Marvel Vs. D.C.

Nancy

I *almost* put in the subject line 'Let's Get This Party Started' before I realized this is a new screenname and you would undoubtably think it's porn and delete me. Anyway, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're still up for the Crossfire. We should do this quick and snappy because superhero week is four days away.

So we're planning on arguing which is better - D.C. or Marvel. So we'll just hit each other back with a few paragraphs via email with some point/counterpoints and then that will be set. I'm giving you the power to start the opening argument, because I don't want to bombard you with a paragraph when you may have forgotten about this whole shebang. So if you're still down, let's roll!

One quick thing - How do you define 'better'? I say which inspires stronger cultural icons, and if the entire slew of D.C. characters are more likely to triumph over the entire slew of Marvel characters (yes, they are).

Shalen

Ha ha. You're right, I WOULD have deleted it. I get those "grow a longer hot Asian mortgage" emails all the time. Not that I have anything against Asian mortgages. I'm sure that all our Asian readers out there have the best morgages ever.

As for me, I define "better" as "more fun for me personally to watch and read," but for a more interesting and culturally applicable definition, I'd say better equals fresher, more interesting, and continually able to hold the attention. I mean, D.C. has Batman and Superman, who definitely have plenty of logo tee shirts, stickers, etc. out there, but let's face it. Those two are seriously one-trick ponies. They each have their own little shtick — antihero angst vs. boy scout angst — and no recent attempts to give Superman Fabio hair or Batman a sensitive side have really challenged that.

Marvel may not have quite the same desktop logo potential, though they've tried with the X-men thing recently, but I'd call them far more interesting and diverse. Besides, Marvel is (correct me if I'm wrong) the queen of the short, snappy names. I know that's a little thing, but I still really, really loathe aliases like "Black Canary" and "Wonder Woman" and "Narrated Man" (oops, that's from Sluggy Freelance). Give me my Wolverine and Colossus and Punisher (speaking of logo potential) over that any time.

Your turn!

Nancy

Snappy names? How about 'Atom' for snappy names? That's just about as snappy as you can get! Granted, he's not a headliner, but come on!

Culturally, I think a lot has to be said about tradition and the ability to maintain a character without changing him too much to please the masses. The best example of Marvel being a little too 'fresh' for my tastes can be found in Nightcrawler. Along with Beast, he is commonly said (by me) to be my favorite mutant, and yet he's morphed from a dark and troubled protagonist to a mutant with the personality of any normal guy, who only lets a German word slip out every now and then. That isn't progress; it's a loss of identity.

My biggest pro about D.C. over Marvel would be a slightly darker feel, and slightly more serious tone. Perhaps it is just D.C.'s asset of Batman — the dark knight — which adds to it. But the Justice League has a slightly more threatening feel than anything Marvel has to offer. Sure, Spider-man's got the witty comments, but these guys are about BUSINESS. There's something about that..it's just so much more stronger and more powerful to me.

This is the way I see the seperation in general — I feel like Marvel makes the characters a little lighter, perhaps a little more relatable. But I also feel like that is Marvel's downside. I prefer the people I want to live like to be strong, serious mother f-ers who are about BUSINESS. If we are going to vicariously live through drawings, I want to vicariously live through the tough ones, not the ones who feel a little more human.

Shoot!

Shalen

Yes, but "Atom" is a lame, lame name, plus it still has that dated nuclear thing going on. At least Marvel movies have done a rewrite from nukes to genetic engineering, which for this Biology major's money makes a lot more sense. And, like you said, he's not a headliner. Headliners mostly have names ending in "man" or "woman," as if their gender wasn't ludicrously easy to tell in those outfits. Marvel's still got its Spider Hyphenated Man, but that contains deliberate camp - something D.C. really has far, far too much of for its own good. I'm looking at YOU, Green Arrow/Lantern/Hornet. When you take this set of originals and try to make them darker, the results are just ludicrous.

