How different was DC compared to Marvel at DC's high point?

[NeoStar9X]

Something in another thread cause to me to consider this question. At DC's high point exactly how different was it compared to Marvel in terms of tone and content?

I have a theory that perhaps the reason or part of the reason why Marvel is doing so well compared to DC is that DC has been trying to hard to be Marvel-like in terms of it's content and tone when it really shouldn't be. Why would you buy a Marvel-like universe when you can get the real thing? If you don't want to read Marvel why would you read a universe and company line of books that are trying to be like Marvel? You lose two groups of people right from the get go I think. I've always looked at the two universes and companies as night and day. What works for one isn't going to work for the other since their beginnings were different. Marvel as a more real world setting and DC as a more fantastical and hopeful setting.

Marvel from it's beginning has been grounded in a real world setting for the most part. It's stories have always centered around that. The Thor and the X-men I think could be the more unbelievable typed titles in this regard but even with that the X-men tried to ground itself in realism as best it could. The constant use of real cities and other locations helped this along.

DC on the other hand (comics during war time aside) from my understanding always had a "unbelievable" atmosphere about it self. Characters sometimes had fantastical beginnings and powers. It's heavy hitter Superman is an alien that comes from another planet. Wonder Woman is made out of clay. Batman is one of the unique characters with his origin and setting. He'd easily fit into the Marvel universe however he wasn't always as dark (dark yes but not as dark) as he is now though if I recall correctly. Unlike Marvel many if not all of the characters in DC are based in made up cities or fight in made up locations.

This isn't to say that the DCU wasn't dangerous or even serious. It was in terms of it's content however there was a presentation and feel about it that was different from Marvel's. I got that from reading old issues from both company lines I've come across. Now this could be because Marvel had a single guiding hand from the start (in terms of it's current universe and characters) and DC had a mass of writers each doing their own things due to it's multi-verse concept. Perhaps the destruction of that is where the problems really started. In making the DCU a single universe I think that was the first step in DC trying to become more like Marvel and that could possibly be the trouble began.

Could I be completely off base with thinking along these lines?

Did the trouble in terms of DC's market share start after COIE after it destroyed their multiverse?

Or was it when Marvel took full advantage of their characters and started making movies?

[Eumenides]

For some time now I've believed that DC should stop trying to out-Marvel Marvel and just embrace its Silver Age history: more Metal Men, more Challengers of the Unknown, more Doom Patrol. More gorillas and talking animals. More oddball characters like Adam Strange, Captain Carrot and Creature Commandos.

As someone who's read mostly Marvel in his life, nowadays I look at it and see nothing worth liking anymore. On the other hand there are dozens of DC characters I'd love to know, but they won't get titles.

[Damiean Dark]

It all comes down to Batman imo the sucsess of TDK should tell you everything.

DC have seen the success of Batman who is probably the most Marvel like hero they have and come to the conclusion (which i agree with) that the big invincible, infallible,anglo saxon male hero of yesteryear is dead as the dodo in the publics eyes the target audience want diverse, realism based heroes, heroes with bite to them Superman will always be an Icon but other then him people dont want to see it anymore DCs trouble is creating NEW heroes to the new generation ones with uniqe characterisations,powers or storylines i cant name one character they have created in the last 30 years who has any real popularity while Marvel has the likes of Gambit, Rogue, Psylocke, Bishop, Cable, ect and these are not big powerful characters either they are (with the exception of cable) pretty middle level in the power stakes.

Marvel also has the ability to take complete rip offs of DC originated characters and give them spins that produce character respected inthier own right Daredevil (batman) Sentry, Gladiator, (superman) Mr fantastic (plastic man) ect.

In conclusion Marvels mix of better creativity and better hand on the modern public pulse is what makes them market leaders while DC seem fixated primarily on SM and BM the day these two fall out of favour DCs goose will be cooked imo.

[Shellhead]

I was a major fan of Marvel up until the early '80s. At that time, there were some really good independent publishers putting out good comics, so I bought more of those and less of Marvel. Shooter forced a lot of changes at Marvel back then, and I just didn't enjoy the results.

Before Crisis on Infinite Earths, I was only buying Teen Titans and sporadically one or two other comics from DC. Otherwise DC had stagnated badly since their brief period of innovation in the early '70s. Post-Crisis, the combination of a rejuvenated DCU and Shooter alienating some top talent at Marvel created a surge of greatness in DC comics.

It wasn't just the famous stuff, like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, it was a whole slew of decent work, like the humorous new Justice League and the gritty adventures of Suicide Squad. Perez did some great work on Wonder Woman, and John Byrne was pushing a whole new take on Superman. And then there were the Vertigo-style titles coming up, a few years before DC even came up with the Vertigo brand.

By the early '90s, most new comics getting published were crap. Bad art, dumb stories, and wrong-headed interpretations of DKR and Watchmen inspired a whole wave of crappy anti-heroes. I stopped buying.

