogames is how they use a lot of the great locations of marvel. As well, things like in the X-men Alliance where you learn more about the characters helps.

Getting back to the topic, the problem I think with DC is that it is too focused on Superman/Batman which adversely affects the other heroes in DC's lineup The marvel universe itself I think is a character that holds up better than DC.

[StoneGold]

Depends on who you consider is significant. Busiek, Waid, and Morrison left Avengers, Fantastic Four and Xmen to do DC stuff, for example. But now we have Bendis, Millar, and Brubaker so it's not like marvel skipped a beat at all.

Both companies will gain and lose people.

This is just an argument, but it could be said that when Busiek, Waid (who's bouncing back from DC again...) and Morrison went to DC recently, it was after they'd all had something of their creative peak. Whereas when Bendis, Millar and Brubaker came to Marvel, it was as cult writers growing their followings and writing abilities.

[XPac]

This is just an argument, but it could be said that when Busiek, Waid (who's bouncing back from DC again...) and Morrison went to DC recently, it was after they'd all had something of their creative peak. Whereas when Bendis, Millar and Brubaker came to Marvel, it was as cult writers growing their followings and writing abilities.

Yeah, I think that's a fair arguement.

That's sort of why I got the vibe that marvel at times comes off a bit more "cutting edge" or fresh at least with their mainstream writers. I'm almost tempted to say DC was getting sloppy seconds, but that's not really fair to say.

That said, it's also probably why writers might decide to jump ship in the first place. After long sucessful runs doing something, it's probably nice to jump to an entirely new universe to start from scratch.

[carabas]

Getting back to the topic, the problem I think with DC is that it is too focused on Superman/Batman which adversely affects the other heroes in DC's lineup The marvel universe itself I think is a character that holds up better than DC.I think you hit a really big nail right on the head there. The DCU is more diverse than the MU, but nobody who is not already thoroughly DC fan knows this because the publicity people only know three characters.

[The Man Without Fear]

The idea that DC is all gloss and glitter with characters that have no real problems is an antiquated one at best, and only demonstrates one's own bias. Most... no, I'd say all people who believe this haven't read a DC comic in thirty-five years at least, if ever. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that people who hold this notion have only had exposure to DC through way of Super Friends and Adam West's Batman series. One of the biggest problems DC fans have these days is that there's actually too much death and depression going on in their universe.

Speaking for myself, though, one problem I've always had with DC--and I do like DC, mind you; just not as much as Marvel--is that they have so many "legacy" characters. Several Flashes, several Green Lanterns, several Hawkmen and Hawkwomen, several Supergirls, a couple of Robins and Wonder Girls, and the list goes on. This seems to only breed contempt between their own readers for one thing (we all still remember HEAT, I'm sure), but there are a couple of other issues I have with it besides. Marvel's not completely innocent of this either (Ben Reilly comes to mind), but it does seem to be more prevalent at DC, at least when it comes to the more popular mantles.

I know a lot of people like the legacy angle, but it's always bothered me a little for some reason. I guess I feel that going back and reading old stories of Flash, for instance, is kind of pointless when I'm not reading about the current Flash. It cheapens what could otherwise be a very deep history among their characters in my mind. And yeah, as someone pointed out earlier, a lot of Marvel's characters' old stories are pretty much out of continuity by now too, but at least when I dig up a classic issue I know the character's basic origin, powers, weaknesses, supporting cast, motivations, etc. It doesn't ruin their brand altogether for me, but it does cheapen it somewhat.

But really, as to the question at hand, I think my first paragraph does more for explaining the disparity in sales than my own personal legacy hangups do. Many people believe Marvel is "cooler" because DC has a lot of stigmas that simply haven't gone away over the years. Aquaman's actually a pretty intriguing character for instance, but thanks to Super Friends he'll always be looked upon by the general public as that guy who talks to fish and nothing else. It's hard to garner new readers, even from within the existing fan base of the medium itself, when your stable is judged as "lame" from the outset. And so long as readers refuse to accept that things at DC have changed dramatically since the '60s and '70s, DC's going to be fighting an uphill battle no matter what. Admittedly, though, their sub-par marketing department is largely to blame for these beliefs to stagnate over the years.

All that being said, personally I buy good books from both publishers, but company loyalists exist in all areas of life, so I've learned to just accept ignorant fanboys on both sides.

- Manning

[Herr Mike]

This is just an argument, but it could be said that when Busiek, Waid (who's bouncing back from DC again...) and Morrison went to DC recently, it was after they'd all had something of their creative peak. Whereas when Bendis, Millar and Brubaker came to Marvel, it was as cult writers growing their followings and writing abilities.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

I follow baseball, and there are some parallels here. It's a lot like knowing when to let your players walk, and knowing when to re-sign them. Going further, it's also about knowing what talent to pursue.

Busiek is at best an aging slugger, capable of maybe providing a small boost to a title but he certainly won't do anything exciting. I would argue the same for Waid. Neither were great fits at Marvel and were let go after they served their purpose. Busiek put in a long steady run on Avengers after the Heroes Reborn disaster, more or less giving Bendis something that could be dismantled with all kinds of fun results. Waid helped FF back to its feet after the craptastic Pacheco run.

Morrison I think could do some fun things at Marvel, but I have to say I've found his stuff less than enthralling since he left New X-Men. Aside from All-Star Superman.

[Herr Mike]

The idea that DC is all gloss and glitter with characters that have no real problems is an antiquated one at best, and only demonstrates one's own bias. Most... no, I'd say all people who believe this haven't read a DC comic in thirty-five years at least, if ever. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that people who hold this notion have only had exposure to DC through way of Super Friends and Adam West's Batman series. One of the biggest problems DC fans have these days is that there's actually too much death and depression going on in their universe.

Totally agree. I bought the DCU 0 issue, more of the same. No one is learning. The Sue Dibny rape and the Ted Kord brain splattering really left a bad taste in my mouth, and it hasn't gone away.

Speaking for myself, though, one problem I've always had with DC--and I do like DC, mind you; just not as much as Marvel--is that they have so many "legacy" characters. Several Flashes, several Green Lanterns, several Hawkmen and Hawkwomen, several Supergirls, a couple of Robins and Wonder Girls, and the list goes on. This seems to only breed contempt between their own readers for one thing (we all still remember HEAT, I'm sure), but there are a couple of other issues I have with it besides. Marvel's not completely innocent of this either (Ben Reilly comes to mind), but it does seem to be more prevalent at DC, at least when it comes to the more popular mantles.

Agreed again. Junior versions water down the brand. It's made worse when they attempt to age them. See Dick Grayson. Look, I know a lot of people like Nightwing, and maybe he's great, but as an outsider looking in, the idea seems awkward to maintain in a continuous universe. Sure, an older Dick Grayson would be great in an out-of-continuity story. But Batman is essentially a grandpa now.

I know a lot of people like the legacy angle, but it's always bothered me a little for some reason. I guess I feel that going back and reading old stories of Flash, for instance, is kind of pointless when I'm not reading about the current Flash. It cheapens what could otherwise be a very deep history among their characters in my mind. And yeah, as someone pointed out earlier, a lot of Marvel's characters' old stories are pretty much out of continuity by now too, but at least when I dig up a classic issue I know the character's basic origin, powers, weaknesses, supporting cast, motivations, etc. It doesn't ruin their brand altogether for me, but it does cheapen it somewhat.

And I see you already pointed out that it weakens the brand. :P

But really, as to the question at hand, I think my first paragraph does more for explaining the disparity in sales than my own personal legacy hangups do. Many people believe Marvel is "cooler" because DC has a lot of stigmas that simply haven't gone away over the years. Aquaman's actually a pretty intriguing character for instance, but thanks to Super Friends he'll always be looked upon by the general public as that guy who talks to fish and nothing else. It's hard to garner new readers, even from within the existing fan base of the medium itself, when your stable is judged as "lame" from the outset. And so long as readers refuse to accept that things at DC have changed dramatically since the '60s and '70s, DC's going to be fighting an uphill battle no matter what. Admittedly, though, their sub-par marketing department is largely to blame for these beliefs to stagnate over the years.

Marvel's heroes are "cooler", I would say - in that they are more accessible and relatable, and work better in a shared universe. DC's guys, particularly Superman and Batman, work better in their own independent worlds. I can see that when the audience was young and dumb, it was just cool to see Batman and Superman together. But the audience isn't young and dumb anymore. Superman and Batman just do not go well together. Heck yes, they work when they are at odds with each other, that's got to be one of the classic dynamics in comicdom. Superman vs Batman in DKR is one of the all-time best scenes in comic history. But really, they are best left in their own corner of the world.

Throw Wonder Woman into the mix and bill the bunch as some Trinity of The Greatest Superheroes Ever You Better Believe It and it makes me just want to slap DC management.

[XPac]

I think one of DC's problems is that it's having a bit of an identity crisis of it's own.

I think it's having trouble deciding whether it wants to be a darker more 90's marvalized company, or whether it wants to return to it's brighter shinier golden age roots. Because I do get a vibe that it's trying to do BOTH... and it's possibly making it harder to brand itself.

On the one hand, there is a darker tone. There's more death and violence. On the flip side, I think they're bringing back some of the sillier fore sci-fi aspects that were taken away from the first Crisis.

Of course, I'm not a hardcore DC guy... that's just the vibe I get from the sampling I get flip through, so maybe I'm a bit off here.

[DeadXMan]

Yeah, I do think marvel had dominated DC in the video game department now that I think about it. I can't recall the last really good DC game off the top of my head.

The Justice League game was okay... but Marvel Ultimate Alliance blew it away on pretty much every level.

That said, I'm really looking foreward to MK vs DC.



http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20080423mortalkombat.png


Marvel vs Capcom FTW

[psm]

This is just an argument, but it could be said that when Busiek, Waid (who's bouncing back from DC again...) and Morrison went to DC recently, it was after they'd all had something of their creative peak. Whereas when Bendis, Millar and Brubaker came to Marvel, it was as cult writers growing their followings and writing abilities.

I would have to disagree a bit with you on this one. I don't think its because the writers have hit their creative peaks (especially Morrison). I just think there is a difference between the type of writers that Marvel and DC go after. If you look at the guys running the show over at DC, how many of those writers come from the indy/alt comics (non-superhero work). The only one I can think of is Morrison. Sure, you could put Waid and Giffen in that category too but they started in mainstream and then moved to independent comics. Now look at the big guns at Marvel (Bendis, Ellis, Fraction, Brubaker, Millar). They all come from there. Then you have all the other Marvel writers from outside the field too like Pak, Loeb, Heinberg, JMS, and Hudlin. Combine that with an editorial staff that seems to give their creators a bit more carte blanche and you get two companies with very different sensibilites.

[Shellhead]

This is just an argument, but it could be said that when Busiek, Waid (who's bouncing back from DC again...) and Morrison went to DC recently, it was after they'd all had something of their creative peak. Whereas when Bendis, Millar and Brubaker came to Marvel, it was as cult writers growing their followings and writing abilities.

It's an interesting point, but I disagree regarding Morrison. Seven Soldiers was almost entirely great, and his fingerprints were on some cool concepts in 52. All-Star Superman is also amazing.

[StoneGold]

It's an interesting point, but I disagree regarding Morrison. Seven Soldiers was almost entirely great, and his fingerprints were on some cool concepts in 52. All-Star Superman is also amazing.

What can I say, I think Morrison is overrated. Seven Soldiers bored me, All-Star Superman was great, the first time when Alan Moore did it in Supreme, and I thought 52 overall was a boondoggle. In the meantime, he's also had the aborted Wildstorm relaunch, a Batman ongoing that's generally been called mediocre... and I guess that's mostly it. But the Wildstorm stuff, the little there was of it, was really, really bad. And even worse, it killed the Wildstorm books that were coming out that didn't suck.



On the plus side, I guess it did free up Christos Gage to take over for Thunderbolts...

[Shellhead]

What can I say, I think Morrison is overrated. Seven Soldiers bored me, All-Star Superman was great, the first time when Alan Moore did it in Supreme, and I thought 52 overall was a boondoggle. In the meantime, he's also had the aborted Wildstorm relaunch, a Batman ongoing that's generally been called mediocre... and I guess that's mostly it. But the Wildstorm stuff, the little there was of it, was really, really bad. And even worse, it killed the Wildstorm books that were coming out that didn't suck.


I can understand somebody not being impressed with Morrison's work, but it's difficult to make the case that his work on X-Men was better than his subsequent work at DC.

[brundlefly]

but it's difficult to make the case that his work on X-Men was better than his subsequent work at DC.

QFT. Grant's Seven Soldiers and All-Star Superman are both head-and-shoulders above his New X-Men. While NXM was impressive in the beginning, it ended quite poorly and was one of his overall weaker creative runs on a title, imo. And Grant's forthcoming Batman RIP and Final Crisis will likely make it even more obvious that he hardly "hit his creative peak" while at Marvel.

[StoneGold]

I can understand somebody not being impressed with Morrison's work, but it's difficult to make the case that his work on X-Men was better than his subsequent work at DC.

It was at the start, but I'd say his decline started somewhere on the book. But again, please recognize, I'm not that big a Morrison fan, I find him overrated in general. And I realize that I'm the odd-man out on this one, but whatever.

[StoneGold]

And Grant's forthcoming Batman RIP and Final Crisis will likely make it even more obvious that he hardly "hit his creative peak" while at Marvel.

And you know this because you've read them. Because I remember hearing how his Wildstorm work was going to be revolutionary. Instead of being a couple of really crappy issues that he then dropped like a dead fish.

[brundlefly]

And you know this because you've read them.

No, I haven't. That's why I said "likely."

[The Man Without Fear]

It was at the start, but I'd say his decline started somewhere on the book. But again, please recognize, I'm not that big a Morrison fan, I find him overrated in general. And I realize that I'm the odd-man out on this one, but whatever.
You're not alone. I found Seven Soldiers pretty boring as well, and could never get into his All-Star Superman either. I'm not saying the guy's a bad writer; obviously he's not or his work wouldn't sell. And judging from what information that has been released of it, I'm even looking forward to Final Crisis next week. But Morrison's just not the type of writer that clicks with me on all levels, for whatever reason. Maybe I'm just too stupid to "get" his stuff or something, but I've never lost any sleep over it.

- Manning

[Black Atom]

I think Marvel has been doing a better job of courting new, younger fans for some time now. I've rarely run into guys who say they read DC exclsively--usually a lot of older fans read a wide variety of books, including indy stuff. In my experience (which is hardly universal) when I encounter someone pledges that they read Marvel comics exclusively, it's a younger fan who usually has some pre-conceived notion that DC heroes are stodgy or boring and that Marvel heroes are more "real". The irony, of course, is that any distinction you could've drawn between the two publishers on those grounds disappeared a long time ago. The people of DC Earth are usually just as paranoid and distrustful of their heroes as Marvel's and there's plenty of down-to-earth DC heroes with human flaws and "grim and gritty" stories. Recently, on most occasions, DC handles those themes better than Marvel.

But Marvel has done a good job of capitalizing on their recognized characters. They continue to focus big event stories around an established core of characters, which makes them accessible to new readers, albeit somewhat shallow to veterans (honestly, does anyone else feel the Marvel universe has shrunk to include, basically, the two Avengers teams and The Illuminati?).

