The Age old Question: Marvel Vs. DC?

[Jeppe]

I think it comes down to personal taste. For some, they haven't been touched yet. For others, they've been equaled or surpassed or weren't that great in the first place. Personally, I think they're great landmarks in comics history but there are comics I like just as much.

Jim and Chris, great discussion! I'm slightly younger than a lot of the other people on these boards, which might influence my opinion, but as much as I love Watchmen and DKR, they are not my idea of the very best titles comics has to offer.
Great? Definitely.
The very best? No

[JimN]

Jim and Chris, great discussion! I'm slightly younger than a lot of the other people on these boards, which might influence my opinion, but as much as I love Watchmen and DKR, they are not my idea of the very best titles comics has to offer.
Great? Definitely.
The very best? No

Thanks for providing a younger perspective. I think it makes a difference. When DKR and Watchmen came out, they were indicative of a change happening in mainstream comics and consequently, I think they had a big impact on people who read them, particularly on people who didn't read many (or any) comics other than what Marvel or DC published. Consequently, for people who were say, 15-30 at that time, they were not only powerful new comics stories but landmarks that now have the power of nostalgia and the memory of that initial impact behind them. That's a tough combination to beat. I remember reading them at the time and being very impressed. I had a wide experience of alternative, underground and european comics at the time too. To someone without that perspective, they probably seemed even more revolutionary but to someone who came to them after reading many of the works that appeared in their wake, they may lack the impact of their original context.  That happens with music as well. It's harder for many of us to imagine how different albums like Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band were at the time they were released without being immersed in the surrounding music of the time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be long-winded...

Jim

[Dotanuki]

You said it better than I would've Jim...you have succinctly described my ongoing love affair with DKR. When I reread it I can see that things are dated here and there...I read it when I was 15 and it hit me like a semi.  I don't think any comics other than Maus and Lone Wolf & Cub (which has '76-manga/Kurosawa-cinema nostalgia-power) has hit me as hard re: sheer comic reading pleasure since '87. Someone who came after the hoopla is probably not going to have the same lightning-bolt experience, not exactly the same anyway.

[Swany]

Thanks for providing a younger perspective. I think it makes a difference. When DKR and Watchmen came out, they were indicative of a change happening in mainstream comics and consequently, I think they had a big impact on people who read them, particularly on people who didn't read many (or any) comics other than what Marvel or DC published. Consequently, for people who were say, 15-30 at that time, they were not only powerful new comics stories but landmarks that now have the power of nostalgia and the memory of that initial impact behind them. That's a tough combination to beat. I remember reading them at the time and being very impressed. I had a wide experience of alternative, underground and european comics at the time too. To someone without that perspective, they probably seemed even more revolutionary but to someone who came to them after reading many of the works that appeared in their wake, they may lack the impact of their original context.  That happens with music as well. It's harder for many of us to imagine how different albums like Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band were at the time they were released without being immersed in the surrounding music of the time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be long-winded...

Jim

I agree 100% Jim. When those originally came out people immediately thought they were important and ground breaking. These aren't titles that have built a strong reputation or cult following over decades, they were instant classics. And even more to their credit is now almost 30 yrs later they are still held in the same regard. Powerful, powerful stuff.

That being said as someone who bought all 4 issues of DKR as well as all 12 issues of Watchmen when they first came out they personally did not have the impact that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Squadron Supreme or Batman year one had on me. All three opened my eyes to 3 very different things that comic books had to offer.

[Tom Scioli]

What difference does that make, Tom? Those books were still created for DC. They weren't Marvel comics.

For starters they have two of the most recognizable superhero characters in the world, Batman and Superman (they're probably the two most recognizable superheroes).