Today, I'm just buying a few comics each month. Marvel disgusts me, except for a couple of titles. Quesada has basically turned loose a few divas on the entire product line, messing up characterization and continuity and even the basic themes, left and right. Maybe other fans are loving it, but I hate it, and I won't waste money on it.

I'm also losing interest in DC, because they seem to be trying too hard to copy Marvel's unheroic heroes. However, at least DC has good writers setting the pace for the product line: Morrison, Johns, Rucka, and Waid. They have their good moments and bad moments, but each of these guys has demonstrated some respect and genuine interest in the heroes and the world they live in.

[celticguy]

Marvel does a better job growing fans. They have been a steady face on Sat morning cartoons with one product or another for years now. Also they publish books that you can give your kid and they might enjoy. DC did do this with the JLU book but know they put out these really youngs books that I don't think there is a readership for.

Also Marvel has done a better job of branding their characters. Spidermans face is drilled into the consumer. The Superman/Batman logos are as well but not the character as much.

[Darrell D.]

I was a major fan of Marvel up until the early '80s. At that time, there were some really good independent publishers putting out good comics, so I bought more of those and less of Marvel. Shooter forced a lot of changes at Marvel back then, and I just didn't enjoy the results.

Before Crisis on Infinite Earths, I was only buying Teen Titans and sporadically one or two other comics from DC. Otherwise DC had stagnated badly since their brief period of innovation in the early '70s. Post-Crisis, the combination of a rejuvenated DCU and Shooter alienating some top talent at Marvel created a surge of greatness in DC comics.

It wasn't just the famous stuff, like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, it was a whole slew of decent work, like the humorous new Justice League and the gritty adventures of Suicide Squad. Perez did some great work on Wonder Woman, and John Byrne was pushing a whole new take on Superman. And then there were the Vertigo-style titles coming up, a few years before DC even came up with the Vertigo brand.

By the early '90s, most new comics getting published were crap. Bad art, dumb stories, and wrong-headed interpretations of DKR and Watchmen inspired a whole wave of crappy anti-heroes. I stopped buying.

Today, I'm just buying a few comics each month. Marvel disgusts me, except for a couple of titles. Quesada has basically turned loose a few divas on the entire product line, messing up characterization and continuity and even the basic themes, left and right. Maybe other fans are loving it, but I hate it, and I won't waste money on it.

I'm also losing interest in DC, because they seem to be trying too hard to copy Marvel's unheroic heroes. However, at least DC has good writers setting the pace for the product line: Morrison, Johns, Rucka, and Waid. They have their good moments and bad moments, but each of these guys has demonstrated some respect and genuine interest in the heroes and the world they live in.

I gotta say, your story parallels mine perfectly. I stopped buying Marvel after the Kirby art fiasco, however, but given how horrible Marvel at that period (the exception might be Byrne's FF) it wasn't an especially hard decision. I started reading Love and Rockets, Neat Stuff, American Flagg!, Nexus, RAW, a lot of stuff not published by the big 2.
That initial Post-Crisis DC was just amazing. Incredible creative line-ups and the willingness to do something new and different. Something I'm really not seeing from DC these days.

[NeoStar9X]

Bump. Is anyone else able to help and possibly answer the question? Or have thoughts on this?

[Kevinroc]

I'm also losing interest in DC, because they seem to be trying too hard to copy Marvel's unheroic heroes. However, at least DC has good writers setting the pace for the product line: Morrison, Johns, Rucka, and Waid. They have their good moments and bad moments, but each of these guys has demonstrated some respect and genuine interest in the heroes and the world they live in.

I just want you to know that Waid seems to be persona non grata at DC these days. He's certainly let his feelings known about the way DC has handled The Flash over the last couple of years.

[joint venture]

Both DC & Marvel are only interested in making money. It's a business.
Old people read comics. Kids do video games, SMS and internet.
Sometimes they go together to the movies.
That's it.

[Shellhead]

I just want you to know that Waid seems to be persona non grata at DC these days. He's certainly let his feelings known about the way DC has handled The Flash over the last couple of years.

Good point. At the time 52 was coming out, Waid was still very influential at DC. I'm not sure what happened, but his Brave & the Bold run started great and ended with a fizzle. Legion of Super-Heroes showed early flashes of greatness, and never again after issue #12. And while I didn't bother with his recent Flash work, I'm sure that it was just mediocre, since he wasn't happy with editorial mandates regarding the various Flashes at that time. What's Waid doing lately?

[Kevinroc]

Good point. At the time 52 was coming out, Waid was still very influential at DC. I'm not sure what happened, but his Brave & the Bold run started great and ended with a fizzle. Legion of Super-Heroes showed early flashes of greatness, and never again after issue #12. And while I didn't bother with his recent Flash work, I'm sure that it was just mediocre, since he wasn't happy with editorial mandates regarding the various Flashes at that time. What's Waid doing lately?

He's the editor-in-chief of Boom! Studios and writes the occasional issue of Amazing Spider-Man for Marvel.