[Augusto]

Getting back to the topic, the problem I think with DC is that it is too focused on Superman/Batman which adversely affects the other heroes in DC's lineup The marvel universe itself I think is a character that holds up better than DC.

You got it! I'm totally DC fan, but also read and enjoy Marvel, but it's true: there is too much focus on Superman and Batman.

The idea that DC is all gloss and glitter with characters that have no real problems is an antiquated one at best, and only demonstrates one's own bias. Most... no, I'd say all people who believe this haven't read a DC comic in thirty-five years at least, if ever. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that people who hold this notion have only had exposure to DC through way of Super Friends and Adam West's Batman series. One of the biggest problems DC fans have these days is that there's actually too much death and depression going on in their universe.

Speaking for myself, though, one problem I've always had with DC--and I do like DC, mind you; just not as much as Marvel--is that they have so many "legacy" characters. Several Flashes, several Green Lanterns, several Hawkmen and Hawkwomen, several Supergirls, a couple of Robins and Wonder Girls, and the list goes on. This seems to only breed contempt between their own readers for one thing (we all still remember HEAT, I'm sure), but there are a couple of other issues I have with it besides. Marvel's not completely innocent of this either (Ben Reilly comes to mind), but it does seem to be more prevalent at DC, at least when it comes to the more popular mantles.

I know a lot of people like the legacy angle, but it's always bothered me a little for some reason. I guess I feel that going back and reading old stories of Flash, for instance, is kind of pointless when I'm not reading about the current Flash. It cheapens what could otherwise be a very deep history among their characters in my mind. And yeah, as someone pointed out earlier, a lot of Marvel's characters' old stories are pretty much out of continuity by now too, but at least when I dig up a classic issue I know the character's basic origin, powers, weaknesses, supporting cast, motivations, etc. It doesn't ruin their brand altogether for me, but it does cheapen it somewhat.

But really, as to the question at hand, I think my first paragraph does more for explaining the disparity in sales than my own personal legacy hangups do. Many people believe Marvel is "cooler" because DC has a lot of stigmas that simply haven't gone away over the years. Aquaman's actually a pretty intriguing character for instance, but thanks to Super Friends he'll always be looked upon by the general public as that guy who talks to fish and nothing else. It's hard to garner new readers, even from within the existing fan base of the medium itself, when your stable is judged as "lame" from the outset. And so long as readers refuse to accept that things at DC have changed dramatically since the '60s and '70s, DC's going to be fighting an uphill battle no matter what. Admittedly, though, their sub-par marketing department is largely to blame for these beliefs to stagnate over the years.

All that being said, personally I buy good books from both publishers, but company loyalists exist in all areas of life, so I've learned to just accept ignorant fanboys on both sides.

- Manning

This is pretty much my own tought. Lots of Marvel fans are misleaded by "they have too much power and I can relate to them" idea from 30 years ago. "They're righteous to the bone": what about Wonder Woman killing a man in a broadcast coast to coast, and, yes, me too, the brain splatering death of Ted Kord.

I enjoyed 52, but, again it's true, you have to be very into DC to know the characters in 52.

The movies Marvel is realeasing are a big factor in the get to the movie, if you want to know more, buy comics. DC is to attached to Warner Bros. But Marvel can do it with Sony, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, and whoever that pays big money to do a marvel movie. But with DC it must be Warner.

http://www.yelims.com/IPB/Invision-Board-France-234.gif http://www.yelims.com/IPB/Smiley-IPB-279.gif

[StoneGold]

You're not alone. I found Seven Soldiers pretty boring as well, and could never get into his All-Star Superman either. I'm not saying the guy's a bad writer; obviously he's not or his work wouldn't sell. And judging from what information that has been released of it, I'm even looking forward to Final Crisis next week. But Morrison's just not the type of writer that clicks with me on all levels, for whatever reason. Maybe I'm just too stupid to "get" his stuff or something, but I've never lost any sleep over it.

- Manning

For me, he's a writer who when he's good, he's really good. But a lot of his work that others deem "good," I think is pretentious and static. He generally has a lousy ear for dialogue. His plots have a tendency to revolve around existential crap that he seems to think is revolutionary, but was generally explored by someone before him, just less "importantly."

But this isn't about Morrison, this is about why Marvel outsells DC. I still stick to my guns that it's because of static buying habits, and the current reader base is still too hooked on Spidey and X-Men. The bit about Marvel grabbing writers on the way up and DC on the way down is BS anyway, because it's not like DC doesn't have its share of relatively unknown writers. Sean McKeever could be considered more or less in the same position Brubaker was when he came to Marvel, except he isn't performing to the same level. And it's not like Marvel isn't still employing well-past-their-peaks writers like Claremont and DeFalco. It was just because of the three writers mentioned.

[hawkeye comeback]

You're not alone. I found Seven Soldiers pretty boring as well, and could never get into his All-Star Superman either. I'm not saying the guy's a bad writer; obviously he's not or his work wouldn't sell. And judging from what information that has been released of it, I'm even looking forward to Final Crisis next week. But Morrison's just not the type of writer that clicks with me on all levels, for whatever reason. Maybe I'm just too stupid to "get" his stuff or something, but I've never lost any sleep over it.

- Manning

try reading his invisibles it makes me feel stupid half the time

[Capt USA]

Unles that somehow is Steve Rogers as well, I was right and the stories frol the sixties though eighties that feature the cold war (or Nixon as president for that matter) did not include Steve Rogers as he was in an ice block at the time.

the stories still happened, Cap still became Nomad because of the events with the Secret Empire etc. It may not have happened exactly as written or at the time it was written, but it still happened. DC throws away hundreds if not thousands of stories with each crisis. (and yes Brand New day did the exact same thing, which is part of the reason I think so many people dislike it) I don't mind a company cleaning up some of the convulted history (Hawkman) or modifying the history to reflect a more modern time(Iron man = Desert Storm or whatever) or even modern sensibilities (Bucky = man to do the dirty business, instead of a random underage kid) but don't throw away my stories. If krypto existed, then allow him to exist, let his silly stories happen, make them have meaning etc. instead of just writing out a decade plus of comics that never happened.

[Chiasm]

A superhero's popularity depends much on his rogues gallery. And Marvel has done much better in developing their rogues than DC.

Superman has Lex Luthor and . . . . . . . . I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else. Ok actually I could name a few but they are pretty trivial. And Superman suffers because he is a boring character as he's basically unstoppable.

Batman's are easier to name but they are also insanely silly creations. Its hard to take Batman seriously when his villians literally in some cases are clowns. It gives a cartoonish feel to his books and not in a good way.

DC has been working at changing this over the last ten years and you can thank Geoff John's for this. I was an avid Flash reader during his run and the reason John's run was so good was his emphasis on rogues. Some issues were soley about the Rogues and didn't even feature the Flash.

Marvel though has long had a great history of developing rogues. For example, X-men was never so popular as when Claremont turned Magneto from a cookie cutter villian into a fully fleshed out person with depth and even made him sympathetic.

[Kage Kisaragi]

I know these characters probably do have very interesting comics, but I can't bring myself to read them because of these stupid stereotypes I have in my head. I'm sure they're a lot of people like me.

And who do you think helped get those stereotypes into your head? Yup, Marvel..

[Shellhead]

Let's not forget that Marvel literally filed for bankruptcy in 1996 while publishing crap like this:

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/05817479208.1.GOLD.SIGN.GIF

[DeadXMan]

Let's not forget that Marvel literally filed for bankruptcy in 1996 while publishing crap like this:

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/05817479208.1.GOLD.SIGN.GIF

but they've rebounded since then

Imaginge what the 90's would of been if Shooter's Bid was the top instead of Perelman

[BYC]

Marvel delivers the illusion of change and everyday problems better than DC. Everybody has believed the Marvel universe relates to the average Joe for so long now that people automatically think that without a 2nd thought. They believe DC is full of stiff heroes that never change while Marvel is full of relatable characters with more realistic scenarios.

Neither side is significantly better or worse, but the fans believe otherwise, hence Marvel's position in the driver's seat for decades now.

The other problem is that Superman and Batman have become so big that the entire company is forced to focus on them. It's "can't live with them, can't live without" syndrom.

[mikekerr3]

Marvel delivers the illusion of change and everyday problems better than DC. Everybody has believed the Marvel universe relates to the average Joe for so long now that people automatically think that without a 2nd thought. They believe DC is full of stiff heroes that never change while Marvel is full of relatable characters with more realistic scenarios.

Neither side is significantly better or worse, but the fans believe otherwise, hence Marvel's position in the driver's seat for decades now.

The other problem is that Superman and Batman have become so big that the entire company is forced to focus on them. It's "can't live with them, can't live without" syndrom.

Don't like Superman or Batman never have, But the must relatable character in comics now, and best supporting cast, to me is now in a DC book:; Blue Beetle.

To bad nobody reads it though.

[Mister Mets]

Don't like Superman or Batman never have, But the must relatable character in comics now, and best supporting cast, to me is now in a DC book:; Blue Beetle.

To bad nobody reads it though.I suspect that the elements that make you relate to him and the supporting cast may not last the decade.



The thing about talent though is that it largely drifts back and forth between the companies these days. A guy that's working for marvel now could easily get a DC exlcusing 2 years from now, before being back at marvel in 4 years.

That said, I do think to some degree marvel perhaps has had more "cutting edge" people for their mainstream stuff. And they do often seek out fresh talent from other areas like TV shows and novelists. So I think to some degree marvels talent often seems fresher, but not necessarily better.I think Marvel makes better use of their new talent.

The last star writers to emerge from DC were Geoff Johns (more than six years ago) and Brad Metzer (whose work is limited).

With Marvel, Ed Brubaker became one of the biggest writers in comics fairly recently. Dan Slott's arguably become an A-list writer in the last year (with the dual success of Avengers: The Initiative, and his Amazing Spider-Man debut.) Meanwhile, Matt Fraction seems likely to be this year's breakout writer.

The same is true of the artists. When's the last time a DC artist became as big as McNiven or Cassady?

[Mister Mets]

I wonder though if videogames have replaced cartoons as the social "connector" among fans.

While DC has had better cartoons, (the Timmverse), it's hard to argue that marvel has dominated with the videogame segment.

Take something like Marvel:Ultimate Alliance. I have a suspicion that Marvel:ultimate Alliance created more fans for marvel (especially for the second tier characters like Ms. Marvel and Dr. Strange) than Justice League unlimited did for DC (and its second tier characters like Booster Gold and the Question)

How much influence does games like M:UA or Marvel vs Capcom factor into Marvel's popularity? I know in japan, more people recognize Iron Man (even before the movie) than Hawkgirl.I suspect that if this were the case, Marvel Comics starring characters with significant roles in the video game would see improved sales. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Otherwise, we'd see a lot more of Shuma Gorath in the comics.

[carabas]

I know in japan, more people recognize Iron Man (even before the movie) than Hawkgirl.
I find it entirely natural that Iron Man outclasses Hawkgirl or even Superman in Japan, country of Ultraman, Power Rangers, and giant mechs.

[Kage Kisaragi]

I find it entirely natural that Iron Man outclasses Hawkgirl or even Superman in Japan, country of Ultraman, Power Rangers, and giant mechs.

heh heh, to true. Actually when you look at him, he does remind you of a Japanese style armored superhero, same with Spider-man, a guy in pajamas with a mask who can climb builds with nothing but his hands and feet will be well received in the land of the rising sun where mythically the ninja did the same thing. (not to mention the fighting style he used, swinging in and kicking the crap out of people.)

Hey, does anyone else feel that more than DC, Marvel comics tend to have a darker always emotionally unstable feel to them? Sure you can pick out a few characters like that in DC but its not the entire cast unlike in Marvel where it seems thats the norm.

[ashez2ashes]

I suspect that the elements that make you relate to him and the supporting cast may not last the decade.


What? Likable, relatable, and diverse characters that care about their friends and family? Is it the excellant writing with gradual plot progression and character development that we're going to get over? Regardless of what DC does to poor Jaime ten years from now, it does not mean that the first 26 issues weren't pure comic awesome.

DC has just as relatable characters as Marvel... just very few people read them.

[DeadXMan]

heh heh, to true. Actually when you look at him, he does remind you of a Japanese style armored superhero, same with Spider-man, a guy in pajamas with a mask who can climb builds with nothing but his hands and feet will be well received in the land of the rising sun where mythically the ninja did the same thing. (not to mention the fighting style he used, swinging in and kicking the crap out of people.)

Hey, does anyone else feel that more than DC, Marvel comics tend to have a darker always emotionally unstable feel to them? Sure you can pick out a few characters like that in DC but its not the entire cast unlike in Marvel where it seems thats the norm.


you do know there was a Japanese Spider-man show, right?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcxioU7AMM4

[carabas]

Hey, does anyone else feel that more than DC, Marvel comics tend to have a darker always emotionally unstable feel to them? Sure you can pick out a few characters like that in DC but its not the entire cast unlike in Marvel where it seems thats the norm.DC certainly does have that image, in no small way thanks to Superfriends and Adam Wast, probably. But I don't think this has been factually true for decades. Even Superman gets bouts of depression and doubt nowadays.
Keep in mind that it was DC that published Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, the two works, justly or not, that are usually credited with/blamed for the general darkening of superhero comics.

[Kage Kisaragi]

you do know there was a Japanese Spider-man show, right?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcxioU7AMM4

yeah I remember seeing that on youtube. Spida Webbu!

[ANewHope]

I'm a huge fan of Marvel, I purchase close to 30 different titles. I'm also a huge fan of Batman, but the only DC titles I buy are Allstar Batman, Batman Confidential, Detective Comics and Batman.

What makes Marvel so compelling is that all the story's in the marvel universe are interwined. Doctor Doom doesn't only appear in the Fantastic Four, but just about in any marvel title possible. When was the last time that Superman went up against the Joker?

Another problem is that no one gives a damn about the supporting cast in the DC universe (it's all about Batman and Superman). 52 was DC's attempt to expand upon the DC universe and make it more accessible to fans. Marvel is definitely out performing DC in this category.

I love the entire Marvel universe, especially Marvel politics featuring the interaction between Namor's Atlantis, Black Panther's Wakanda, Inhumans on the Moon, Dr Doom's Lavateria and the fifty state initiative in the US.

When you read one marvel title, it literally draws you into other titles that feature different characters, but all of these characters are interacting in one universe, Marvel consistently acknowledges continuity. This is probably the main reason so many Spiderman fans where completely upset with Brand New Day.

Continuity is a writer's gift to long term fans, and when it's ignored or magically erased, it tends to upset fans of Marvel. I don't think DC acknowledges continunity to the same degree as Marvel. In fact, I think fans of DC are all too used to magic recons that reset characters in a similar fashion as "One More Day" in spiderman.

Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Batman's line-up of villians and I think it's potentially the best in the industry. I really like the concept of insane villians that deserve to be stuck in Arkane Asylum. But seriously, only Cat-Women, Bat-girl, Robin and Nightwing interact with Batman's universe, the rest of DC simply doesn't interact with Batman.

Sure, there's Batman/Superman and the Justice League, but when was the last time the Justice League went up against the Joker??