You've hit on one of my biggest gripes with Marvel, as it happens. I, too, was once a big Furry Blue Guys fan. I deeply loathe the Ultimate X-men series (Ultimate Spidey is somewhat better), and I will not quickly forgive what they've done to Storm. But that's that series, and there are other artists. More rugged takes on Wolverine and others are widely available. And it's hard to find a more businesslike hero than Blade, the Punisher, or Ghost Rider. Much as I've enjoyed the Hitman comics I've read, they're a clear attempt to capitalize on the Punisher's popularity.

Besides, none of that is quite as ridiculous as the Knightfall/Azrael/Batman Wearing an Entire Buick as a Costume thing, speaking of instances in which classical consistency faltered. Not that I disagree with you about Justice League. They're my D.C. favorite by far.

Uh… Nanceeee?

Nancy

Sorry, my darling, I had to run.

I also loathe the Ultimate X-men series, as well as call the Justice League my favorite factor in the D.C. world. I feel like we are picking out specifics to justify our point, but the fact of the matter is - D.C. perpetuates a more serious feel. In whole, less witty comebacks and more capes flapping in the wind dramatically.

Your point about Hitman is well-taken, and I can perhaps add more to your argument in saying that not only is Hitman cashing in on The Punisher, but he is more of the Marvel concept that I am arguing. He epitomizes what I see in Marvel - the human side, the joking, the slightly ridiculous concepts from time to time (ya know, zombie fish). And hey, not saying I don't totally dig stuff like this. But that's not what I love about comics.

So your examples are taken to heart and I have to tip my hat to you. If I could just get you to agree that D.C.'s slightly more badass, then I'd say this is a successful crossfire. Because in my heart, badass always equals better.

Shalen

Of course we're picking out specifics. That's what makes it a debate. ;) When you say things that are very general - " D.C. is more badass" - all I can say is something equally general, like "No, it's not." But when you cite specifics, I can argue with specifics of my own.

I wouldn't necessarily say that badass is better, but I suppose that depends on how you define the term. I'd call D.C.'s tendency more toward taking itself way, way too seriously. This is never less true than when it's dealing with characters whose attributes are just plain campy (as previously mentioned). I know I already mentioned Green Arrow, but there's this whole story arc in which he discovers that he's a soulless doppelganger and tangles with Batman and Jason Blood, and it just... didn't... work. (Justin: the little dot dot dots are there for emphasis, darn it.)

For that matter, I'd say that hanging on to characters that have been around forever is not only a D.C. strength, but a major weakness. Some of these concepts really need to be gone, and gone yesterday. Black Canary is another one. Horrible alias, no powers, no real skills that distinguish her from Catwoman. Ecchhh. Come up with some new heroes, already.

I'd hate to start comparing the women of both companies, because I have a thing with comic book ladies anyway, but I'd have to say D.C. is somewhat lacking in this area. Remember the Marvel Vs. D.C. Crossover Universe a while back? Remember how Catwoman and Wonder Woman got completely schooled by Elektra and Storm, though the overall fights were balanced? There's a reason for that. And they, and Barbara Gordon, are IMO the least lame of D.C.'s heroines. D.C. seems to have this thing where they gave one single female character original cool powers and called it a day. Perhaps I'm just ignorant of too much D.C. canon, but it seems to me that the rest are all female versions of male superheroes, or else they have no powers at all. You could reasonably argue that it takes more skill to make it without powers, but there's a point where I want to see some laser beams, darnit. I want to see psychic rays and slicey things. That's why I read these comics at all and ignore things like Ghost World and A Jew in Communist Prague.

Ten four, come on back!

Nancy

You're right about the specifics - I think I just got scared and clammed up.

Anyway, I dig the serious, even when dealing with the camp. Comic books are comic books to me; I like them because they are cool, and they are fun. To me, Marvel is more self-aware, more light-hearted and less serious. I suppose that is good in making it more entertaining and more relatable, but I feel like if it is self-aware, it takes away from it.