Hi Jim,

In both of those cases, it was DC having Marvel guys do their Marvel thing for them. And in both cases, they didn't appreciate what Kirby and Miller brought to them and let them slip through their fingers. The Fourth World reads more like a Marvel book than a DC book, which is why DC didn't know what to do with it. Dark Knight Returns was a Marvel approach to Batman and bore little to no resemblence to what was going on in Batman prior to that, but it had a lot of resemblence to what was going on in Daredevil. But you're right, it probably is unfair to take 2 of DC's shining moments away from them. Credit where credit is due.

To the second point, we all think Batman and Superman are the most recognizable characters, but they're not. Especially Superman. There's a whole generation that knows Spiderman, Iron Man, and Wolverine, heck even Gambit, more than they know Superman. Batman is definitely up there, but it's not the rarefied air that it was back in the George Reeves, Adam West, Chris Reeve, Michael Keaton days.

[JimN]

Hi Jim,

In both of those cases, it was DC having Marvel guys do their Marvel thing for them. And in both cases, they didn't appreciate what Kirby and Miller brought to them and let them slip through their fingers. The Fourth World reads more like a Marvel book than a DC book, which is why DC didn't know what to do with it. Dark Knight Returns was a Marvel approach to Batman and bore little to no resemblence to what was going on in Batman prior to that, but it had a lot of resemblence to what was going on in Daredevil. But you're right, it probably is unfair to take 2 of DC's shining moments away from them. Credit where credit is due.

That was my point, in a nutshell. After all, DC appreciated those creators enough to want to work with them in the first place and I think it's possible to say that what both Kirby and Miller did for DC wasn't so much a Marvel approach as their personal approach. The same can be said for Ditko. All 3 had a very unique, individual approach to comics-making and all 3 went on to places where they could use that approach. Also, let's not forget, Marvel let each of those creators slip away from them just like DC did.

To the second point, we all think Batman and Superman are the most recognizable characters, but they're not. Especially Superman. There's a whole generation that knows Spiderman, Iron Man, and Wolverine, heck even Gambit, more than they know Superman.

That might be true of a single generation (although I doubt it) but the world isn't one generation old. There's absolutely no way Gambit is a better-known character than Superman to the man on the street in the U.S.A., much less worldwide. Movies and cartoons have certainly made characters like Iron Man and Wolverine much more recognizable than they were but even with that exposure, I doubt they are more recognizable than Superman, whose fame completely transcends comics. I sincerely doubt you'll find many people of any age who have heard of Spider-man, Wolverine, of Iron Man and aren't also familiar with Superman.

Not that it's important...

Batman is definitely up there, but it's not the rarefied air that it was back in the George Reeves, Adam West, Chris Reeve, Michael Keaton days.

There's no doubt that characters like Spider-man, Hulk and Iron Man have closed the "fame gap".

Jim

[Tom Scioli]

Just as a sidenote, I've met quite a few people who say "Spiderman" when they mean "Superman." That can't be good for Superman's brand recognition.

[Tom Scioli]

Hi Jim,

I totally agree about those creators bringing their own style rather than a "Marvel" style. That said, I feel like the DC masterpieces that everybody's mentioned so far, grew out of things that were developing and percolating at Marvel, then jumped over to DC for that final draft. Fourth World grew out of Kirby's Marvel work, particularly Thor. Dark Knight Returns grew out of Miller's red-clad gritty urban vigilante. Even All-Star Superman grew out of Morrison and Quitely's X-Men work. What DC masterpieces grew out of things that were developed at DC? Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow grew out of what Moore was doing at DC, combined with what the Superman books had been developing for decades. Crisis on Infinite Earths was a natural development of things going on at DC particularly with Teen Titans.

I just feel like for whatever reason Marvel has provided a more fertile ground for creativity. If I had to guess why, I'd say it's origins are in the 50's, 60's and 70's, when DC was run by a number of editorial bullies, little tyrants who ran their books like little fiefdoms. It was a stifling creative atmosphere. Stan Lee was no picnic to work with from what I've heard, but he's a teddy bear compared to the scowling gargoyles that ran the DC offices for decades (at least according to the accounts of people who worked under that regime). Stan knew to give the artists and writers creative freedom (and very little pay). And guess what, it resulted in great comics. Compare it to what editorial micromanagement produced at DC. That's the foundation that everybody is building on now. Is it any surprise that the soil at Marvel has proven so much more fertile?