[carabas]

I'm a huge fan of Marvel, I purchase close to 30 different titles. I'm also a huge fan of Batman, but the only DC titles I buy are Allstar Batman, Batman Confidential, Detective Comics and Batman.You are a huge Marvel- and Batman fan who isn't really very familiar with the rest of the modern DCU.

What makes Marvel so compelling is that all the story's in the marvel universe are interwined. Doctor Doom doesn't only appear in the Fantastic Four, but just about in any marvel title possible. When was the last time that Superman went up against the Joker?When's the last time Apocalyps bothered the FF? when's the last time Dock Ock and Iron Man had a good fight?
Deathstroke is a Teen Titans rogue, and there's practically isn't a book that he hasn't been in recently. The Flash's rogues are all over the place.The new Atom has a Wonder Woman villai nfor pseudo-love interest. Dr. Psycho, another WW villain, has been harrasing everybody from Superman to Manhunter. The Cyborg Superman has apparently completely switched franchise and took residence in Green Lantern.

Another problem is that no one gives a damn about the supporting cast in the DC universe (it's all about Batman and Superman). 52 was DC's attempt to expand upon the DC universe and make it more accessible to fans. Marvel is definitely out performing DC in this category.When was the last time Marvel heavily promoted something that wasn't Spider-Man, X-Men or Avengers? Or had a big hit with a book thta doesn't belong in one of those three franchises?

I love the entire Marvel universe, especially Marvel politics featuring the interaction between Namor's Atlantis, Black Panther's Wakanda, Inhumans on the Moon, Dr Doom's Lavateria and the fifty state initiative in the US.Aquaman's Atlantis, Black Adam's Kahndaq and Global Guardians, the Great Ten, Checkmate, and all the American cities not called New York.

When you read one marvel title, it literally draws you into other titles that feature different characters, but all of these characters are interacting in one universe,And this is absolutely true for DC as well.
Marvel consistently acknowledges continuity.Sure they do. Except when they don't. Which happens quite a lot.

Continuity is a writer's gift to long term fans, and when it's ignored or magically erased, it tends to upset fans of Marvel. I don't think DC acknowledges continunity to the same degree as Marvel. In fact, I think fans of DC are all too used to magic recons that reset characters in a similar fashion as "One More Day" in spiderman.You think a lot of things, but they have no real basis in reality.
Also, Spider-Man are far less upset by some erased continuity than they are by the complete character assassination of Peter Parker by having him make a deal with the literal Devil, and then hav him completely regressed back to the sixties.
I am sure thet if Quesada had let JMs write the story in th way he has planned, in a way that made sense as a story, there wouldn't have been remotely as much resistance to BND.

But seriously, only Cat-Women, Bat-girl, Robin and Nightwing interact with Batman's universe, the rest of DC simply doesn't interact with Batman.He's in an ongoing book called Batman/Superman. He's also in an ongoing book called Batman & The Outsiders. He's in the JLA. Lex Luthor was the brains behind both of the last two main Bat-crossovers.

Also, when was the last time Thor dropped by to give Daredevil or Moon Knight a hand? Streetlevel heroes don't play well with others.
Sure, there's Batman/Superman and the Justice League, but when was the last time the Justice League went up against the Joker?Just a few months ago, actually.

[DeadXMan]

[QUOTE=carabas;6909652]You are a huge Marvel- and Batman fan who isn't really very familiar with the rest of the modern DCU.

When's the last time Apocalyps bothered the FF? when's the last time Dock Ock and Iron Man had a good fight?
Deathstroke is a Teen Titans rogue, and there's practically isn't a book that he hasn't been in recently. The Flash's rogues are all over the place.The new Atom has a Wonder Woman villai nfor pseudo-love interest. Dr. Psycho, another WW villain, has been harrasing everybody from Superman to Manhunter. The Cyborg Superman has apparently completely switched franchise and took residence in Green Lantern.

When was the last time Marvel heavily promoted something that wasn't Spider-Man, X-Men or Avengers? Or had a big hit with a book thta doesn't belong in one of those three franchises?

Cyborg Superman has been on GL's Radar since he help destroy Coast city

WWH CW SI and annihilation

[carabas]

[quote=carabas;6909652]
Cyborg Superman has been on GL's Radar since he help destroy Coast cityHe wasa Superman villain first.

WWH CW SI and annihilationI grant you WWH, but Civil War is pretty much an Avengers and Spider-Man story. And Annihilation was woefully underpromoted in favour of a far inferior Avengers/Spider-Man event..

[DeadXMan]

[quote=DeadXMan;6909666]He was Superman villain first.

I grant you WWH, but Civil War is pretty much an Avengers and Spider-Man story. And Annihilation was woefully underpromoted in favour of a far inferior Avengers/Spider-Man event..

We didn't know he was a villain until what four issues till the end?
they used him more in Superman (actually not that much) and If they didn't go and make Hal bat **** Crazy I think Cyborg Supes would of ended up in GL sooner.

Mini series prequels four page previews
Annihilation got more press then Corps war

[carabas]

[quote=carabas;6909690]We didn't know he was a villain until what four issues till the end?
they used him more in Superman (actually not that much) and If they didn't go and make Hal bat **** Crazy I think Cyborg Supes would of ended up in GL sooner.Meh. He debuted in the superman books, his origin ties into superman, and his name is the frelling Cyborg Superman. Speaking of Coast city, howabout Mongul? Another Superman villain turned Green Lantern foe.


Mini series prequels four page previews
Annihilation got more press then Corps war
Don't most new series get four pages of previews?
Annihilation getting more press then The Sinestro Corps War signifies nothing since Marvel consequently gives more press to everything compared to DC. What counts here is how much promotion Annihilation got in comparison to other Marvel books coming out at th same time. Which is pretty much negligible. I don't think I'd even heard of it until a week or so befor it came out.

[Mideon]

So many reasons.

One is the public perception that's already been addressed. None of my friends are comic fans really. We all read them together as kids, but they all had their older brothers' comics and what-not, while I was buying my own and still do. However, even after 15 years of not reading comics, they'll all still tell you, with conviction, that DC sucks except for Batman and Marvel kicks ass. If I personally know 5 or so people like that, then there's bound to be thousands more.

Another is simply the stories. I did a project in school on Civil War, not even realizing how deep I could go until I actually got started. I ended up with a 45 minute presentation that included a class-wide debate about the Registration Act. If I tried to do a project on Infinite Crisis everyone's eyes would have glazed over, I would have failed, and been branded a complete retard.

The last thing I can add is the humanity of the characters, which of course has also already been addressed. I refer to Iron Man as "Stark" usually in conversation, Spider-Man, if not Spidey is referred to as Pete, and even Ant-Man is Hank Pym to me. That's because these characters are Tony Stark, Peter Parker, and Henry Pym, not Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Ant-Man. Dc is the opposite, and that classic approach has been out-dated since the 60's.

It also doesn't help that to a lot of people Batman's a psycho, Superman's a total knob, and Wonder Woman is a raging mega-dyke.

EDIT: After reading my own signature, I just remembered something else. Marvel, at least until the 90's, all flowed together. I once read every Spider-Man comic from the first one up until the Clone Saga and there were very, very few instances of ignoring continuty. The Harry Osborn eventual death made so much freakin sense if you'd been reading him since his first appearance. DC just doesn't have that nice flow, thanks to their continuity revising events.

[carabas]

Another is simply the stories. I did a project in school on Civil War, not even realizing how deep I could go until I actually got started. I ended up with a 45 minute presentation that included a class-wide debate about the Registration Act.
Big, massive explosion caused by unprofessional superheroes with huge civilian body count.
Superheroes split into law-abiding and carefree factions.
Super-duper meta-prison. Prison break, lots of ensueing carnage.
In the end it all being decided by a one on one fight...

DC did that fifteen years earlier and called it Kingdom Come.

The last thing I can add is the humanity of the characters, which of course has also already been addressed. I refer to Iron Man as "Stark" usually in conversation, Spider-Man, if not Spidey is referred to as Pete, and even Ant-Man is Hank Pym to me. That's because these characters are Tony Stark, Peter Parker, and Henry Pym, not Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Ant-Man. Dc is the opposite, and that classic approach has been out-dated since the 60's.Green Arrow is Ollie to his fans. Green Lantern is Hal (or Kyle). Wonder Woman is Wondie or Diana. Batman is Bats or Bruce. Wonder Girl i Cassie, Arsenal is Roy, There is really no difference here.

It also doesn't help that to a lot of people Batman's a psycho, Superman's a total knob, and Wonder Woman is a raging mega-dyke.Perception is not reality (unles you're Frank Miller, judging by ASB&RTBW).

[Expletive Deleted]

Big, massive explosion caused by unprofessional superheroes with huge civilian body count.
Superheroes split into law-abiding and carefree factions.
Super-duper meta-prison. Prison break, lots of ensueing carnage.
In the end it all being decided by a one on one fight...

DC did that fifteen years earlier and called it Kingdom Come.Which was itself heavily influenced by (among other things) Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme.

[carabas]

Which was itself heavily influenced by (among other things) Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme.Which was itself a take on the JLA. Damn; comics are incestuous.

[BYC]

As I said, it's all perception. DC and Marvel all have plenty good and bad comics, but people think Marvel has more relatable characters. DC need to do a better job to get readers to know/remember that DC has plenty of a good characters and stories as well. But as I have also stated before, and in this thread no less, unless something incredibly stupid happens, this is the status quo.

And no, apparently OMD wasn't something incredibly stupid, or Crisises.

[Hulk_Is]

If the Marvel outselling DC has anything to do with promotion or accessibility, then that's why I'm a Marvel fan!

When I was younger, the access I had to Marvel products was immense. They had cartoons, I won Marvel prizes in elementary school, live action TV shows, etc.. DC Comics had these things as well when I was young, but I'd be exposed to Marvel things (what felt like) two to three times more often..Slurpee promos, toys... damn, Mavel was just there for me all over. I wanted to love DC just as much; I mean I wanted to love double the comic universes, but I just didn't get the info I wanted regarding DC characters. With Marvel, for some reason I didn't have to try as hard to get info on characters.

And ultimately, besides, I think Marvel characters just have (always had) that dysfuntional, rag-tag, feeling overall that brings an individual like myself to Marvel.

Sometimes I wanna dig some DC comic books, but I feel I gotta learn a bunch of history, and until they bring back the Aquaman in orange and green (:tongue: ), Make Mine Marvel.

[Venom Melendez]

I suspect that if this were the case, Marvel Comics starring characters with significant roles in the video game would see improved sales. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Otherwise, we'd see a lot more of Shuma Gorath in the comics.
And god dammit, we need more Shuma Gorath.
The people demand it.......all five of us.

[bd2999]

I honestly have no idea. I started out with Marvel, because that is who my dad liked growing up and that is the comics he had. I read those and then later wanted to read more of their stories. I wanted to learn more about those characters. At the same time I loved Death of Superman too, but Superman never stuck with me like the Marvel characters did.

Not a knock to DC at all, but Superman and Batman are their big money makers right there. I never have been a huge Superman fan but he has had good stories behind him but I never liked the idea of him being able to do whatever needed done. Always liked Bats but thought he out stretched his league to often. Always really liked Darkseid but he is a jobber now. Aside from them I knew of the JLA and some of the sort of top tier hitters but had next to no idea who half the people I am reading about now are. It is my own bias that keeps me to Marvel and the lack of desire to pick up quite a few books to figure out who characters are. I am looking forward to a couple of DC arcs (final Crisis and Reign in Hell (Giffen is the man)), but overall I dont pick up any DC on goings continually. I just get a bunch of Marvel titles. Just because of loyalty to the brand. That and when you have a character you like in a good story line its one of the best things ever (for me right now that is Nova, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ghost Rider and Thor).

Now outside of my personel experience I cannot say. At one time the Marvel universe's heros had more problems and were more sort of down to Earth but DC has gone through some great pains to give their characters down to Earth problems. Do people believe them as readily? I don't think so but I am not sure that is why people pick up books anymore, it might have been how it started though. DC has more continuity issues and (in my mind) more no name characters than Marvel does. Marvel has continuity issues too, but you are less likely to notice them because they are typically only referenced in passing and what happened back in the day could happen currently with an updated time line (The cap stories from the past could all be updated to have happened not long ago and things would pretty much have ended up the same way), and more of the minor characters are at least known.

But, as others have said, its not like to many new people jump into comics. I am sure there are new people jumping in to read all of the time, but the numbers are not great at all and both Marvel and DC comics are overwhelming to someone just getting into the stories (especially if htey go to message boards were people casually talk about events that are often hard to find if you start collecting yesterday. I mean its sort of a club that everyone is welcome into, but it takes alot of work to be able to go on about it with someone who has been collecting longer. Its sort of like talking baseball with a new fan or football with someone just learning the game, it can be overwhelming to hear so many names of old players tossed out casually but the love of the game is the same for both sides and that is what I think has to happen with comics, but I digress alot.

I think it has to do with what characters you liked more growing up or thought looked cooler. Once you start with a brand its easier to just stick with it or give it up altogether than it is to jump ship. DC has had some great stories down the years, so its not like they just make crappy books.

[ANewHope]

The Marvel universe is intertwined to a much greater extent than the DC universe.

Just look at Doctor Doom, not only does the FF deal with him, but so does Ironman, Namor, Black Panther , and even Spiderman occasionally. Hell, even Blade has interacted with Doctor Doom.

Marvel comics features different villians from another superhero's line up more frequently than DC ever does.

For example, Wolverine has gone up against just about all the major marvel villians at some point. Who would ever think that Wolvie would go up against the MoleMan or Galactus?? Of course Wolvie didn't even come close to beating Galactus, but he still went up against him.

I want to argue that marvel titles share each other's villians/characters much more frequently than DC does. Especially in regards to sharing villians featured in Spiderman, to the Xmen, to the Fantastic Four, and the Avengers.

Fing Fan Foom is a fun character, but who is his real arch-enemy? Is it Ironman or the Hulk?? It's highly debateable.

How about the Kingpin?? Daredevil or Spidey???

How about Venom?? Venom used to be just about killing Spiderman, but now he's a villian that not only the Avengers deal with, but he's also featured a great deal in the Ultimate universe.

A nice example is how Ms Marvel is linked with both the Xmen and the Avengers. From her past hardship with having Rogue permanently stealing her ablities and having Mystique to be revealed as Raven Darkholme. This essential Xmen story featuring Rogue, took place in a Non-Xmen Book !!!

[An essential Phoenix-jean-grey story took place in Fantastic Four issue 286.]

I'm sure DC fans could find examples where heroes and villians are shared, but I think Marvel not only does it more frequently, but tells better stories in general using not only their big named stars, but also their less-well-known characters.

The entire purpose of DC's 52 was to generate interest in the minor DC characters. And the reason why these characters aren't well known, is that DC writers haven't given readers any reason to follow their books.

Now of course, not all of Marvel's books are written amazing well (like Ghostrider) but at this point in time, the reason why Marvel is outselling DC is simply due to better story telling throughout all of Marvel's titles in general.

[Black Atom]

...
Batman's are easier to name but they are also insanely silly creations. Its hard to take Batman seriously when his villians literally in some cases are clowns. It gives a cartoonish feel to his books and not in a good way.