All right, it's like Deep Blue Sea vs. Snakes On A Plane. Both are movies with Samuel L. Jackson fighting animals. But Deep Blue Sea is funny in itself as an animals-attack movie - it's great because of that, and that's all. But Snakes On A Plane knows what it is - it's a stupid movie about Snakes On A Plane. In making it self-aware, there is more winking at the camera. Now, D.C. is far more serious, but I like that. Marvel likes taking things a bit more lightly, and is probably a bit more self-aware, but I don't like that as much. I don't like being reminded that this is a comic book. Now I understand this is a slightly subtle difference I am focusing in on, but I believe the Snakes vs. Sharks conundrum I'm depicting may be the root of some of the more obvious differences between the two. D.C. is darker, and it does not try to make light of any of the situations. It doesn't need to, because it being a comic book in itself lightens the mood. It is a comic book, and it deals with serious issues through the medium of colors and capes. Now, Marvel does this too, but with a wink. D.C. will not wink at you. D.C. knows that if you are reading it, you understand that it is a comic book. And that's all you need to know. Once again, Samuel L. Jackson helps me make a point.

Note how I've tried to avoid mentioning the Green Arrow? We're good at picking out each other's weakness. Yes, I'm not too keen on the fellow; the goatee was where it REALLY got bad. I always assumed it was my own prejudice against bad facial hair, but if you are going on about the cheese factor, then it must be bad. But once again, comic books are comic books. There's undoubtedly going to be some cheese in there. You can either wink, nudge it, egg it on, or you can stand strong, shoot your arrow, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Speaking of the Green Arrow, I think I'll name check the good man he debuted with - yes, that's right, Aquaman. I feel this is a case of possible incredible cheese that was handled well, and therefore escaped the possibility of eye-rolling. Aquaman is a beloved character, who is able to be tough despite the fact that he's AQUAMAN. Come on - we all know there are a ton of different ways Aquaman could have gone goofy. And yet, he is very tough and angry character. He is even ripe with vengeance (Shalen: I'm trying to edit this from e-mail format but I just can't top that one) against Black Manta. I always thought of vengeance as the one thing that demanded respect - he's not just fighting for the greater good, he's fighting for his own personal agenda, something deep within him that he must satisfy. You did note your respect for the Justice League, so I won't stay on this for too much longer. But think of how lame Aquaman could have been, and look at what he is now. Without a single wink.

Now, to touch briefly on the ladies (if I were Kyle, I'd make a joke right now). I am very upset with the crossover universe, because Electra and Storm are probably my least favorite parts of Marvel whereas Catwoman and Wonder Woman are my favorite parts of D.C.. So, you understand, this is a slap in the face. It was also rough to see Batman fail... the only condolence is watching The Hulk go down. But now, think, The Hulk - king of brute strength in Marvel's world - was taken down by Superman, D.C.'s most powerful asset. That say something - Strongest vs. strongest and D.C. wins?

Yeah, D.C. doesn't have as many strong females as Marvel, but I do believe what they got is good. I will stand by Catwoman and Wonder Woman any day. I don't know too much about Elektra, so I can't shoot her down, but most people know how I feel about Storm. Her ability is great, sure. She, as a character, leaves something to be desired. Take away the superhuman ability to control the weather, and you have an arrogant and stiff woman that Wonder Woman could take down any day. And as for the Black Canary...I know you'll hate this, but she is the token bombshell. She's also got that underdog appeal, in the fact that she wanted to be on the police squad, but she didn't get in. Does she let that stop her? No! Vigilante away!

I think one thing about me is I get awfully wrapped up in the little details of characters and ignore the grand scheme of things. I take motivations, demeanors and outfit choices into more consideration than I do superpowers, or the amount of general good they do for mankind. I mean, Superman is IT. He is the KING. That's an unarguable fact. And Batman is the toughest, and Catwoman is the sexiest, and Wonder Woman's got the girls-can-do-it-too attitude, without weakening herself at all or giving any indications that she may not be able to play with the big boys. And, she's hot too! And Aquaman's got noble intentions and maintains a tough demeanor even though he swims with dolphins! Hey, I even accept Black Canary as the token bombshell, because she's an underdog who makes up for it by being a super-sexy crime fighter.