[JimN]

Just as a sidenote, I've met quite a few people who say "Spiderman" when they mean "Superman." That can't be good for Superman's brand recognition.

LOL! It certainly can't...

What DC masterpieces grew out of things that were developed at DC?

Swamp Thing is the first that comes to mind. The character's beginnings under Wein and Wrightson are excellent comics and the Moore/Bissette/Totleben run is rightly considered one of the greats. That character, and comic, were DC-grown.

I just feel like for whatever reason Marvel has provided a more fertile ground for creativity.

Can you explain why?

We've been leaving Vertigo out of this discussion because it's an imprint but in terms of which company has provided more fertile ground for creativity, I think we should consider that line of comics, which has proven very fertile ground for experimentation. It's a been a way for DC to encourage some out-of-the-mainstream-box creativity. It seems to me that DC has been at least as willing as Marvel to let creators go out on a limb and create something different. I have a hard time seeing Marvel as more fertile creative ground, at least after the '60s, when the initial burst of creativity that spawned the majority of the Marvel universe occurred. Overall, the two companies seem like relative equals in that area to me. They've both done their share of editorial stifling but at times, they've both allowed some very creative comics to be produced.

If I had to guess why, I'd say it's origins are in the 50's, 60's and 70's, when DC was run by a number of editorial bullies, little tyrants who ran their books like little fiefdoms. It was a stifling creative atmosphere. Stan Lee was no picnic to work with from what I've heard, but he's a teddy bear compared to the scowling gargoyles that ran the DC offices for decades (at least according to the accounts of people who worked under that regime). Stan knew to give the artists and writers creative freedom (and very little pay). And guess what, it resulted in great comics. Compare it to what editorial micromanagement produced at DC. That's the foundation that everybody is building on now. Is it any surprise that the soil at Marvel has proven so much more fertile?

I guess I just have a hard time seeing Marvel as much more fertile ground, especially now, when they seem as mired in their own history as DC has ever been.

By the way, this is an interesting discussion. Thanks for participating, Tom.

Jim

[Tom Scioli]

I didn't even think of Vertigo, I was thinking in terms of their superhero lines. I guess when it's posed as Marvel vs. DC, you think superheroes. But yeah, Vertigo is an important part of the equation that Marvel just doesn't have an equivalent of.

And yeah, Swamp Thing is definitely a masterwork that was developed at DC, rather than being the culmination of something developed at the competition.

But, yeah in terms of fertile ground, I was talking about their superheroes. At Marvel you're building on all that great Kirby stuff, the Inhumans, Galactus and the Surfer, X-Men. There's a wonderful visual world there that had a sustained run that produced a universe of interesting characters and settings. After Kirby left, the creativity wasn't as profuse, but you still had a hands-off editorial atttude that allowed people to add interesting flourishes to that universe.

At DC, what are you building on? Those buttoned-down Superman stories that didn't change much between the 1950's and the 1980's. They had whimsy, but not a lot else. And that was the best DC had to offer. They managed to cobble a somewhat-interesting mythology piece by piece from the 1940's to the 1960's. Batman was a snooze-fest. You had a handful of visually interesting stories, but no great sustained run on anything. The legendary Engelhart/Rogers Batman ran for something like 8 issues. Everything interesting at DC at those times came about in fits and starts. No one was really allowed to let lose and fly with something a little bit risky. I attribute it to that stifling editorial atmosphere.

There are a lot of good things that came out of DC. I'm a big fan of things that came out of both companies. I read a lot of comics, especially old comics. When I grab a Marvel comic from any era at random, there's a pretty good chance that it's at least somewhat good. When I grab a random DC comic, more often than not, it's bad. That's my starting point for all this, and everything else was my theory of why that is. DC's superhero universe is populated by a lot of uninteresting characters with poor costume designs.