...

Batman has, probably, the greatest rogues gallery in comics.

[Black Atom]

The Marvel universe is intertwined to a much greater extent than the DC universe.

Just look at Doctor Doom, not only does the FF deal with him, but so does Ironman, Namor, Black Panther , and even Spiderman occasionally. Hell, even Blade has interacted with Doctor Doom.

Marvel comics features different villians from another superhero's line up more frequently than DC ever does.

For example, Wolverine has gone up against just about all the major marvel villians at some point. Who would ever think that Wolvie would go up against the MoleMan or Galactus?? Of course Wolvie didn't even come close to beating Galactus, but he still went up against him.

I want to argue that marvel titles share each other's villians/characters much more frequently than DC does. Especially in regards to sharing villians featured in Spiderman, to the Xmen, to the Fantastic Four, and the Avengers.

Fing Fan Foom is a fun character, but who is his real arch-enemy? Is it Ironman or the Hulk?? It's highly debateable.

How about the Kingpin?? Daredevil or Spidey???

How about Venom?? Venom used to be just about killing Spiderman, but now he's a villian that not only the Avengers deal with, but he's also featured a great deal in the Ultimate universe.

A nice example is how Ms Marvel is linked with both the Xmen and the Avengers. From her past hardship with having Rogue permanently stealing her ablities and having Mystique to be revealed as Raven Darkholme. This essential Xmen story featuring Rogue, took place in a Non-Xmen Book !!!

[An essential Phoenix-jean-grey story took place in Fantastic Four issue 286.]

I'm sure DC fans could find examples where heroes and villians are shared, but I think Marvel not only does it more frequently, but tells better stories in general using not only their big named stars, but also their less-well-known characters.

The entire purpose of DC's 52 was to generate interest in the minor DC characters. And the reason why these characters aren't well known, is that DC writers haven't given readers any reason to follow their books.

Now of course, not all of Marvel's books are written amazing well (like Ghostrider) but at this point in time, the reason why Marvel is outselling DC is simply due to better story telling throughout all of Marvel's titles in general.

I don't think this has been true (if it ever was) for a long time. Most of your examples are from yeeeeaaaars ago. As I mentioned before, the MU proper has been revolving aroudn the same core group of characters. You mentioned Fin Fang Foom--how often does he ever show up? (the last time I remember was as a joke in Nextwave). You mention Doom--when's the last time we saw OTHER FF villains? Diablo? Mole Man? Heck, when is the last time we saw ANY classic Spider-villains besides the Goblin? How often do we see any classic villains that haven't been in a recent Marvel movie show up for more than a cameo? Dan Slott and Keith Giffen are the only guys at Marvel that regularly trot out lesser known Marvel characters. Even Marvel's most recent event stories (excepting Giffen's Annihilation) all revolve around the same, small group of characters. As I said before, I think the fact that Marvel sticks to well-known characters and uses them heavily makes the MU very accessible to new readers, but makes the MU proper seem very shallow to veterans.

DC does a MUCH better job of using the many characters that populate the DCU, no matter how old or obscure. DC's recent event stories also feel like they have more universal implications because of this--it's not the same old guys reacting to stuff. Really, it's one of the things I lament about the current Marvel Universe--not only does it feel like each book takes place in a vacuum but I get the feeling Queseda and co. treat the rich history of the MU as baggage.

[BYC]

I don't think this has been true (if it ever was) for a long time. Most of your examples are from yeeeeaaaars ago. As I mentioned before, the MU proper has been revolving aroudn the same core group of characters. You mentioned Fin Fang Foom--how often does he ever show up? (the last time I remember was as a joke in Nextwave). You mention Doom--when's the last time we saw OTHER FF villains? Diablo? Mole Man? Heck, when is the last time we saw ANY classic Spider-villains besides the Goblin? How often do we see any classic villains that haven't been in a recent Marvel movie show up for more than a cameo? Dan Slott and Keith Giffen are the only guys at Marvel that regularly trot out lesser known Marvel characters. Even Marvel's most recent event stories (excepting Giffen's Annihilation) all revolve around the same, small group of characters. As I said before, I think the fact that Marvel sticks to well-known characters and uses them heavily makes the MU very accessible to new readers, but makes the MU proper seem very shallow to veterans.

DC does a MUCH better job of using the many characters that populate the DCU, no matter how old or obscure. DC's recent event stories also feel like they have more universal implications because of this--it's not the same old guys reacting to stuff. Really, it's one of the things I lament about the current Marvel Universe--not only does it feel like each book takes place in a vacuum but I get the feeling Queseda and co. treat the rich history of the MU as baggage.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People believe Marvel does certain things when the truth is they don't, no longer do, or never have. I bet people still think Superman is unbeatable, when the facts are that all superheroes pretty much win on a regular basis. Most of them aren't anywhere close to being defeated.

[The Black Guardian]

For me, my affection for Marvel over DC has always come down to three things:

1. The Trinity. I just don't like them. Sure, I liked the Chris Reeve Superman movies (well, two of them), and Adam West Batman and Lynda Carter Wonder Woman. But try as I might, I've never been able to stand reading these characters. And DC depends too heavily upon them.

2. New York > Metropolis. I'm more interested in reading about stories set in a world that I can relate to. The fake names interfere with this. I'm always trying to figure out if Metropolis is supposed to be Boston or New York or someplace in New Jersey or whatever. Is Gotham in the midwest, like Chicago, or where? And then there are places like Star City that I just don't know where it's supposed to be, so why care...

3. The characters are more down to Earth. Marvel characters tend to have problems I can relate to more easily. I did say "tend," so this is not always the case.

That said, I've still found plenty of enjoyable DC books, especially lately. I think I'm reading and enjoying more DC right now than ever before in my life.

[amharner]

Not sure why Marvel outsells DC...but I can tell you why I'm more inclined to pick up Marve books. Two reasons:

A.) Most DC characters look like tools.

B.) DC continuity scares the hell out of me.

It really is that simple.

[zebop]

For me it comes down to two reasons why Marvel kicks the hell out of DC.

There is such a cross-pollination of artists and writers that it can't be simply a matter of talent. That just leaves what do you do with the talent.

The Kubert Brothers leave Marvel for DC and DC assigns Andy to Grant Morrison's Batman. What happens? Nothing much. Kubert does several issues, can't get them out on time and has to be yanked off the book. Batman is one of DC's few cash cows and they can hardly afford to let it run dry.

I would say J. Michael Straczinski opting out of his Marvel exclusive and starting to write for DC is a coup. But that's negated by putting him on a second-tier title like The Brave and Bold. Marvel turned him loose on Spider-Man and let him work his magic on the character for years.

We can argue whether or not that was a good or bad move, but Stracz was given
plenty of time and until the horrific "One More Day" pretty much of a free hand on Marvel's flagship title.

Look how long Bendis has been on The Avengers. Brubaker on Captain America
and Daredevil. Ennis on The Punisher. Even Hudlin on Black Panther. There is no underestimating how much the gift of time can mean for a writer trying to put their own stamp on a character.

At DC, unless your name is Geoff Johns, you're pretty much given a year or so on a title and then you're gone. How many writers has Wonder Woman had in the time Bendis had on Daredevil and The Avengers?

To be sure, Marvel has made plenty of mistakes in the assignment of writers, but not to the extend DC has.

Second, the drop off from DC's first tier titles to their second tier titles is a steep one. Daredevil or Thunderbolts don't sell like a Spider-Man title, but they are closer in quality than Suicide Squad is to Superman.

DC is doing many things right, but they've been hampered by a lack of vision.

[carabas]

The Marvel universe is intertwined to a much greater extent than the DC universe.
I'm sure DC fans could find examples where heroes and villians are shared, but I think Marvel not only does it more frequently, but tells better stories in general using not only their big named stars, but also their less-well-known characters.You being familiar with tons of Marvel examples and no DC ones doesn't maen that DC does this sort of thing less than Marvel, it just means you are unfamiliar with DC.

The entire purpose of DC's 52 was to generate interest in the minor DC characters. And the reason why these characters aren't well known, is that DC writers haven't given readers any reason to follow their books.The kind of characters 52 focused on were mostly the kind that don't get solo books of their own, like Misty Knight, Sue Storm, and Wiccan.


Now of course, not all of Marvel's books are written amazing well (like Ghostrider) but at this point in time, the reason why Marvel is outselling DC is simply due to better story telling throughout all of Marvel's titles in general.
That's like saying Britney Spears makes better music than Nick Cave.

[Haquim]

@Carabas: While I can understand your need, as a DC fan, to defend your favourite publisher I'd like to understand what do you think the reasons for marvel continued success over DC are (and it's not like Marvel started outselling DC last year...).
So tell me please, why Marvel does outsell DC, if DC is so wonderful, Carabas?

[hawkeye comeback]

That's like saying Britney Spears makes better music than Nick Cave.

Nick cave is great i saw him at the apollo 2 weeks ago

but comparing britney to marvel is utter crap.

and on the advertising thing if u pick up a marvel comic at the mo you will find about a 4 page ad for a smaller marvel comic
Moon Knight
and before that... eternals so thats advertising for marvel...

[Dard]

At DC, unless your name is Geoff Johns, you're pretty much given a year or so on a title and then you're gone. How many writers has Wonder Woman had in the time Bendis had on Daredevil and The Avengers?I think I remember that there was a time when this wasn't a problem at DC. I mean, look at Chuck Dixon's long runs. And of course PAD's runs on Young Justice and Supergirl.
Did DC fare any better at that times against Marvel?
I don't think so.
The current short runs really get on my nerves, but I don't think they are a reason that Marvel is doint better.

[Alex Dragon]

=zebop;6911738]For me it comes down to two reasons why Marvel kicks the hell out of DC.

There is such a cross-pollination of artists and writers that it can't be simply a matter of talent. That just leaves what do you do with the talent.



People need to also keep in mind that some talents work better at the different companies.

There was a time when all of DC's "star" writers worked at Marvel and really didn't make that much of a splash. I remember G. Johns being at Marvel doing stuff that wasn't exactly setting the world on fire. M.Waid had an FF run that many people liked but he really didn't boost the sales of that book much. G. Simone was doing some Marvel stuff but really didn't become a "star" writer until she moved to DC. Loeb was at Marvel for years and even though he worked on the X-books he was hardly the "star" he is now at the time. But I must also say that I think the writers I named tend to work better at DC because of their writing sensibilities.

I tend to think both comic companies manufacture "stars" theses days in many cases. I think in these times of "exculsive contracts" Marvel and DC sometimes take 2nd tier talent and offers them top books in an effort to steal them away. I thing everyone can name creators who weren't that big a deal at one company then suddenly is a "hot" creator because the other company lures them away and offers them a big deal gig to get them to switch over.

Having said that, I think DC has done this much more than Marvel. I think in most cases when a creator leaves Marvel it's because of DC offering them a better gig. I think when a creator leaves DC it's because they generally like Marvel and it's characters better. Not all creators but lots of them.

[Siddon]

DC's failure is that they are unable to create effective brands. If you look at the top twenty titles its just Teen Titans and Justice League and characters that off shoot from those two groups. For DC to make money they keep restarting and creating new teams and playing with the status quo to get people to buy the books. But what is happening is because no writer is able to create a solid run and build the stories the books fail.

Marvel has the Avengers, X-men, Spider-man, Wolverine and Ultimates, but they also built up lesser titles like the Fantastic Four and Daredevil. Marvel runs it's franchises much better then DC and those franchises drive sales. Marvel allows for some of these franchises to run along with stories while Dc needs everything to be BIGGER LONGER BETTER and it just creates a great deal of convolution.

Marvel also publishes seasonally, they release the big comics in May and quality comics and mini's in the Winter and that is pretty effective.

[Alex Dragon]

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you look at the sales charts typically Marvel's top characters/books tend to have a stronger following than DC's top charaters over all. Marvel books like Spider-man, X-books, Hulk, FF, etc...all do reasonably well no matter who's writing them. Sure when a "hot" creator comes on board the sales will increase but those books are always strong sellers no matter who writes them.

DC on the other hand doesn't seem to have any characters that can maintain strong sales (as compared to Marvel) with their top characters unless there's a "hot" talent or "event" attached to the character/book. Jim Lee made Batman and Superman top sellers but the second he left so did many of the readers. The reason DC is selling as strongly as it is now is because they've been bombarding readers with event after event. The second the events stop a big bulk of the readers stop buying those books.

Long story short...I think when a writer writes an X-men or Spider-book it's big selling book that helps them become a star. When a writer takes over Superman or Batman the creator has to already be a star to make it sell.

[Alex Dragon]

Marvel in general has a much better more cohesive universe. When the Marvel universe was created it was mostly by one person putting it together and overseeing everything.

The DC universe is the result of trying to make a bunch of universes that weren't really planned to work together being shoehorned into one universe and DC has spent years trying to make that work. That's one reason for the constant revamps, restarts, and throwing stuff in and out of continuity.

There are times when it seems DC is daring their readers to stick it out with them. DC refuses to let go of the past and feels the need to keep messing with it. They constantly keep going back to fiddle with Superman's origin. They seem totally in love with a Batgirl that hasn't existed in years. They badly want to do a LEGION OF SUPERHEROES comic and whenever it fails just toss out old continuity and start again. DC seems to love the past but doesn't want the past to actually exist in the past so they shoehorn it into the present even if it doesn't really work. How many versions of Hawkman, Hawkgirl and Supergirl have their been in the last 15 years or so? Do we really need all those Green Lanterns? Even though no one seems to care about CHALLANGERS UNKNOWN, BLACKHAWKS, METAL MEN, DOOM PATROL, PLASTICMAN etc..DC will put out a mini series of them every few years knowing full well they won't be a hit.

Yes, Marvel will "tweak" and update some of their characters origins when they become too out of date but nowhere near the overhaul that DC does with it's characters on a regular basis. With Marvel I don't have to try and keep up with which stories are out of continuity and never happened like I have to with DC.

[carabas]

@Carabas: While I can understand your need, as a DC fan, to defend your favourite publisher I'd like to understand what do you think the reasons for marvel continued success over DC are (and it's not like Marvel started outselling DC last year...).
So tell me please, why Marvel does outsell DC, if DC is so wonderful, Carabas?

I didn't so much defend DC as point out that various attacks on it were not based in reality. Several posters have hit the nail on the head as to why Marvel cnsistantly outsells DC.
-DC has an image problem that dates back at least 30 years, to Adam West, Superfriends and early silver age comics with pretty much zero characterisation.
-DC compounds this problem by focusing their PR on pretty muchBatman and Superman exclusively. Aquaman has gone through his grim and gritty periods, but for some reason he's still seen as just Mr. Speaks-To-Fishes. His powers, his stories, and even his personality (at times) are largely analogous to Namor, who does not suffer a similar problem.

In addition to this, comics fans as a species loathe changing their habits. They will not pick up books they are told by everyone and their uncle to be the best things ever if these books do not featuretheir favourite character. On the other hand they will buy three or four years of Chuck Bloody Austen on X-Men, hate every single issue, but not even consider dropping the book. I also have noticed that this holds much more often true for Marvel fans than for DC fans, who are less loyal to 'their' company.

