Stuck in a Moment

[Eddie G.]

Does it ever seem that DC is unable to redeem itself in the eyes of many comic book fans.

Back in the day, when the first marvel books, after the company's re-invention, came out they were revolutionary. Instead of the average above men superheroes, we had the Thing who hated being a superhero, he had the Hulk who barely was a hero, we had Spiderman who was nothing more than a sad confused teenager, we had the X-men who were feared by others, and the rest of the Fantastic Four who constantly dealt with problems all families deal with. Even Captain America, once America's greatest hero had become a brooding faded legend who was out of his element and time.

As many know this was not the best time for DC's heroes. Batman the dark urban legend who seeked vegance for the death of his parents had become a parental guardian who blindly lead minors into battle against the Joker, once a sick serial killer now merely a joke. As Superman, who a long time before threatened a curropt politician's life and beat the crap out of man who beat his wife had become a blue boyscout who fought threats that never seemed to threatening.

However now Batman has packed away his shark repelent, he know fights in seedy strip clubs and fights his enemies to the edge of death. Superman had gone through a complete psychological breakdown at one point after executing two of his enemies. And the Joker is now possibly the worst serial killer in the comic book universes.

So you might imagine that I was suprised to hear a Marvel fan, and another, and another, go on about how more realistic Marvel comics is than DC. Now like stated above, Marvel did change comics and was at one point superior to DC. But now they seem on equal footing, in fact one could easily say that DC is now more realistic than DC.

The problem is people who don't read DC seem to be stuck in the mentality that DC is still like it was in the Silver age and late Golden age. It is very annoying when people who admit they never read a Superman comic book and then rant about how bland and over powered Supes is. Maybe if they knew what a curse his super hearing really is or the marriage problems he recently had they'd think differently of him. But sadly many people stay away from DC and stick with Marvel because of this industry mentallity that existed forty years ago.

I've been wanting to post my thoughts about this for a while so there it is.


Coments?

[randomguy]

Well, at this point, I think it's rather moot to argue over which company is more "realistic". We're talking about comic books here, and both universes are so incredibly fantastic that it's stupid to try and debate which is more down to Earth. After all, both universes hinge on magic, cosmic beings, Pagan gods, and superpowered people. Both universes feature, at the very least, hundreds of costumed heroes.

The DC universe is populated by fake cities (Gotham, Star, Metropolis, Keystone, Central, Coast), while on Marvel's Earth, thousands of people a year are inexplicably born with super... excuse me, mutant powers. I figure those are probably the two biggest strikes against the argument of realism in their respective universes.

But if you're talking about which universe takes a more realistic approach to storytelling, I think there's a legitimate debate there. I think you're right, Blue Wolf, about most people being bogged down in the Silver Age exploits of DC. Even after all the work that's been done, the vast majority of the populace still considers Adam West's Batman the definitive version, and Superman and Wonder Woman are perpetually viewed as the goody-two-shoes of comicdom. There's obviously been a shift since then, but those old conceptions haven't washed away quite yet. Marvel, meanwhile, has been relatively dark since day one... at least, darker than DC. That's not to say that DC gets a bad rap. In fact, I'd say 99% of comics fans don't have a real bone to pick with DC- most people probably respect all that the company's done, even if they don't like their stories personally. If anything, I think there's a stronger anti-Marvel sentiment than an anti-DC one.

Nowadays, I don't think either universe has an inherently more realistic style of storytelling. In fact, I'd argue that what matters is not which universe you're reading, but the writer, editor, and the rest of the creative team. Greg Rucka writes pretty down-to-Earth stuff, whether you're reading Wolverine or Gotham Central. Grant Morrison plays up the fantastic, the cosmic, regardless of what universe he's in, be it JLA or New X-Men. In other words, the universe, in the end, isn't important... it's the talent. That's what really matters. Your best bet is to define a comic's realism by it's creative team.

[MattL.]

I found this on the DC Boards and I think it sums it up perfectly:









"I see alot of talk about appealing to the "mainstream audience". Well I would consider myself from that audience since my main exposures are Superman the movie, 4 or 5 older comics and Superman the animated series and I've been reading alot of stuff about comics and buying some things (again) just recently. I think it is more or less fair to say that I am someone from that audience and can tell you a few things.

In regards to Superman and myself I think the first movie and the animated series beats out anything the comics do.

Heck for one thing, you can get the concept of Supergirl just fine. I mean what made you guys think that making her this over complicated thing would get our dollars?

I know alot of you think that we'll only respond to Superman if his hair is combed down and he's wearing jeans ala Smallville but that really isn't the case.

Alot of us are just scratching our heads wondering when he's gonna get over himself and put the cape on.

People love, at the very least have a fondness for superheroes or a superhero. Sure say words like "cheesy" all to casually but you can bet your ass we'll be right there at the theatre with all the diehard comicbook fans anytime a superhero or comic based movie comes out.