There were times that Marvel had a person or two in editorial that was stifling, but at DC it was a decades-long continuous office culture. At Marvel it was a couple of bad apples here and there. As for now, they're both run from the top-down, but again, when I grab a random book from either company, I end up liking the Marvel, and scratching my head at a lot of the DC. They're superhero universe seems like it's made up of odd bits and pieces, castoffs from abandoned series. Marvel has a structural integrity that I think is due to letting creators do their thing for a lot of decades. Even though that freedom is a thing of the past, it's money in the bank, something that modern creators can draw from. It won't be there for ever, and you need to put something back, but for now, it's working.

If you put together a scorecard through the decades, it goes like this: 1960's - Marvel wins. 1970's - Marvel wins. 1980's - DC wins. 1990's - DC. 2000's - Marvel. Marvel wins 3/2.

If you break the decades into halves, Marvel does even better. Early 1960's- Marvel. Late 1960's - Marvel. Early 1970s- DC. Late 1970's - Marvel. Early 1980's - Marvel. Late 1980's - DC. Early 1990's - DC. Late 1990's - Marvel. Early 2000's - Marvel. Late 2000's - Marvel. Marvel wins 7/3.

[evaD]

I've been following this conversation of and on and really enjoying, but I'm left wondering one thing. Tom, you clearly come across as a Marvel fan, but I've always thought you're personal work was more inspired my Kirby's DC stuff. I'm thinking more of Myth of 8-Opus and American Barbarian than Godland. Do you see it differently?

[Tom Scioli]

If you want to read more about the office culture at the two companies, check out the interviews with classic creators in the various books and magazines Twomorrows puts out. Kirby, Steranko, Thomas, Adams, Windsor-Smith, and various others all talk about the extremely toxic environment of the DC offices in the 60's and 70's.

[Tom Scioli]

I've been following this conversation of and on and really enjoying, but I'm left wondering one thing. Tom, you clearly come across as a Marvel fan, but I've always thought you're personal work was more inspired my Kirby's DC stuff. I'm thinking more of Myth of 8-Opus and American Barbarian than Godland. Do you see it differently?

You're absolutely right. My all-time favorite stuff is Kirby's DC work. But there are only a couple of other things at DC I really like (Alan Moor's work, Frank Miller's work, Grant Morrison's work) whereas Marvel has a bunch of things I like. And Marvel has all the rest of Kirby's creations, so while I don't like Kirby's Marvel work quite as much as his DC work, I still love it, and there's a lot of it. And I see Kirby's Fourth World stuff as being a natural continuation of what he was doing at Marvel. Once DC got their editorial hooks into his work, it got less and less interesting. Still great, though.

[evaD]

What connections do you see between Kirby's Marvel stuff and the Fourth World stuff. Perhaps phrased in a better way: What parallels and continuations are you looking at within those two works. When I look at Kirby's stuff from Marvel, I focus on the Fantastic Four, which seems (seems odd to say) more grounded in Earth. The Fourth World seems more cosmic(?). Are you seeing at all as two sides to the same coin?

[Tom Scioli]

What connections do you see between Kirby's Marvel stuff and the Fourth World stuff. Perhaps phrased in a better way: What parallels and continuations are you looking at within those two works. When I look at Kirby's stuff from Marvel, I focus on the Fantastic Four, which seems (seems odd to say) more grounded in Earth. The Fourth World seems more cosmic(?). Are you seeing at all as two sides to the same coin?