At one point, Marvel was heads and shoulders above DC. Forty years ago, when Kirby and Lee ruled supreme, Marvel deserved to be #1. since then DC has made great efforts to update their style, but nobody cares.

By the way, I don't have a favourite company. I just follow my favourite writers around, irrelevant of whether they are on Queen & Country, Wonder Woman, or Wolverine.
Nick cave is great i saw him at the apollo 2 weeks ago

but comparing britney to marvel is utter crap.I didn't mean to compare Marvel to Britney. I just was making the point that sales don't always (don't usually, even) equal quality. Otherwise Criminal would be a top 10 book.

[DeadXMan]

I think I remember that there was a time when this wasn't a problem at DC. I mean, look at Chuck Dixon's long runs. And of course PAD's runs on Young Justice and Supergirl.
Did DC fare any better at that times against Marvel?I don't think so.
The current short runs really get on my nerves, but I don't think they are a reason that Marvel is doint better.

yes they did cause that was abou the time Marvel impolded

[Haquim]

I didn't so much defend DC as point out that various attacks on it were not based in reality. Several posters have hit the nail on the head as to why Marvel cnsistantly outsells DC.
-DC has an image problem that dates back at least 30 years, to Adam West, Superfriends and early silver age comics with pretty much zero characterisation.


-Personally I doubt "superfriends" can be blamed for DC low sales. The truth is something like that could have mattered 30 years ago, maybe 25, or 20, but it was a long time ago. DC had all the chances to make his characters appeal to a new audience. There were lots of movies about DC heroes, TV shows, cartoons, some of those of good quality. Yet they didn't boost DC sales, not on the long term anyway. Silver age and superfriends are well behind our collective backs, DC has tried to make its characters more compelling, to have a real continuity, it PROMOTED its characters trough every possible media, and it doesn't matter, DC's still behind marvel.
So I don't think that can be our answer, it could matter for some long term hardcore fans, but not for younger generations of readers anyway, IMHO.

-DC compounds this problem by focusing their PR on pretty muchBatman and Superman exclusively. Aquaman has gone through his grim and gritty periods, but for some reason he's still seen as just Mr. Speaks-To-Fishes. His powers, his stories, and even his personality (at times) are largely analogous to Namor, who does not suffer a similar problem.


-DC promotes her strongest characters, those everyone can easyly recognize at first glance everywere in the whole world. That's sound mktg, but I agree other characters lacking space to grow, and DC seems to afraid of upsetting the status quo with Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman as the most important characters.
It seems DC really is prisoner of its past.

In addition to this, comics fans as a species loathe changing their habits. They will not pick up books they are told by everyone and their uncle to be the best things ever if these books do not featuretheir favourite character. On the other hand they will buy three or four years of Chuck Bloody Austen on X-Men, hate every single issue, but not even consider dropping the book. I also have noticed that this holds much more often true for Marvel fans than for DC fans, who are less loyal to 'their' company.


I don't think you're right here.
Marvel keeps its fans because its characters are compelling. X-Men can have bad runs, we may dislike what an author his doing with the series, but with marvel characters people can emphatize with characters, and people keep buying because they want to know what's going to happen to those characters because they actually care about them. It takes more than a bad run to make those people go away.
Many Marvel characters have interesting and complex personalities, an interesting background and a good supporting cast. These things are there, and it takes something pretty major to change them.
DC characters try to be more complex, interesting and so on, yet at their core they are still the same characters they were when they were created so much time ago. Many changes feel cosmetic to the reader, besides some of them actually work AGAINST the reader's expectations. I dare say many Superman fans expect him to be "perfect" and would not respond well to him having trivial problems that matter as much (if not more) than defeating the "villain of the month". He's superman, after all, not Peter Parker.


At one point, Marvel was heads and shoulders above DC. Forty years ago, when Kirby and Lee ruled supreme, Marvel deserved to be #1. since then DC has made great efforts to update their style, but nobody cares.


They did, but it wasn't enough. To their core many DC characters are less compelling than Marvel's and that's not easy to fix.
I think it's possible but not easy. Marvel did it with Thor, but it took a lot of trying and it's too soon to know if the changes on the character will survive.
Anyway DC multiverse and character may try to be more like Marvel's but that's also a sign of weakness and usually if you ask people to choose between the original and an imitation, people will stick with the original, IMHO.


By the way, I don't have a favourite company. I just follow my favourite writers around, irrelevant of whether they are on Queen & Country, Wonder Woman, or Wolverine.
I didn't mean to compare Marvel to Britney. I just was making the point that sales don't always (don't usually, even) equal quality. Otherwise Criminal would be a top 10 book.

I do the same, and I also changed my favourite writers with the passing of time (for example I used to love Claremont, and while still grateful for what he did I cannot bear to read his last works, the same with Byrne).

[Black Atom]

-Personally I doubt "superfriends" can be blamed for DC low sales. The truth is something like that could have mattered 30 years ago, maybe 25, or 20, but it was a long time ago. DC had all the chances to make his characters appeal to a new audience. There were lots of movies about DC heroes, TV shows, cartoons, some of those of good quality. Yet they didn't boost DC sales, not on the long term anyway. Silver age and superfriends are well behind our collective backs, DC has tried to make its characters more compelling, to have a real continuity, it PROMOTED its characters trough every possible media, and it doesn't matter, DC's still behind marvel.
So I don't think that can be our answer, it could matter for some long term hardcore fans, but not for younger generations of readers anyway, IMHO.

I think carabas is right, actually. For multiple reasons, there is a stigma of stodginess and camp associated with DC comics. Part of it is due to those old shows and the fact that this image was perpetuated by Stan and the guys at Marvel for years (of course, back then was probably the last time it was true).

-DC promotes her strongest characters, those everyone can easyly recognize at first glance everywere in the whole world. That's sound mktg, but I agree other characters lacking space to grow, and DC seems to afraid of upsetting the status quo with Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman as the most important characters.
It seems DC really is prisoner of its past.

Right, because it was DC that recently retconned their flagship character's marriage so they could retell the stories from his hayday? Oh, wait.

Again, people seem to really buy into the stigma of DC as stuck in the past, when they have taken more chances than Marvel in recent years. Superman and Batman both have sons now. Several of their core heroes had been replaced by new guys for some time.

I don't think you're right here.
Marvel keeps its fans because its characters are compelling. X-Men can have bad runs, we may dislike what an author his doing with the series, but with marvel characters people can emphatize with characters, and people keep buying because they want to know what's going to happen to those characters because they actually care about them. It takes more than a bad run to make those people go away.
Many Marvel characters have interesting and complex personalities, an interesting background and a good supporting cast. These things are there, and it takes something pretty major to change them.
DC characters try to be more complex, interesting and so on, yet at their core they are still the same characters they were when they were created so much time ago. Many changes feel cosmetic to the reader, besides some of them actually work AGAINST the reader's expectations. I dare say many Superman fans expect him to be "perfect" and would not respond well to him having trivial problems that matter as much (if not more) than defeating the "villain of the month". He's superman, after all, not Peter Parker.

There are more characters at DC than Superman. And most of them have interesting and complex personalities. Really, comics produced by the two companies today or so similar that it seems silly to try to make unilateral assumptions about either at this point.

As I've said before, I think it comes to Marvel doing a better job of marketing, including continuing to perpetuate the idea of DC being the "old and stodgy" guys while they're the kewl and edgy guys. Marvel has the better "hype" machine. Joe Q has kinda replaced Stan as the face of Marvel which helps give the company a personality. Who's the face of DC? Didio? How many people even know who he is or who he looks like?

[drmcnutt]

I would say that Marvel owes a lot to characters like Wolverine which they shamelessly put into any comic to boost sales. The cross pollination got pretty heavy handed in the nineties where Spiderman, Wolverine or X-men were popping up in titles across the board.

While Marvel has had the sales, they lose on the groundbreaking titles. When mainstream media refers to comics they usual talk about DC titles, Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Sandman. Quesada has publicly said he wants Marvels "Watchmen" someday, but arguably they haven't published it yet. I guess they'll settle for sales over relevance.

The above is just my opinion and not a dig on either company. I collect both and can name great stories from both houses.

[Augusto]

I didn't so much defend DC as point out that various attacks on it were not based in reality. Several posters have hit the nail on the head as to why Marvel cnsistantly outsells DC.
-DC has an image problem that dates back at least 30 years, to Adam West, Superfriends and early silver age comics with pretty much zero characterisation.
-DC compounds this problem by focusing their PR on pretty muchBatman and Superman exclusively. Aquaman has gone through his grim and gritty periods, but for some reason he's still seen as just Mr. Speaks-To-Fishes. His powers, his stories, and even his personality (at times) are largely analogous to Namor, who does not suffer a similar problem.

In addition to this, comics fans as a species loathe changing their habits. They will not pick up books they are told by everyone and their uncle to be the best things ever if these books do not featuretheir favourite character. On the other hand they will buy three or four years of Chuck Bloody Austen on X-Men, hate every single issue, but not even consider dropping the book. I also have noticed that this holds much more often true for Marvel fans than for DC fans, who are less loyal to 'their' company.

At one point, Marvel was heads and shoulders above DC. Forty years ago, when Kirby and Lee ruled supreme, Marvel deserved to be #1. since then DC has made great efforts to update their style, but nobody cares.

By the way, I don't have a favourite company. I just follow my favourite writers around, irrelevant of whether they are on Queen & Country, Wonder Woman, or Wolverine.
I didn't mean to compare Marvel to Britney. I just was making the point that sales don't always (don't usually, even) equal quality. Otherwise Criminal would be a top 10 book.

-Personally I doubt "superfriends" can be blamed for DC low sales. The truth is something like that could have mattered 30 years ago, maybe 25, or 20, but it was a long time ago. DC had all the chances to make his characters appeal to a new audience. There were lots of movies about DC heroes, TV shows, cartoons, some of those of good quality. Yet they didn't boost DC sales, not on the long term anyway. Silver age and superfriends are well behind our collective backs, DC has tried to make its characters more compelling, to have a real continuity, it PROMOTED its characters trough every possible media, and it doesn't matter, DC's still behind marvel.
So I don't think that can be our answer, it could matter for some long term hardcore fans, but not for younger generations of readers anyway, IMHO.

-DC promotes her strongest characters, those everyone can easyly recognize at first glance everywere in the whole world. That's sound mktg, but I agree other characters lacking space to grow, and DC seems to afraid of upsetting the status quo with Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman as the most important characters.
It seems DC really is prisoner of its past.

I don't think you're right here.
Marvel keeps its fans because its characters are compelling. X-Men can have bad runs, we may dislike what an author his doing with the series, but with marvel characters people can emphatize with characters, and people keep buying because they want to know what's going to happen to those characters because they actually care about them. It takes more than a bad run to make those people go away.
Many Marvel characters have interesting and complex personalities, an interesting background and a good supporting cast. These things are there, and it takes something pretty major to change them.
DC characters try to be more complex, interesting and so on, yet at their core they are still the same characters they were when they were created so much time ago. Many changes feel cosmetic to the reader, besides some of them actually work AGAINST the reader's expectations. I dare say many Superman fans expect him to be "perfect" and would not respond well to him having trivial problems that matter as much (if not more) than defeating the "villain of the month". He's superman, after all, not Peter Parker.




They did, but it wasn't enough. To their core many DC characters are less compelling than Marvel's and that's not easy to fix.
I think it's possible but not easy. Marvel did it with Thor, but it took a lot of trying and it's too soon to know if the changes on the character will survive.
Anyway DC multiverse and character may try to be more like Marvel's but that's also a sign of weakness and usually if you ask people to choose between the original and an imitation, people will stick with the original, IMHO.

I do the same, and I also changed my favourite writers with the passing of time (for example I used to love Claremont, and while still grateful for what he did I cannot bear to read his last works, the same with Byrne).

First of all, I am a DC fan.

I will agree with carabas because many asumptions Marvel fans do, are not based in reality. Superfriends and Adam West show have become in some kind of pop culture myth: Superman as an overpowered moron, DC is less relatable, Aquaman being a fish-talking-guy. And as myth (urban legend maybe?) many people doesn't give a try to DC books.

The way I see it is: DC fans are more willing to read Marvel, than Marvel fans willing to read DC.

http://www.yelims.com/IPB/Invision-Board-France-234.gifhttp://www.yelims.com/IPB/Smiley-IPB-279.gif

[carabas]

Quesada has publicly said he wants Marvels "Watchmen" someday, but arguably they haven't published it yet. I guess they'll settle for sales over relevance.Supreme Power could have been a contender, if they hadn't watered it down to the point where it was little mor than yet another superhero team book in order reach a broader audience.

Something else occured to me that may be a contributing factor to Marvel's continued success. Marvel has infinitely more freedom to do what they want with their characters, not only in the books, but cartoons, films and games as well, because they still own their characters.
All DC properties on the other hand are owned by WB.

[Teh m0nk3y]

I wasn't even aware of the current situation or peoples perception until recently.
I started out reading Marvel comics growing up and then somewhere along the way branched out. The vast history of the DC universe didn't even stop my curiosity, and I was rewarded with books such as Robinson's Starman and Ostrander's Spectre. The people that claim DC's characters are not deep nor complex have surely not explored the vast source out there. Marvel Universe ain't much better to be honest.
Both franchises takes time to get to know. Somehow DC hasn't managed so well in that regard compared to Marvel.

[Omega Alpha]

I would say that Marvel owes a lot to characters like Wolverine which they shamelessly put into any comic to boost sales. The cross pollination got pretty heavy handed in the nineties where Spiderman, Wolverine or X-men were popping up in titles across the board.

DC does the same now with Batman and Superman (and already did it before).




Something else occured to me that may be a contributing factor to Marvel's continued success. Marvel has infinitely more freedom to do what they want with their characters, not only in the books, but cartoons, films and games as well, because they still own their characters.
All DC properties on the other hand are owned by WB.

Yeah, being a part of a major conglomerate hasn't done much for DC actually.

[Deep_Sleeper]

When I think of DC I think of
Superman: eh, overpowered hero. Boring
Batman: Kind of badass, but no flashy superpowers
Wonder Woman: she has whip, k

I know these characters probably do have very interesting comics, but I can't bring myself to read them because of these stupid stereotypes I have in my head. I'm sure they're a lot of people like me.

I think this is the closest thing to explain why I like Marvel heroes more than DC. It's not that DC heroes are boring or anything. There's just something about them I can't find interesting.

Funny thing is, I think Iron Man as a comic character is about as interesting as Batman as a comic character, but if I were to pick up a comic, I'd most likely pick up an Iron Man comic rather than a Batman comic.

There's just some kind of mental conditioning I went through as a child to ignore most things DC and just gravitate towards Marvel.

[AllisterH]

I would say that Marvel owes a lot to characters like Wolverine which they shamelessly put into any comic to boost sales. The cross pollination got pretty heavy handed in the nineties where Spiderman, Wolverine or X-men were popping up in titles across the board.

While Marvel has had the sales, they lose on the groundbreaking titles. When mainstream media refers to comics they usual talk about DC titles, Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Sandman. Quesada has publicly said he wants Marvels "Watchmen" someday, but arguably they haven't published it yet. I guess they'll settle for sales over relevance.