As a matter of fact alot of things that I've read from the industry and fans in terms of what will "appeal to the mass audience" is just really weird. Turning Captian America into a jerk and taking the wings off his head is supposed to make me think comics are cool and/or important literature?


So why then do people not read comic books? Well because we may kid the superhero genre alot, we go there expecting a certain degree of action, romance and escapism. I don't know why it may be so hard for you to grok, but we make fun of Supermans red underpants because we like him not because we'd rather see him with electric sparks coming off of him or wearing leather.

The weird part is that those action, escapist, colorful elements seem to be present in movie and cartoons..but not the comics. You guys are trying so hard to be important or to be constroversial, that everytime we see a movie or cartoon and start getting intrested in where this stuff comes from we go there only to find that apparently superhero comics want to be anything but superhero comics.

All this apparently in a attempt to appeal to us. The "mass audience". Who came looking for the fun, but instead get the angst, the politics, this whole Watchmen syndrome, and some boring or ugly art. Jeezus Christ let a comicbook look like a comicbook instead of a vampire novel!

I've also seen flak aimed at the Superman Birthright comics. I can tell you the problem sure as hell ain't because that Man of Steel story was more appealing to a "mass audience". Its because of exactly two things.

1. The story really isn't any fun. Still trying way to hard to be "important" or "relevant" or whatever.

2. The art if friggin UGLY. I mean, this might seem cool to comics people who think it'll make it look literary or something, but to the average person it looks like a bunch of scratchy crap. Why can't comicbooks look like comicbooks? Why isn't the guy who draws Superman/Batman doing this thing? Or how about just using the animated shows construct. There Krypton wasn't silly or a dry disoptia thing. It was cool and the angle with Brainiac rocked!

see people who like the Man of Steel story ripping on people who like the old stuff because their version is the one that better suits "modern" tastes. Uhm, it was 1986.

Besides, one of the stupidest things comics do is try to fool us into thinking Superman is a brand new character. He's not. We know it.

Truth be told, we like it better when you can admit that and run with it instead of trying to make him hip. Take the movie for example, even though it was taking place in modern times (at least then) he was still Superman. Clark Kent still had his hat! Cool!

The truth is the only ones who are ashamed of superhero costumes and action, who think the genre is forever overshadowed by the spectre of the 60's Batman show and who all around think that superheroes are something to laughed and scoffed at, ...are you guys. Seems to me no one is more ashamed of comics than a superhero fan and as a result of that you end up doing some of your most shameful crap.

I've seen this inferiority complex for years everytime I would start gravitating towards comics. Also, whats with the social issue thing? Jeezus, you guys have been on this kick ever since that comic where Green Arrows sidekick was shooting up. This kind of stuff is only cool with superheroes when Alex Ross does it because then its not happening every issue and its still entertaining.

Honestly, I've never seen any other form of genre or entertainment try to apologize for itself while at the same time being pompus as what comics do.

Just shut up and have some fun, and if you can't have fun with a good guy, the greatest good guy; who flies and shoots lazers out of his eyes, and loves a girl from afar behind a pair of glasses what can you have fun with?"

[Mattashell]

Since the sixties, Marvel has built an industry out of heroes the reader can identify with. People with real problems we can relate to. DC is equipped for a totally different type of storytelling, but instead of utilizing thier strengths, they're trying to be Marvel. One thing I've noticed since I've been on these boards is that die hard DC fans tend to apreciate the work of Geoff Johns, because he portrays DC Comics heroes as what they're designed to be, icons.

The trouble fans have with DC is that these characters that were once iconic super-heroes that mankind could aspire to be, are now whiny little boys and girls that run away from thier responsibilities, and that's Marvel's job. Nothing against Marvel, because thier characters are meant to be relatable. That's what works with Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-Men, The Hulk and others. DC heroes have too much history for DC to turn around and tell us Superman can be Spider-Man. He's not, he never will be, and if he is, who will be Superman?

Don't look to fans and say they'll never forgive the Silver Age of DC. It's DC who needs to stop distancing themselves from the Silver Age. It's true that comics, ALL COMICS, were a lot hokier in that day, but that's superficial. The content is what was essential, and that content did not involve marriage problems or self doubt. It didn't involve womanizing, rejecting loved ones or uttering Eastwood-esque one-liners while crunching bones.

Marvel is doing its job perfectly well by being itself, but don't expect me to aplaud DC for trying SOOO hard to be more like marvel. What fans really want is Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and all the other iconic names that have graced the comic page since the forties BACK.

[Brainatra]

What the previous two posters said. I don't particularly see how it's "realistic" to see a guy in a bat-costume beating up an insane larcenous clown, no matter how much angst/grim-and-grittiness one tries to heap upon it...


