Are Comicbook resource reviewers giving Marvel comics better reviews than DC

[Paradox]

That part spoke to my opposition to the ridiculous idea that one publisher is "better" than another (not from you, from the concepts expressed in the thread and throughout my life ad nausem). I speak colloquially and with a snarky mouth. You'll probably live.

In answer to your specific original question, if you insist, it's likely nothing but coincidence. Reviewers are mercurial.

[Darrell D.]

Wow, really? I consider that the medium most associated with dodgy reviewers.

Sure, most of the internet bloggers have no clue what they are talking about concerning objective criticism.
The same for Comics, music, etc.

[Darrell D.]

The best guys talking about comics right now for me are Tom Spurgeon at the comicsreporter.com and David Brothers at 4thletter.net.
Intelligent commentators that have a true love for the art form, across multiple genres.
The Savage Critic is another smart site.

[Brave Sir Robbin]

While I am newish to reading comic book reviews, I find them somewhat pointless, especially with a scale. There is so much personal taste involved, giving a book five stars is meaningless to someone how just does not like the general topic. CBR could give an X Men title seven stars on a five star scale and I wouldn't care. I just can't relate to it unless it is one of the couple of the movies I liked. There are so many variable involved including characters, powers, genre, and tone that appeal to us as individuals then there is personal taste. I have looked at a lot of comics to check them out when they had great reviews and I tought "what are they smoking? Who is paying this idiot off?"

With movies you have Rotten Tomatoes and with video games you have meta critic cites. To me, that makes those cites so valuable and popular. It is impossible to go by one reviewer to decide if the book is going to appeal to you, let alone if you find it of good quality. I see great reviews for many books, like some Marvel books, that I think would be better used as toilet paper but that is the result of having individual reviewers with individual tastes and prejudices looking at an entire world of comics.

[finfangfool]

I see a bias towards positive reviews over negative ones, but like many have said it's better to ignore the reviews and find people with similar tastes on the boards and get their opinions. The only bias I've seen associated with Marvel is Steve Wacker (or a troll posing as Steve Wacker) being rude to posters on the Marvel boards and adding nothing to any discussion to a level where most posters would have been permanently banned by now, but the mods seem to let it slide. Some have defended his behavior by saying he's being rude to other rude posters, but since it seems like he mainly seeks out those conversations/confrontations and never seems to seek out helpful or enjoyable conversations with the many posters (like myself) who would enjoy somebody with inside knowledge of the business shedding light on things or at the least having (non malicious) fun here I think he's just a troll. I'm hoping it's not the real guy, it'd be kind of sad.

[Jeff Brady]

It's the real Steve Wacker.

I've never seen him troll anyone, but I have seen him point out stupidity and entitlement.

[FanboyStranger]

The best guys talking about comics right now for me are Tom Spurgeon at the comicsreporter.com and David Brothers at 4thletter.net.
Intelligent commentators that have a true love for the art form, across multiple genres.
The Savage Critic is another smart site.

I'd add some of the reviewers over at http://www.comicsbulletin.com/ as well. Most of them actually write some very intelligent pieces that consider craft as much as story and tend to avoid fannish complaints and praises.

[whiteshark]

Oh noes.
The comics from my favorite company is having generally less positive reviews that the reviews from the competition.
So it must mean CBR is favoring marvel.thats the only answer,never mind that professional reviewers can objectively having given fair reviews.
Be the comics of company A or B.
So it is not the reviewers fault if the quality of the comics of a comic book company is worst that the comics from the other comic book company.

[Michael P]

It's the real Steve Wacker.

I've never seen him troll anyone, but I have seen him point out stupidity and entitlement.

Silly Jeff. Don't you know the Internet is a big hugbox where the worst thing you can do is reject someone's ill-informed, poorly thought out, self-serving bullshit?

[worstblogever]

It's all very simple. Each year on the CBR yacht, Jonah Weiland makes creators from Marvel and DC perform a dance-off for his entertainment. Whoever wins, gets all the good CBR reviews for that year. Mark Waid, Brian Michael Bendis, Jason Aaron, and Matt Fraction did an amazing number to Beyonce's "Single Ladies" that won a few weeks back.

Conspiracy solved.

[Jeff Brady]

Silly Jeff. Don't you know the Internet is a big hugbox where the worst thing you can do is reject someone's ill-informed, poorly thought out, self-serving bullshit?

HUGZ!

In regard to the original topic:

[verslibre]

LOL have you read Avengers vs X-men #8? They gave that 4 1/2 stars.. Really?

No, I haven't read it. You know why? Because I bought and read AvX #1, and I bought NONE after that. I could tell it was going to be a huge bowl of suck. The money that would've gone to that went to something else.

[stephen wacker]

Mods, please delete or move if you feel this topic is an inappropriate area or of an inappropriate nature.
It seems from a purely observational mode, Marvel comics on a whole receive 3, 4, 5 star reviews quite often and seem to be the norm. Meanwhile DC titles seem to garner poorer reviews more frequently. Now, granted, I have not quantified months of reviews to test this little theory of mine, so perhaps my perceptions are off. But suppose, my perception is accurate, what is the cause of this discrepancy? Does Marvel really turn out higher quality comics or is some sort of bias occurring among the reviewers. Bias can be caused simply because one has grown up reading Marvel or DC. I know that if I attempted to review comic books, I'd have a definitive lean in favor-ability towards DC comics because that's what I've grown up on. I know way wish to impugn people who review for this site and perhaps no bias occurs in regards to their reviews and the company they prefer. There just seems to be an interesting question here. So to paraphrase, my question is this: Does anyone else think DC garners less favorable reviews and if so, what is the cause?

I personally pay 17.54 for each star.

SW

[stephen wacker]

I see a bias towards positive reviews over negative ones, but like many have said it's better to ignore the reviews and find people with similar tastes on the boards and get their opinions. The only bias I've seen associated with Marvel is Steve Wacker (or a troll posing as Steve Wacker) being rude to posters on the Marvel boards and adding nothing to any discussion to a level where most posters would have been permanently banned by now, but the mods seem to let it slide. Some have defended his behavior by saying he's being rude to other rude posters, but since it seems like he mainly seeks out those conversations/confrontations and never seems to seek out helpful or enjoyable conversations with the many posters (like myself) who would enjoy somebody with inside knowledge of the business shedding light on things or at the least having (non malicious) fun here I think he's just a troll. I'm hoping it's not the real guy, it'd be kind of sad.

Your ignoring a lot of my posts. It's kind of sad.

SW

[DonC]

It's all very simple. Each year on the CBR yacht, Jonah Weiland makes creators from Marvel and DC perform a dance-off for his entertainment. Whoever wins, gets all the good CBR reviews for that year. Mark Waid, Brian Michael Bendis, Jason Aaron, and Matt Fraction did an amazing number to Beyonce's "Single Ladies" that won a few weeks back.

Conspiracy solved.

Problem was Bob Harras had Scott Lobdell, Rob Liefeld and Ann Nocenti dancing to a tune that was 20 years out of date.