The above is just my opinion and not a dig on either company. I collect both and can name great stories from both houses.

Here's what's really funny about that.

Marvel had access to those avant-garde UK writers long before DC did. They were all working for Marvel UK and I betcha to this day, Marvel kicks itself that they never brought them over and let them take a crack at marvel characters.

That said, I do think some of the success for DC's more non-mainstream title is that they stand in stark contrast to the image of the DC universe. Take for example, Frank Miller's DKR. Widely seen as one of the most ground-breaking series, yet wasn't he doing the same thing on Daredevil? So why isn't Daredevil seen as groundbreaking?

Similarly, Watchmen is well regarded as elevating the superhero genre but if you had read Squadron Supreme before? It doesn't get nearly the praise that even latter works like MARVELS or KINGDOM COME get.

Yet many of those British writers point to Steve Gerber's Howard the Duck as one of their main influence and again, few people seem to know about that. I think when marvel does something non-mainstream it isn't SEEN as such so they don't seem to get credit for it.

[Abrojo]

Keeping things varied and interesting helps too. Could you have guessed Iron Man running things like he does today a couple of years ago? Avengers: The Initiative? the new Thor, extremely different in mentality to his previous incantation.

I tried JLA twice in my life for about 10 issues each time. Both times what i grabbed was the exact same thing. I would actually dare say that the reason why Fantastic Four always has trouble is because of the same thing, too static when compared to the rest of the MU.

People get bored of the same thing over the years.

[Scott Free]

I think DC just seems old fashioned. That's not necessarily true, but I can understand why some younger readers would be much less interested in a character like Wonder Woman than a character like Dazzler. Not that she has her own book, but that's one of DC's big 3, and just any old Mutant.

Marvel appeals to the younger crowds a lot better.

[the-wolf]

Here's what I posted in a similar thread in the DCU: http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=180193&page=48

In the last few years I'd say it's Dan Didio and cross-overs. DC has basically done what Marvel did with BND and Civil War. Only it was at a far more reaching level.

Marvel, for example, killed the New Avengers for me with CW. I loved that new team when it was put together and thought it was just a good, fun read, not to mention a one-stop comic to read about all the best characters. Then they broke up and a new team was formed and a second team was formed and it was ruined.

DC has done this how many times? Go read the "how many titles were ruined by OYL?" thread. Every DC title there is is in there.

They've ruined so many characters (and killed) that were loved. Titles that were selling well were re-started. Everything from Ted Kord, Catwoman, Batgirl and Wonder Woman to Barry Allen, Impulse, Hawkman and Aquaman were changed.

Why? Does this make any business sense? You tell me what company in any other industry goes out there and destroys it's own successful products in order to appease one man's vision of what "should be."

[pitbull in a skirt]

Marvel is a little more relevant at the moment. Things could change though, as we all know.

Branding and marketing.

That is true as well.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Promotion , marketing and Joe Quesada. Its a lot like when Shooter ran it some ways. He wanted to beat DC. Its about being 1#. Joe Quesada wants to be 1#. DC will never beat Marvel though...even when Marvel cut 75 books in a year in the 90's. Marvel produces a ton of product...more than DC.

[Deep_Sleeper]

Right now, we don't have enough information as to how integrated this will be with the DCU. Biggest problem is that this game is about a decade too late.

One of the things that really make the marvel videogames is how they use a lot of the great locations of marvel. As well, things like in the X-men Alliance where you learn more about the characters helps.

Getting back to the topic, the problem I think with DC is that it is too focused on Superman/Batman which adversely affects the other heroes in DC's lineup The marvel universe itself I think is a character that holds up better than DC.

This is also very relevant. The over-reliance on Batman and Superman. I think it's only recently that I've realized how many cool characters DC has. The fact that someone as cool as Martian Manhunter can't keep a series up is criminal.

Marvel also makes the best street-level superhero comics. IMO, they have the ultimate street-level hero in Spider-Man. The guy who stands on the line between overpowered and human.

He's got great powers and abilities, but he can't change the world. Same with the golden age hero like Captain America. With his image and the respect he garners, he will change minds, but he doesn't have the power to change the face of the world.

I think Superman is so cool, but for some reason, I have trouble committing to one of his comics. I'm reading All Star Superman and it's great, even though Superman is so damned powerful. The reason why it doesn't feel flawed is because all the other superheroes aren't there. He's not outshining Flash in a race of speed. He's not breaking past any Green Lantern constructs. He's not outclassing Wonder Woman in a hand to hand fight. Him being pretty much the only superhero makes it a wonderful title.

[SquidSquod]

DC markets these solo characters:
1. Batman
2. Superman
3. Wonder Woman
4. Green Lantern
5. Flash
... and that's about it.

Marvel markets:
1. Spider-Man
2. Wolverine
3. Hulk
4. Captain America
5. Iron Man
6. Thor
7. Daredevil
8. Punisher


In team comics marketing, DC is also the loser compared to Marvel's X-Men and F4.

[anthony!]

For me its simple:

Marvel is better at serialized, soap opera-ish storytelling. They are like a tabloid newspaper — every 5 seconds there's a new revelation, something gets blown up, somebody dies, etc. It keeps people addicted, so month-in, month out everybody is talking about the latest Marvel story line, love it or hate it.

DC is better at stories that have proper beginnings, middles and ends. Its why I'm more attracted to All-Star Superman than say, the latest "Crises" or the serialized Superman books. I look at my DC books and they are all that way: Kingdom Come, Sandman, Starman, The Dark Knight Returns, Ronin, Watchmen. The list goes on. These stories have ENDINGS. I don't need to return to them the next month.

For my money, its why Marvel's famous stories tend to be based up on "runs" within a particular series, while for DC it tends to be limited series and graphic novels. Marvel is a weekly tv show. DC is a proper film released in the fall. They both have their pros and cons.

[anthony!]

DC markets these solo characters:
1. Batman
2. Superman
3. Wonder Woman
4. Green Lantern
5. Flash
... and that's about it.

Marvel markets:
1. Spider-Man
2. Wolverine
3. Hulk
4. Captain America
5. Iron Man
6. Thor
7. Daredevil
8. Punisher


In team comics marketing, DC is also the loser compared to Marvel's X-Men and F4.


Not totally sure I agree. DC's characters have much more going for them in terms of iconography, making them much easier to mesh with popular culture.

DC's also clearly made decent efforts to market Robin and the Teen Titans much more, and kudos to them for trying to make people (or at least kids) care about the Legion of Superheroes.

They've been much more successful in animation, with Justice League pretty much being the hands down best "superhero" cartoon ever made.

Marvel is much weaker in this area. Most people know Spider-man and the Hulk. Thats it. You start talking about the X-Men and Fantastic Four and their knowledge is limited to the movies. It will be interesting to see what happens to Iron Man.

[Abrojo]

DC is better at stories that have proper beginnings, middles and ends. Its why I'm more attracted to All-Star Superman than say, the latest "Crises" or the serialized Superman books. I look at my DC books and they are all that way: Kingdom Come, Sandman, Starman, The Dark Knight Returns, Ronin, Watchmen. The list goes on. These stories have ENDINGS. I don't need to return to them the next month.

However i would dare say that its exactly what Marvel does right. The constant shift of the status quo, Civil War happened and its aftermath is everywhere. You could even say it hasnt ended.

For the past years the MU hasnt "ended" a story and keeps shifting and evolving around what is happening. Yeah, people are "forced" to keep coming back to find out what happens next, and its not bad, they do it (or at least i do) because they like it.

They've been much more successful in animation, with Justice League pretty much being the hands down best "superhero" cartoon ever made.

Exactly why i think its not marketing for new readers as some people say. Whats the best place to gather new readers if its not cartoons for kids. I would say they are about equal on this regard since what DC has in cartoons, Marvel has in games.

[Mister Mets]

DC certainly does have that image, in no small way thanks to Superfriends and Adam Wast, probably. But I don't think this has been factually true for decades. Even Superman gets bouts of depression and doubt nowadays.
Keep in mind that it was DC that published Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, the two works, justly or not, that are usually credited with/blamed for the general darkening of superhero comics.
To be fair, the Adam West Batman show was an accurate adaptation of the Batman comics of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of Superfriends.

[Kaplan]

Marvel is much weaker in this area. Most people know Spider-man and the Hulk. Thats it. You start talking about the X-Men and Fantastic Four and their knowledge is limited to the movies. It will be interesting to see what happens to Iron Man.

Most people's knowledge of any superhero comes from film and TV. And that includes Batman and Superman.

[Capt USA]

Don't like Superman or Batman never have, But the must relatable character in comics now, and best supporting cast, to me is now in a DC book:; Blue Beetle.

To bad nobody reads it though.


great cast, good writing, and I haven't missed an issue of DC published Blue Beetle ever. (even have a couple of Charltons) but his incomprehensible powers means that if the writer ever leaves(oops too late) that the character could be quickly pulled down by bad writing. I really hate the undefined level of his, or pretty much every dc super powered hero. Fortunately the writing is good enough that it's not currently an issue with Blue Beetle, but it has destroyed other good characters, even those with better defined powers, once the writer that established a character leaves and someone lesser comes on, the inconsistent nature of the character gets exploited and causes a loss of believability.

[carabas]

To be fair, the Adam West Batman show was an accurate adaptation of the Batman comics of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of Superfriends.I don't know if that is entirely true, but even if it is, reruns of those shows (which are apparently popular) continue to show DC in a decades old light, perpetrating the meme that DC comics are stuck in the stone age.

[Capt USA]

DC did that fifteen years earlier and called it Kingdom Come.






out of continuity stories (even if eventually in continuity) doesn't have the same resonance as in continuity stories. When a writer is allowed to do whatever he wants, he's allowed a lot of leeway with events, characterization etc.

Civil war blew infinite crisis out of the water. Since everyone knows going into a crisis that the final result will be the same. Most of the deaths that happen will be retconned out of existence with the new emergeance of new universes etc. I may have personally disliked the way Civil War ended, or the really ridiculousness of registration = enlistment concept that came from it, but at least it was a story in continuity. Most of the Crisis stories just never happened. (except the really stupid concept of allowing Ollie to go along with a mind wipe just because of the majority rule....yep that is 100% established characterization of Ollie, a guy that goes with the majority)

[Drdmx]

So I was making fun of my friends for being big fans of the Green Lantern, just teasin' them cause last I had heard, the characters weakness was the color yellow. So they give me the giant size Green Lantern where Hal Jordan redeems himself, and the Infinite Crisis afterwards.

So I read the books. The Green Lantern story was enough to hold my interest. But I came away from Infinite Crisis thinking that it really wasnt worth buying. I also didnt see any real jaw dropping moments during the story. I mean sure, Superboy Prime kills a couple of heroes, but outside of that, I didnt think the mini even needed to be 7 issues.

I mean, pick an event from Marvel to compare to it. The Onslaught saga, Civil War, hell... even PH/WWH. Not to mention the currently ongoing Secret Invasion. Each of these events had something in them that just made it... relevant? It's as if at the end of each of those events you can say "Such and such event mattered because <Insert something big happening> occurred during the event." I just dont get that from DC.


Then there's just the little things.

I agree with an earlier post that mentioned that too much focus has been over Batman and Superman over the years, which I've seen it spread out a bit more.

DC seems has some ridiculous heroes in my opinion too. Mr. Terrific? Who's the lady that is dressed like a 50's magician? I mean sure... There's Mr. Fantastic, and The Invisible woman in Marvel, but nowadays they pretty much just go by their first names for the most part.

DC just seems to go over the top on alot of things, while Marvel just stays "with the times".

[Capt USA]

Batman has, probably, the greatest rogues gallery in comics.

Really? I know that people like to think that, but I just can't see it. Most known? sure. But for every great villain like Ra's Al or two face, there is an equally crappy villain like the Penguin, Zzzsazz(whatever), or the relatively recent bastardization of Killer Croc. Spidermans rogue clearly outclasses Batmans rogues in strong origins, uniqueness and depth. Most of Batman villains are typical straight laced bad guys with character flaws. The great one (like Ra's) have depth, but the rest is just pure villainy.

Two Face outside of 52 hasn't been a good character in close to a decade,(and this is one of Batmans best villains in my opinion)

Mind you I haven't been reading Spiderman in quite some time, and it's pretty possible that his rogues have gone typical boringness, but I find that hard to believe. Outside of Doc Ock and maybe the Vulture almost all of Spideys villains have some redeemable quality.



I would take Batmans rogues over Captain America of course, and probably even Daredevil, it's probably a wash with Superman and Flash's rogues when written well outclass anything else in dc. Although with Kyles run of Green Lantern there were some that came into being which could have made a run for a great rogues gallery.

[Capt USA]

some of these arguments don't make any sense to me, what happened 30 years ago in superfriends has no bearing on current sales. I'm a Captain America fan, and he is a title that has routinely finished about 50-80th in the time that I have been reading him, Brubaker comes aboard and he is now finishing top 15 routinely. Good writing or art trumps peoples opinion about a character.

And pointing out a few instances where DC does cross pollinate their universe isn't a strong example of a truly cohesive universe. Marvel has basically three universes now. (before Annihilation they had two) the Marvel proper, the Mutant verse and the cosmic verse. Rarely are these three universes going to cross over (which is a shame in my opinion because I would love to see a good Apocalypse vs Avenger story, the segregation of the x-men universe really sucks in my opinion, and it really stomps out some potentially great stories, as I mentioned in another thread, racist Villains like the Red Skull should be major foes of the X-men. But when you look at the universe in three halfs you do see plenty of cross pollination, heck Ultron showed up in a really bad storyline in the Annihilation universe, but that is an Avenger Villain. Super Skrull? FF villain. Mole Man popped up in the first issue of Mighty Avengers(mind you it was debateable a cameo, and a crappy story but he was there) A captain america robot is causing havoc in FF, A few Avenger villains appeared in a Punisher title, heck a group of villains from different titles appeared in their own, fun read title (modoks 11) Black Panther has had appearances from Cage, Photon, Brother Voodoo, Doom, Namor, Iron Man, x-men, Storm of course, etc.


DC has some cross pollination, and the current run on Nightwing is great with the way they are integrating the DC universe into it. But on the whole you don't see as much as you do in Marvel. Are they getting better? not really unless it's event driven.


I do agree that claiming Marvel heroes are more human than DC heroes is an oversimplification based upon outdated understandings of the characters. But still the depth of detail paid to Marvel characters outside of their costume is a lot higher than DC. Daredevil is as much Matt Murdoch as Daredevil, you cannot say that about Batman/Bruce Wayne. (or Nightwing or Robin) mind you I still think these are great characters(at least Nightwing and Robin) but they are still mostly about their costumes. Captain America is the counter example for Marvel in that he's even more into his costume identity than Batman, and Captain America is a top selling book so it's not really accurate to say Marvel outsells because of a readers ability to relate to the character out of costume.

[Dard]

I want to give my thoughts about this. But I can't. Since I am notoriously wrong about my assumptions why things sell or not. I mean, almost all events in american comics that I say deserves low sales usually don't result in low sales.