Kirby had his two major works at Marvel in the 60's, FF and Thor. New Gods was a natural extension of themes, storytelling techniques from those two book. Except for the Thing, nobody's a fan of the Fantastic Four themselves, we're fans of all the secondary characters. The FF were almost like the hosts of a variety show and the cosmic characters were their guests. The Inhumans were cosmic. Galactus and Silver Surfer even more so. New Gods were the next step. It also came out of Thor, the whole thing of sci-fi gods. Thor had kind of morphed into that. The more adventures he had in sci-fi situations, the more Asgard took on a sci fi look and incorporated sci-fi devices, the more it sort of morphed into what New Genesis would be. Story-wise, New Gods spins directly out of Kirby's Ragnarok stories in Tales of Asgard. Then just the whole idea of multiple characters in multiple comics sharing one unified mega-story is exactly what Kirby was doing at Marvel. With 4W he was going to take that technique, and really make the larger story add up to something interesting and evocative, as opposed to the somewhat arbitrary shape the Marvel Universe story took.

[evaD]

Kirby had his two major works at Marvel in the 60's, FF and Thor. New Gods was a natural extension of themes, storytelling techniques from those two book. Except for the Thing, nobody's a fan of the Fantastic Four themselves, we're fans of all the secondary characters. The FF were almost like the hosts of a variety show and the cosmic characters were their guests. The Inhumans were cosmic. Galactus and Silver Surfer even more so. New Gods were the next step. It also came out of Thor, the whole thing of sci-fi gods. Thor had kind of morphed into that. The more adventures he had in sci-fi situations, the more Asgard took on a sci fi look and incorporated sci-fi devices, the more it sort of morphed into what New Genesis would be. Story-wise, New Gods spins directly out of Kirby's Ragnarok stories in Tales of Asgard. Then just the whole idea of multiple characters in multiple comics sharing one unified mega-story is exactly what Kirby was doing at Marvel. With 4W he was going to take that technique, and really make the larger story add up to something interesting and evocative, as opposed to the somewhat arbitrary shape the Marvel Universe story took.

Seen from that perspective, I think I get what you're saying. I completely forget/ignore Thor. I knew Kirby had done Thor, but that's about the extent of the thought I put into it. Sounds like I should try to rectify that.

[Tom Scioli]

Thor is my favorite Kirby Marvel comic.

[InspectorSpacetime]

the age old question is what mega corporation i favor over the other? its not what sport team that doesnt give a shit about me id kill another fan over?

[JimN]

I didn't even think of Vertigo, I was thinking in terms of their superhero lines. I guess when it's posed as Marvel vs. DC, you think superheroes. But yeah, Vertigo is an important part of the equation that Marvel just doesn't have an equivalent of.

No,they don't although they've branched out at times with comics in the Epic line and currently with creator-owned work like Criminal.

If you put together a scorecard through the decades, it goes like this: 1960's - Marvel wins. 1970's - Marvel wins. 1980's - DC wins. 1990's - DC. 2000's - Marvel. Marvel wins 3/2.

I didn't quote your whole post, Tom, but you made some excellent points and I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your point of view. I wholeheartedly agree that Marvel has the richer, more cohesive superhero universe and generally speaking, when it comes to superhero comics I've usually enjoyed Marvel books more than DC books. however, I think where we differ is that I was thinking beyond just the superhero comics that the two companies have published and I tend to give DC an edge in some other areas (horror comics, for example).

In terms of your decade-by-decade breakdown, I agree that Marvel would win the '60s and '70s and I'd give the '80s to DC. Beyond that, I'm inclined to call it a draw although DC has published more comics that interested me in the past two decades. That said, I'm trying to look beyond my personal tastes and be as objective as possible.

It's ironic that I've written as much as I have in this thread because I see both companies as stagnant, corporate entities now, companies that only occasionally publish work that genuinely interests and excites me.

Jim

[JimN]

Kirby had his two major works at Marvel in the 60's, FF and Thor. New Gods was a natural extension of themes, storytelling techniques from those two book. Except for the Thing, nobody's a fan of the Fantastic Four themselves, we're fans of all the secondary characters.

Aw, that's not true! Ben Grimm is my favorite member of the FF but I like the whole group.

Jim