Nothing in the Marvel universe compares to that. In fact, the only motivations I really get wrapped into is those of X-Men, and even then I'm more intrigued by the motivations of Magneto. Perhaps I just love the characters in D.C. more. Perhaps I just think it's okay to be serious in a comic book, because it's a comic book. But, I know the sight of Superman flying across the sky instills more pride than Captain America chilling with the Falcon. I know Batman's cape flapping in the wind is more intense than Spidey slinking up a wall. And Wonder Woman makes me say 'you go girl' way more than Storm.

I got really into this time - your thoughts?

Shalen

Don't get scared. You're doing great, so give it to me, baby. :) That's what Crossfire is all about. So here goes.

I can see what you mean about self-awareness having the potential to spoil a concept, especially since you chose a movie I loved vs. a movie I did NOT love for exactly those reasons. And hey, Samuel L. Jackson WAS in both of those. Heh. I just never dig on D.C.'s mix of angsty and serious plotlines being carried out by people in, not only superhero outfits, but the very corniest of the superhero outfits.

Of course, I have to wince when you mention Captain America and the Falcon, because I'm not particularly fond of those costume concepts, either. They've done the same thing D.C. did to Superman with adding long hair and stubble and so on, but in this reader's opinion it's still silly. That's also, by the way, how I feel about Aquaman. And yes, if the strongest guy ever is really what you're looking for as a primary characteristic in a hero, there's no beating the big red S. I know that. Heck, I'm using Superman postage stamps right now, speaking of iconic and lucrative marketing. But you can go right on saying Batman and Superman are the greatest all day long. I agree, they're pretty awesome. But there are still just two of them, they're both male, and that's not enough.

And as for Storm: I actually really liked her more formal persona, because there were so few of them. She had dignity. She had poise. And she did not, with occasional exceptions, act as a kidnappable love interest/Great Man's Weakness. In the Ultimate Universe she's basically reduced right back down to that role, she talks like everyone else, and she dresses like a streetwalker, sort of a more extreme version of the Halle Berry interpretation. In her original incarnation I liked her because she didn't HAVE to act sexy. You can probably gather that's why I like Elektra as well (in the comics, heaven deliver us from the bad, bad movie). There's nothing I can do about the costumes, but at least there wasn't the simper, slink, nudge, wink thing going on with these two.

I like that about Wonder Woman, also. And to me, sexy is not a good thing in somebody I want to consider a hero. The Moon Knight doesn't wear belly shirts and stand around with biceps aloft, flexing for the ladies. I don't want my heroines doing the female equivalent of that, either. Especially not when that's the only way writers can think of to indicate a character's ambiguity as far as good or bad is concerned.

You're right. I DO hate it about Black Canary. But the Token Bombshell thing is still a good point, because that's more or less what the X-men's Jean Gray does in between Phoenixing out. Kitty Pryde has been known to phase and out of that role also (hur hur). Those characters are inescapable, and I'd be a liar if I said I find Black Canary more obnoxious than (shudder) Felicia Hardy as the Black Cat.

Superman and Captain America are a reasonably fair comparison, inspirationwise, but Batman and Spider-man really are not. Batman and Daredevil would be a lot closer in terms of their behavior and personalities, though admittedly Daredevil isn't considered by many to be Marvel's best. I like him a lot in the comics, but he could be accused of being a not-very-successful answer to Batman.

In conclusion: to me, slinking down a wall is far more inspirational and makes far more sense then standing, arms folded, on the edge of a building. But then, like many comics fans, I often feel like one of the sideliners, one of the slinkers. Spider-man's true appeal lies, not in how much his life sucks (they're all like that, more or less) nor in his low budget (which is a little less common), but in that he's a geek. Like me. Like many of us. And us geeks ARE excessively self-aware; it's part of what makes us geeks to begin with. Maybe that ruins the experience for you. It doesn't for me.

Either way, it's been great spending some time debating with you, Nancy. Sometime I hope we can get together and compare the merits of guys bulging out of their flapping capes vs. guys bulging out of their tattered flannel shirts. Heh heh.

Part of