Instead, I will just give you some food for thought.
You know, I was a Marvel zombie for about a decade. By now I am mostly off american superhero comics (and especially magazines) in general, but there are still some series left that I buy or follow. And they are now all DC. So what made Marvel so interesting to me and what turned me to DC?

First, I always had some DC experience.
Most of it was from what it seems Silver or Bronze Age. I have a decent collection of old Green Lantern.
But then came my Marvel time.
It came in two phases. First was my time as a Spider-Man reader. It was Silver Age stuff. Steve Ditko, Stan Lee. And Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four.

Then, after a gap, I read Spider Man, Avengers and X-Men.
Looking back, what did appeal to me then?
Well, it was for one thing Claremont's X-Men. I loved the soap opera elements. I loved the way they stuck together as some sort of family. I liked the way they had high times and low times. And then there was Spider Man. I was lucky to start reading it when it also went through a high time when it comes to characterization. At that time Peter Parker had strong ties to his supporting cast. Every story felt like it mattered, like Peter really made a difference (or failed to make a difference) to his surroundings.

In time my enthusiasm for Marvel comics faded.
What happened?
For one, the comic lines expanded. The importance of single events was dilluted by it. Artists were given more and more control and that resulted in less story-centric storytelling. And everything turned darker, darker, darker. There were other reasons as well, but I will spare you that.

So I left Marvel. But I didn't turn towards DC. I turned to independent and non-american comics.
What kept me from reading DC?
I think someone here said something very true: Marvel readers are less likely to leave Marvel than DC readers are likely to leave DC.

Let's see, what did I know of DC at that time?
I couldn't rely on my old Silver Age Green Landerns since it was obvious time has change a lot.
What I knew of DC were mostly one-time events. I knew about Knightfall. I knew about The Death of Superman. I knew about Dark Knight returns.
But I didn't read anything of it.

Superman?
I think although Superman is the most iconic of DC's lineup, he is also a big problem for DC. Me? I can't imagine reading a series about a guy called "Superman" (I mean, just look at that name!) who is supposed to be oh so super! In order to make continuing stories about a guy who is "super" work, the writers automatically have to come up with more and more contrieved situations how a (by definition) infallable hero becomes fallable.
This can work in single graphic novels but I can't imagine how that can be interesting in a continuing series!

Then there are Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and...
No, that's pretty much just it. I know that many people here list more heroes as commonly known examples, but I disagree.
Wonder Woman also has that stigma of infallable. And more: She is a feminist icon. Somebody who has this as a job description is automatically uninteresting. Green Lantern, well, he is a cosmic superhero. There's nothing bad with it. But it makes him pretty unrelatable. That doesn't make him interesting. There were a lot of cosmic stories at Marvel, mostly FF, that I found very interesting. But personally I don't think cosmic stories can support a series for a long time. Just like stories of infallable heroes they make very good graphic novel stuff, but not more!

For a long period of reading I need somewhat relatable characters.
The only one of DC's icons who might be a candidate is Batman.
But Batman is a problem.
Besides being a relic from the 30's, that he is that mysterious knight of the dark, playboy by day, with a junior sidekick...
Let's just say: This has no appeal to me!

How did I turn to DC?

It started that I had a friend who had a lot of DC stuff. And I became a reviewer for a magazine and by that got my comics for free, some of them DC.
I liked the stories. But it was far from what I was used to at Mavel back when it was great. I just had no enthusiasm for it.

It took some time, but finally I found at DC what I used to miss.
In the supporting cast of the main characters!
Impulse.
Robin. (when I started to learn to look at him besides a sidekick of Batman)
Oracle. (no, I don't miss her as Batgirl at all, she is so much greater as Oracle!)
Superboy. (somewhat annoying, but different)
Huntress. (the ugly duckling of the Bat family)
Spoiler. (who carried part of the accessability and enthusiasm of earlier times)
Supergirl. (the Linda Danvers one)
And my favourite Batgirl. (Cassandra Caine)

They caused me to stay at DC, but extensively. Because the have the habid of being cancelled (Young Justice), mistreated (Batgirl, Supergirl) or killed off (Impulse, Superboy, Spoiler)
Their series also suffered from crossovers or tie-ins.
And it seems like it was mostly intended by the editors in order to shift attention more to their established iconic characters. Because of that I am usure how long I will keep DC comics.

Bottom line: Their really good and interesting characters didn't present themselves to me. I had to learn of them by taking detours. I had to do the research for good stuff myself by trial and error.

[Capt USA]

So I was making fun of my friends for being big fans of the Green Lantern, just teasin' them cause last I had heard, the characters weakness was the color yellow. So they give me the giant size Green Lantern where Hal Jordan redeems himself, and the Infinite Crisis afterwards.

So I read the books. The Green Lantern story was enough to hold my interest. But I came away from Infinite Crisis thinking that it really wasnt worth buying. I also didnt see any real jaw dropping moments during the story. I mean sure, Superboy Prime kills a couple of heroes, but outside of that, I didnt think the mini even needed to be 7 issues.

I mean, pick an event from Marvel to compare to it. The Onslaught saga, Civil War, hell... even PH/WWH. Not to mention the currently ongoing Secret Invasion. Each of these events had something in them that just made it... relevant? It's as if at the end of each of those events you can say "Such and such event mattered because <Insert something big happening> occurred during the event." I just dont get that from DC.


Then there's just the little things.

I agree with an earlier post that mentioned that too much focus has been over Batman and Superman over the years, which I've seen it spread out a bit more.

DC seems has some ridiculous heroes in my opinion too. Mr. Terrific? Who's the lady that is dressed like a 50's magician? I mean sure... There's Mr. Fantastic, and The Invisible woman in Marvel, but nowadays they pretty much just go by their first names for the most part.

DC just seems to go over the top on alot of things, while Marvel just stays "with the times".

agreed about the relavent part, everyone knew that most of the events in a crisis will eventually be wiped away to never happening. Of course Marvel has a history of ignoring major storylines unless they happened in a crossover. Maximum Carnage had no effect on any other title, Kang nearly destroyed Washington DC and it was back up as normal within month, Ultron wiped out a country and it's pretty much forgotten.

disagree about the ridiculous heroes, Mr Terrific and Zatanna are great heroes. If you are complaining about the naming, you have guys like Deadpool (seriously is there a dumber name in comics?) oops, I forgot Cable (what does he do, work for the cable company?) etc. naming of a character doesn't make them good or bad, it's how they are portrayed that matters.

[Dard]

That's what I call the "Mass Murder Syndrome".
More and more it seems that the powers that be seem to think that 10 people dead means a tragedy and that 10 million people dead means a million times tragedy instead of statistics.
It is wasteful, unnecessary, disgusting and just bad writing.

But both Marvel and DC do that. So it can't be a reason why Marvel sells better than DC.

[Drdmx]

disagree about the ridiculous heroes, Mr Terrific and Zatanna are great heroes. If you are complaining about the naming, you have guys like Deadpool (seriously is there a dumber name in comics?) oops, I forgot Cable (what does he do, work for the cable company?) etc. naming of a character doesn't make them good or bad, it's how they are portrayed that matters.

It's not a complaint, so much as a point of why I have my opinion. Not to go tit for tat, but Cable and Deadpool's names each are based off of each origin of the character, which I'm assuming there's no need to bore everyone with the details. Is Mr. Terrific the same, or did he just kinda, pull that one out of no where?

[Drdmx]

That's what I call the "Mass Murder Syndrome".
More and more it seems that the powers that be seem to think that 10 people dead means a tragedy and that 10 million people dead means a million times tragedy instead of statistics.
It is wasteful, unnecessary, disgusting and just bad writing.

But both Marvel and DC do that. So it can't be a reason why Marvel sells better than DC.

Do you maybe see the scenario play out more in one company, than you do another?

Secret Invasion is extremely satisfying in that the reader literally doesnt know who to trust. No one know's who's a skrull, and that just adds to the enjoyment of the book. As a point, does that equate to just better writing?

[Capt USA]

That's what I call the "Mass Murder Syndrome".
More and more it seems that the powers that be seem to think that 10 people dead means a tragedy and that 10 million people dead means a million times tragedy instead of statistics.
It is wasteful, unnecessary, disgusting and just bad writing.

But both Marvel and DC do that. So it can't be a reason why Marvel sells better than DC.

agreed, I mean some of the most notorious serial killers chalked up less than 5 deaths (jack the Ripper, Manson etc) and to the best of my knowledge there are only two serial killers who ever broke 50 murders and one was royalty so I'm not sure that that applies.

heck Columbine had 13 deaths, Maximum Carnage had that on one page of a 13? part storyline. I lose all sense of reality when I see these people getting murdered in the story like that, the horrific nature of the criminal is replaced with the ridiculousness of the number of deaths involved. It's why I consider the Joker to be an utterly useless character, at least with the Red Skull he had the third reicht power structure to hide behind, but the Joker continual breathing makes very little sense considering how casually he treats other life.

[Capt USA]

It's not a complaint, so much as a point of why I have my opinion. Not to go tit for tat, but Cable and Deadpool's names each are based off of each origin of the character, which I'm assuming there's no need to bore everyone with the details. Is Mr. Terrific the same, or did he just kinda, pull that one out of no where?

the current version of Mr Terrific pulled it from a 1950s hero called Mr Terrific, a guy that was basically an expert at everything. He's a legacy character.

[DeadXMan]

Red Skull > Joker

[carabas]

out of continuity stories (even if eventually in continuity) doesn't have the same resonance as in continuity stories. When a writer is allowed to do whatever he wants, he's allowed a lot of leeway with events, characterization etc.
Continuity is overrated.
And Kingdom Come holds more resonace than most DC (or Marvel) books written since then. It is also the more timeles a tale since it isn't rooted in American politics.
And every year, more bits and pieces of it are brought into continuity, for people who care about such things.

[carabas]

Two Face outside of 52 hasn't been a good character in close to a decade,(and this is one of Batmans best villains in my opinion)He wasn't in 52. And Greg Rucka has done the best Two-Face stories in the history of the character in the last five years or so.

some of these arguments don't make any sense to me, what happened 30 years ago in superfriends has no bearing on current sales.
You are mistaken. DC faces a massive image problem where non-Dc fans still think of those bland 30 year old stories when they think of DC. Superfriends has almost become synonymous with DC.

But when you look at the universe in three halfs you do see plenty of cross pollination, heck Ultron showed up in a really bad storyline in the Annihilation universe, but that is an Avenger Villain. Super Skrull? FF villain. Mole Man popped up in the first issue of Mighty Avengers(mind you it was debateable a cameo, and a crappy story but he was there) A captain america robot is causing havoc in FF, A few Avenger villains appeared in a Punisher title, heck a group of villains from different titles appeared in their own, fun read title (modoks 11) Black Panther has had appearances from Cage, Photon, Brother Voodoo, Doom, Namor, Iron Man, x-men, Storm of course, etc...
DC has some cross pollination, and the current run on Nightwing is great with the way they are integrating the DC universe into it. But on the whole you don't see as much as you do in Marvel. Are they getting better? not really unless it's event driven. You can lists a million examples of Marvelous crosspollination, and it still would not even slightly prove that DC doesn't do the same just as well.

[Dard]

Do you maybe see the scenario play out more in one company, than you do another?

Secret Invasion is extremely satisfying in that the reader literally doesnt know who to trust. No one know's who's a skrull, and that just adds to the enjoyment of the book. As a point, does that equate to just better writing?I think this is always a bad idea, even if it works out in the short term.
But I give you a comparison: 9/11: 3000 dead. Blüdhaven: 100000 dead. Coast City: 7000000 dead.
From my time at Marvel and from the Internet I know several incidents in Marvel continuity. Like the time a nuke blew up a city in Hulk. How many times was New York partially destroyed? I remember at least one time (from Magneto) but I am sure there were more. And what about the whole country Ultron destroyed?

I agree that in some times it works better than in others. But always ask yourself: is it worth it?
I don't read Secret Invasion so I don't know how many thousands, hundreds of thousands or whatever bodycount makes a story good enough that it makes 9/11 look like something hardly worthy of making the first page in a newspaper.

Suggestion to the comics companies:
If you intend to write a story with such high bodycounts, ask yourself two questions:
- Can the story be told with as much dramatics and as much suspense without so many dead?
- Will the story have enough impact to be felt for a time long enough to credibly justify it. Example: There is no country that suffers a million dead without being fundamentally changed for at least 50 years.

Could Secret Invasion be written without more than a couple of thousand dead and the same amount of suspense and drama? I think yes.
Could Secret Invasion have an impact on the whole of the Marvel Universe lasting *decades* if the bodycount is substentially higher? I don't think so.

Like I said, I don't know how Secret Invasion is going to turn out.
I am hoping for the best. I will keep on reading. (reviews that is, not the comics)

Still, it is a good question: Does Marvel handle the Mass Murder stories batter than DC in general?
It could be.
The destruction of Coast City was nothing more than intended at a blow to Green Lantern, which many considered one of the worst storylines in DC history.
The destruction of Blüdhaven was nothing more than a distraction and robbed the DC universe of one of its best story settings.
Was there ever a mass murder event in DC that was not irrelevant or wasteful?
But I don't know enough of the similar Marvel events, since most happened after the time I left Marvel. The nuked town in Hulk was a culmination of a very strong and quite long storyline with an equally long aftermath. This is more than can be said of the similar events at DC.

But is this enough to channel the readership away from DC and towards Marvel?
Possible, but I think it is very unlikely.
I think the different ways the Mass Murder Syndrome is handled by the two companies is a symptom of the different styles, not the reason of it. It may hurt the industry in general, but not DC or Marvel in particular.

[carabas]

I think that Marvel simply can't blow up entire cities like DC does.
For starters, they pretty much only have New York, and 90% of all their characters live there.

And you can't really blow up real life cities like Chicago either because you Chicago fans probably won't like it very much.
DC on the other hands has tons of imaginary real estate that they can blow to smithereens to their heart's content.

[AllisterH]

Not totally sure I agree. DC's characters have much more going for them in terms of iconography, making them much easier to mesh with popular culture.

<snip>

They've been much more successful in animation, with Justice League pretty much being the hands down best "superhero" cartoon ever made.

Marvel is much weaker in this area. Most people know Spider-man and the Hulk. Thats it. You start talking about the X-Men and Fantastic Four and their knowledge is limited to the movies. It will be interesting to see what happens to Iron Man.

Ironically, I think this is a prime example of DC being seen as always one step behind marvel.

Here's the thing though...I think videogames have supplanted cartoons as the social connector among the younger crowd. I think the Marvel vs Capcom arcade fighting series and the X-men/Marvel alliance games have given more "facetime" to marvel's 2nd tier of characters than what JL/Teen Titans/LoSH has done. I think this has been true for about a decade at least. Iron Man even before the movies probably was more well known among the under 25 crowd than Green Lantern thanks to those videogames.

When Batman the animated series arrived on the scenes in 1992, the console war was between SNES and the Genesis while I suspect most kids still didn't have a console at this time and the fact that most people still had only 4 networks.

By the end of Justice League Unlimited (and the DCAU itself) though in 2006? The seventh generation of console wars had begun AND following the era where pretty much every kid had a PS2? As well, the power of the networks and the Saturday Morning cartoon block had all but disappeared?