If they have to imitate a past era/someone else's style (Marvel's), I'd sooner DC tried to imitate the Bronze Age (early 70's to mid-80's) more---a time era when the "hokier" elements were toned down and the characters were written in a more three-dimensional manner (Batman was clearly a more stoic-minded "darker" figure during this period, and Lois had better things to do---like her *job*---than worry about Supes' secret ID/try to marry Supes), but they weren't all acting like, well, emotionally-stunted 15-year-olds like too many of them seem to nowadays (and we were also spared the heavy-handed revisionisms as well---though there was more attempts at addressing minor continuity issues during this time, such as moving Superboy's era up to the 50's [and in the 80's, to the 60's])...

-B.
Also thinks the "Superman killing the PZ crooks" stuff was completely unnecessary, but that's another topic...

[Clayface]

Originally Posted by MattL.

I found this on the DC Boards and I think it sums it up perfectly

[rant]
You know, that rant brings up a problem I have with all those that complain about "realism" in comics. Where does it say that just because a comic is "real" or "gritty" that it can't also be a form of escapism? It is for me, and it obvisouly is for all the other people out there that are gladly forking over thier money for these comics. Saying that "realism" excludes a comic from being an escape is absolutely ridiculous. Does that mean every non-fiction and history book cannot provide that sense of escape for the reader (or how about "real" TV shows like CSI or Law & Order)? Of course not, and I think you'd be hard pressed to convince those that read such books that their choice of reading material was any less fun or provided any less means of escapism.

The plain simple truth is, some people prefer their heros to be portrayed this way, and some don't. If you don't like it, I can understand and sympathize, but don't put the comic/writing down just because it isn't your cup of tea. To all those that complain that a comic that is "real" isn't entertaining, I say: get off your high-horse. I'm tired of listening to such pompous rants like the one MattL. posted for us.
[/rant]

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I suspect getting in the middle of a serious Marvel vs. DC debate ends up kind of like a Mac vs. Windows debate. 99% of the people involved can talk about it intelligently, but that last 1% consists of people who 1) know nothing about the other side other than the propaganda they've been spoon-fed, 2) have no desire to change their world views to match reality, and 3) have no intent of ever yielding ground that the other side contributed something useful. This can lead to some amusement for a while, but always ends in useless sputtering rage and completely non-sensical hogwash.

At this point, I'd say Marvel and DC are little more than mirror images of each other, neither more realistic or "down-to-earth" than the other. The creator is more important than the characters or the publishing company. I'm constantly amazed at how vehemently comic book partisans willfully and repeatedly reject this idea.

-- Ed/Ace

[MattL.]

The creator is more important than the characters?

I don't think you can dice it like that. Thats like when people try to say the writing is all there is to a comic or its the art. One isn't worth a damn without the other.

Same goes for the creator thing. He could be the greatest creator in the world but if its a story or characters I don't give a crap about then its not gonna matter who he is. I dont care if Wizard magazine thinks he's Gods gift to comics.

btw, f**k Wizard!

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Originally Posted by MattL.

The creator is more important than the characters?

I don't think you can dice it like that. Thats like when people try to say the writing is all there is to a comic or its the art. One isn't worth a damn without the other.

I think Spider-Man is one of the greatest fictional characters of all time. The Spider-Man Clone Saga still happened. Venom was a great idea before he turned into a joke.

Batman. Adam West. The truly, stunningly horrid comics after Fred Wertham had his say. 'Nuff said.

The Hulk is hugely compelling as a character. Ang Lee and James Schamus started off decently and turned a whole lot of it into crap a little more than two hours later.

Chris Claremont created and the New X-Men and took them (and comics) to new creative heights. Then the Byzantine storylines and ever-increasing X-titles made the whole thing turn into a parody of itself. And can any of the characters of the X-Men overcome what the current X-title writers are putting them through?

Justice League Adventures. One of the most inconsistent titles on the stands right now, with some truly great stories (#10, #11, and #13 come to mind immediately) and some astoundingly bad ones (a disturbing amount of the rest). Same characters all the time. Different creators. Coincidence?

Alan Moore took Swamp Thing, a character and a comic which had turned into a one-note horror cliche, and turned it into one of the greatest comics of the 80's. He did it again with WildCATS and Supreme for Image, when both were little more than pretty rip-offs of better books by other publishers.

Frank Miller took Batman and revisioned him, leading ultimately to the works of Bruce Timm and Paul Dini.

The Flash wasn't much more than a "really fast gimmick of the month" before Mark Waid picked up the title and, if you'll pardon the pun, ran with it.

A good creator can take a one-note, useless character and make them into something interesting that you can't take your eyes off of. A bad creator can take the best character in the world and make him or her complete and utter trash. This is how I can love Batman while not buying any of the Batman titles except Batman Adventures.

-- Ed/Ace

[MattL.]

Dini and Timm took alot more from the Batman mythos than just Frank Miller, (thank god) including the 60's show and most notably Batman comics of 70's where he had already been returned to a dark character long before Miller came along and made him a psychopath.

However, its good to know I'm not the only one who buys only Batman Adventures when it comes to Batbooks.