Even though the effect of cartoons and videogames on comics are hard to accurately quantify, I'm willing to bet that Gambit is more well known to the under 25 crowd than say Green Arrow thanks to his appearances in some of the well-received by the public videogames (and this even includes factoring in the effect of Smallville on GA's notoriety)

[Ryan Day]

You are mistaken. DC faces a massive image problem where non-Dc fans still think of those bland 30 year old stories when they think of DC. Superfriends has almost become synonymous with DC.

That's kind of the problem in a nutshell. DC has the image of the traditional, Silver Age-type stories, in large part because they keep trotting that sort of thing out - Justice Society is a giant continuity bore, and all their crossovers seem based on reminding fans that Crisis was really neat 25 years ago.

But at the same time, they're also a lot more advanced than Marvel. This is the company that published Swamp Thing, that made Frank Miller a superstar, that imported Grant Morrison, Garth Ennis, Peter Milligan, and Neil Gaiman. They've got Watchmen, V, Sandman, and a whole bunch of books that still sell lots of copies 10-20 years after they were originally published; I don't think Marvel can say the same.

And even outside the heavy hitters, the last twenty years is full of great, interesting books that put new spins on old characters: the Giffen/DeMatteis Justice League, Mike Grell's Green Arrow, Ostrander's Spectre and Suicide Squad... A lot of this stuff doesn't really get appreciated until after it's been published.

On the other hand, I think Marvel's always been better at being current, and having stories that work right now. They usually have the hottest creators - even if they're not necessarily the best. And their stories tend to be simpler and more accessible than DC's - it's relatively easy to explain Secret Invasion or Civil War, but even I have no idea what DC's crossovers are really about.

[yadadaimhollaing]

For me I have always been a marvel fan and could barely care about dc. I never have really found the dc superheros very cool. I just don't think of their powers to be exciting. I read a lil bit of dc around identity crisis and did like green lantern but outside of batman, green lantern, and superman I don't care. I don't read batman comics because I never have and the past I have no idea about and I would have no idea where to start. Green lantern I started to read but due to money issues I dropped it. Superman while being cool I don't feel like reading an ongoing series about.

[Kaplan]

On the other hand, I think Marvel's always been better at being current, and having stories that work right now. They usually have the hottest creators - even if they're not necessarily the best. And their stories tend to be simpler and more accessible than DC's - it's relatively easy to explain Secret Invasion or Civil War, but even I have no idea what DC's crossovers are really about.

This is something that I've been thinking while reading this thread. You can sum up the civil war story in a sentence and it makes sense. In fact, it seems almost inevitable! Like it had to happen. Reading the Civil War TPB was what made me start reading Marvel. The art is great too, with the writer and artist working on the whole series. It's not as disjointed as recent DC stories.

That said I'm still working out if I'm more a DC or Marvel person. I still like the Batman books, Batman, Batman Confidential and Batman Detective. Not forgetting 'The Goddam Batman of course! And The Spirit is one of the best titles out there. But I think I'd miss Vertigo more than the mainline DC stuff really.

[darkhawk76]

um isn't it just a historical thing

what Stan, Jack, Steve et al created in the 60's was different to the Golden Age stuff that existed. Thus FF, Spidey, Avengers, Thor, Daredevil, Dr Strange etc were new and exciting compared to Batman, Supes or JLA.

The revived X-Men in the 70's coupled with Marvel's expansion of titles helped give them a market share lead that they haven't relinquished since. So regardless of how many great stories, characters, creaters DC have had in recent years, Marvel stays in front because of its Silver Age birth.

Ironically if the average person on the street was asked to name 5 superheroes, they'd probably name 3 DC characters. Marvel's strength/dominance/power lies in their breadth of characters that have at one point or another have appealed to more people

[Black Atom]

Really? I know that people like to think that, but I just can't see it. Most known? sure. But for every great villain like Ra's Al or two face, there is an equally crappy villain like the Penguin, Zzzsazz whatever), or the relatively recent bastardization of Killer Croc. Spidermans rogue clearly outclasses Batmans rogues in strong origins, uniqueness and depth. Most of Batman villains are typical straight laced bad guys with character flaws. The great one (like Ra's) have depth, but the rest is just pure villainy.

I love Spider-Man's villains. Honestly I do. But, really, the strength of his villains has never been the strong point of the Spider-books. Peter isn't defined by his bad guys like Batman is--they're really just a bunch of colorful guys with fun gimmicks.

More depth? Most of Spider-Man's villains are penny-ante crooks with animal or elemental powers. There's really only a handful of Spidey villains with any real went through any real character development and most of them are dead (Kraven, the Chameleon, Harry Goblin) or aren't villains any more (Morbius, The Sandman). Even Norman, arguably Spidey's greatest foe, hasn't been interesting since he died 30 years ago. He's been boring ever since he was
revived as a mustache-twirling douche instead of a man with a tragic split personality. Many of the Bat-villains have very developed and interesting psychoses that explain their gimmicks.

More original? A half-man half-lizard named The Lizard? A guy in a rhino suit named The Rhino? A guy dressed as a Scorpion named The Scorpion? Or how about the 8 various goblins? I'm not sure that compares to villains the The Ventriloguist for originality.

Two Face outside of 52 hasn't been a good character in close to a decade,(and this is one of Batmans best villains in my opinion)

None of Spidey's great villains, including Normon Osborn, Doc Ock or Venom, have been remarkable for much longer, really.

Mind you I haven't been reading Spiderman in quite some time, and it's pretty possible that his rogues have gone typical boringness, but I find that hard to believe. Outside of Doc Ock and maybe the Vulture almost all of Spideys villains have some redeemable quality.


The only "redeemable" thing about most of them is that they weren't completely evil--most were just run-of-the-mill crooks that stumbled onto some sort of super-powers.

[TradePaperbackTraitor]

I think Marvel doesn't rely on as few characters as DC. Over in DC, you have the JLA and that's it. Sure, you have the Teen Titans (which is basically just a junior version of JLA in most creations), and a few other groups, but the end all, be all of teams is JLA and almost every popular character is linked to it. In Marvel, you have X-Men, Avengers, Fantastic Four and other groups that are ALL highly popular and not chained at the hip.

Right now, I'd say the biggest reason is movies and the Ultimates run. DC characters already suffer from a bit of an outdated feel, and Marvel not only updates their characters with the times in the 616, but the Ultimate Universe has been highly successful in rebooting several characters with new origins. Enough so that many of the movies and animated series borrow the central themes in the Ultimate runs.

Which leads me to my next point which is simply movies. DC has had some success with television, one could argue more than Marvel, but they need to get on the ball and start marketing their non-Supes & Batman characters like Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and more with their own motion pictures. If Iron Man and Daredevil can have their own successful films, so can other less popular DC heroes.

Strictly going on comic reasons, I think DC is screwing up with all its Crisis events. They should keep events similar to Sinestro Corps and Batman RIP. Events that are focused on specific characters, few issues, and not these huge mini-series that lead up to the event.

[carabas]

Strictly going on comic reasons, I think DC is screwing up with all its Crisis events. They should keep events similar to Sinestro Corps and Batman RIP. Events that are focused on specific characters, few issues, and not these huge mini-series that lead up to the event.It's worth noting that the last tim DCbeat Marvel in sales, with Infinite Crisis, this is exactly what they were doing.

And it's not as is Marvel isn't guilty of doing exactly that with Secret Invasion (originally planned as a six or so issues of New/Mighty Avengers or House Of M (originally just two or three issues each of Astonishing X-Men/New Avengers.

Dc did shoot itself in the foot with Countdown To Final Crisis being a) utter shite, and b) completely unconnected to Final Crisis. But that is just the current situation. Historically, they've done good saleswise with their big crossovers (although not as good as Marvel).

[Drdmx]

So is it just better writing then?

I mean, I realize this is a Marvel forum, but I cant think of any Marvel Mini that I'd put down to read Infinite Crisis.

[Jay Dogg]

It's simple...Marvel knows how to build around more than just 2 characters unlike DC. Now don't get me wrong, DC's got a lot of interesting characters, but it seems like the Powers that be just don't have enough faith to really bring them out like that...whereas in Marvel, you have guys who you would have never guessed, make it to the A-list such as Cage, Iron Fist, and others. In other words, it's like DC bet all of their chips on Bats and Supes, while Marvel carefully spread theirs around and in the end, they came out with more.

[carabas]

No, that wasn't Steve in the 50's (Read the Grand Dictaior arc)
Sorry for the late reply.
But commiesmasher Cap from the fifties was indeed Steve Rogers at the time of publication.
This got retconned after Stan Lee retconned Steve Rogers to have been frozen in ice rather than him and Bucky making it out of WWII in one piece.

[Sanctus]

Marvel teams (whether true or not) seem to have more racial diversity.

[StoneGold]

Marvel teams (whether true or not) seem to have more racial diversity.

Depends on the team. JLA has more diversity on it than the Avengers right now. It has two black people on it.



Then again, one of the Avengers team has a Native American on it.

[Shellhead]

Depends on the team. JLA has more diversity on it than the Avengers right now. It has two black people on it.


JSA currently has four black people, including one former team chairman. They also have a Japanese woman. On the other hand, that's not a lot of minorities when you consider that they currently have a couple dozen members showing up lately.

[StoneGold]

Fantastic Four currently has no minorities on it. Unless you count Ben, I guess. But that's a relatively recent retcon. It's had three minorities on the team, more if you count Skrulls, Inhumans and green lawyers. But that's probably pushing things.

[carabas]

Well, only a few months ago, the FF was Ben Grimm, Johnny Storm, a,d the Black Panther and Storm, for a resounding 75% of minorities on the team. Unles Torch turns out to be a Skrull to make it an even 100.

[StoneGold]

Well, only a few months ago, the FF was Ben Grimm, Johnny Storm, a,d the Black Panther and Storm, for a resounding 75% of minorities on the team. Unles Torch turns out to be a Skrull to make it an even 100.

Well yeah, I mentioned that. But that's also if you want to count Ben as a minority. Not that Jews are part of the majority, but it tends to fall into kind of a gray area. And like I said, it's a relatively recent retcon.



And aliens don't count.

[richjb77]

Marvel is very easy to pick up and read. As a classroom teacher I "pepper" a few comics into the classroom. ( the ones that are not too violent...I only teach 4th grade)

A student reading a Marvel comic may come up with a question now and then but for the most part they hop right in....thanks in part to the "previously....." that is written on the inside cover of most books....

A DC book is not so easy...I get question after question...because NOTHING MAKES SENCE...even with the limited background knowledge they have about the characters they often have no idea whats going on...

[Deep_Sleeper]

Marvel is very easy to pick up and read. As a classroom teacher I "pepper" a few comics into the classroom. ( the ones that are not too violent...I only teach 4th grade)

A student reading a Marvel comic may come up with a question now and then but for the most part they hop right in....thanks in part to the "previously....." that is written on the inside cover of most books....

A DC book is not so easy...I get question after question...because NOTHING MAKES SENCE...even with the limited background knowledge they have about the characters they often have no idea whats going on...

You should tell Joe Q. that the idea of the "previously" page is helpful. I remember how many people hated the idea of losing one more page of their comic experience.

[AllisterH]

Another evidence of marvel's dominance.

Marvel.com Internet rating (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/marvel.com) compared to DCcomics.com internet rating (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/dccomics.com)

[Shellhead]

You should tell Joe Q. that the idea of the "previously" page is helpful. I remember how many people hated the idea of losing one more page of their comic experience.

I liked when they put the "previously" stuff on the inside of the cover.

[Grumpy Fox]

I've only read the first pages of this thread, but here are my 2 cents.

I live in France, and here DC comics have not been properly distributed in newsstands before the 90s.
So as far as I'm concerned, DC was not available when I was a kid.

Nowadays, when trying something not Marvel, I'll rather go for Vertigo or something like Invincible, The Boys, Y the Last Man or Ex-Machina. When checking DC comics, I'll go for mini-series or Elseworlds or high-profile titles like The Nail, Kingdom Come or All-Star Superman.
Both Europe and USA propose compelling alternative comic books, but when I read super-heroes I like continuity, so I somehow like to be either in a new or familiar environment. Starting collecting DC would be a monster task, and to be honest I have my share of "fun stories" with Marvel.

I have the feeling that, for an outsider, DC heroes are more iconic and more difficult to relate to. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are all "perfect" in their own way and use their civilian identities as a disguise. The original Clark Kent personna was a god's view of the average human : some kind of nerdish loser. Later, he was portrayed as a successfull journalist which is already some kind of modern day hero… Journalists, millionnaires, pilots, cops : all these civilian identities are already heroic in their own way.

In the JLA/Avenger mini, Kurt Busiek raised the main differences between the two universes. And somehow Superman made the ultimate pro-Marvel statement : Marvel heroes are weaker, less likely to have a lasting impact on the world and are all the more deserving respect for trying.

[Grumpy Fox]

That, and the lack of a "the story so far" page, of course.

[stelok]

Marvel outsells DC because Marvel Universe lies in the grey zone where there are more anti-heroes and Marvel has good guys versus good guys while DC has only good guys versus bad guys stuff although the good guys recently are becoming more or less good.

[SquidSquod]

Marvel outsells DC because Marvel Universe lies in the grey zone where there are more anti-heroes and Marvel has good guys versus good guys.

Actually this is one of the few things I hate about Marvel. Heroes against heroes making readers polarized to a hero group while hating the other hero group, and villains are more or less underdeveloped or clearly "unemployed".

[Shellhead]

Actually this is one of the few things I hate about Marvel. Heroes against heroes making readers polarized to a hero group while hating the other hero group, and villains are more or less underdeveloped or clearly "unemployed".

C'mon, Marvel has some great high-profile villains. Iron Man. Hank Pym. Reed Richards. The Hulk. And, uh, The Hood.

[RolandJP]

It can't just be a quality thing. DC has their fair share of great writers and artists. My guess is that Marvel characters and the MU itself are more fun to read, regardless of creators, than DC.

Simply put, its the attention to detail. Thats why marvel outsells DC---DC's superheroes arent the problem. Its the supporting casts. They are all dated and not hip enough.

The worlds in which they inhabit are so Pollyana not even a 5 year old would believe such a world exists. Show real people with real problems, then showcase your heroes. Instant fix.

[Shellhead]

Simply put, its the attention to detail. Thats why marvel outsells DC---DC's superheroes arent the problem. Its the supporting casts. They are all dated and not hip enough.

The worlds in which they inhabit are so Pollyana not even a 5 year old would believe such a world exists. Show real people with real problems, then showcase your heroes. Instant fix.

Your post makes sense, but it's kind of funny, too, because your avatar is Storm. She isn't exactly a real person with real problems, she's more of a fantastic visual with a very unrealistic life. Goddess, mutant, plot device, queen. Her biggest enemy is the writers.

[RolandJP]

Your post makes sense, but it's kind of funny, too, because your avatar is Storm. She isn't exactly a real person with real problems, she's more of a fantastic visual with a very unrealistic life. Goddess, mutant, plot device, queen. Her biggest enemy is the writers.

Thats why I did not rip DC's Superheroes. Storm Like Wonder Woman is a goddess and both of their biggest enemies are the writers.