Does it matter to you where your favorite heroes are hanging out?
The idea of using real cities and locations in comics versus using made up cities isn't a new idea. Last summer I brought up the question of whether or not actual locations should be used. Today I want to focus more on the two main publishers that tend to prefer one tactic over the other.
Marvel and DC Comics clearly have a different feel to their stories. I don't want this to turn into a Marvel Vs. DC argument because neither publisher strictly adheres to one philosophy. For the most part, Marvel uses actual locations. You will see Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four and Avengers fighting evil in New York while the X-Men are keeping busy in San Francisco. DC's stories more often take place in made up cities. Batman hangs out in Gotham City, Superman calls Metropolis (and Smallville) home while the Flash is running around Keystone City. Even though comic books and superheroes aren't real (*gasp!*), does seeing the heroes in a real or fake city affect the way the stories come across? == TEASER == When I last touched on the subject, one area I focused on was when a real location was damaged. Soldier Field was blown up in Marvel and San Diego had some sinking issues in DC. When an actual location is wrecked and you happen to live nearby, that reinforces the fact that these stories are pure fiction (not that anyone in New York is really expecting to see Spider-Man swinging by).
It was Stan Lee that pioneered the move to using real cities. This was a way for readers to feel closer to the stories. Aside from Asgard, Wakanda and Latveria, pretty much all the locations in Marvel exist in the real world. Nightwing relocated to New York City recently and the Teen Titans are in San Francisco, so neither publisher is strictly using fake or real locations. When I was in New York and drove over the George Washington Bridge, I couldn't help but think that was where Green Goblin killed Gwen Stacy. That gave me a tiny moment of feeling like I was connected to the story even though I had read it years ago. Most readers do enjoy stories from both publishers but there are those that strongly prefer one over the other. What I want to know is, does the fact that DC uses made up cities more often and Marvel uses real ones affect your opinion on the two publishers and their characters? Does it matter if made up characters are in made up cities or do you prefer to think of them in real locations?
The problem is that, they are all fapping to new york. They should spread out, for example deadpool's HQ used to be in a row house in san fran. Which made him fresh cool and original.
i'm a dc fan all the way, but you have admit, the whole aspect of using real cities does make the story that much more realistic and believe-able; i love dc, but it lacks that authenticity of real cities, and I think that's one thing that the people currently in charge of DC are kicking themselves for not having. after all this time of using fake cities it's not like they could just uproot all the characters to make the story more authentic, because then it would completely jeprodize the entire universe of the characters, thus destroying what people have become used to. besides, if they did all of the marvel fans would say that dc ripped off marvel, so at this point dc is kind of screwed into still using fake cities, even though real cities would enrich the experience by 10 times
Don't really have a problem with either, tbh, I'd just wish they use other cities sometimes if they were to use real ones. Show some love for the Southern Cities (Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, Houston, etc.)!!
Honestly I'm fine either way, I mean I've never been to places like New York City or anything, but I've read stories where the city has been attacked and almost completely destroyed ( Ultimatum, Marvels Project, Ultimates and Ultimates 2 to name a few) and it doesn't take away from the story to me. The one thing I guess would be an advantage for DC and fake cities is like with Gotham City a writer/artist can give their own opinion and personally thoughts into what they think the city would look like, we've seen it in many different forms over the years, some over the top dark and gritty while others are morel like modern day cities like we've seen in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
I very much prefer real cities. I also prefer characters with more human personalities. This is why I prefer Marvel over DC. Nothing against DC, I'm sure it's great...but to each his own.
I do appreciate the the creative license offered by fake cities. There just isn't a city like Gotham, and confining Batman to a real city would break his character. But why does Smallville need to be in Kansas? Why go to the trouble of creating a fake city and then trying to place it in the real world? That's where the fiction starts to fall apart for me. Then again, having a real city with superheroes flying around has a similar effect of reality breaking. I think Marvel and DC tackle the problem of placing super heroes in a world very much like our own in different ways, and ultimately they both work just fine they just require a slightly different kind of imagination.
Seems like Marvel and DC fans each tend to prefer the other side's way on this one. Me too, I'm a Marvel guy, but it seems like a super villain would have to be severely mentally deficient to hatch his plan in NYC. He'd have a dozen super heroes on him in 5 minutes.
i prefer real cities, and that is a knock against DC :p
"
Marvel got a ton of fictional ones too. :P
Anyway, for the people that have been to NY, sure, it's great to use it as backdrop. But for the 80% of the rest of the word, it's as fictive as Gotham City. Fictional cities tend to allow more flexibility. You can't blow up a real city as easily as a fictional town. Specially if a real-life threat/accident happen around it. And what if the real city takes a big wound? (NY and 9/11) Do you have to adjust the fictional one to reflect it too? But doesn't that make the heroes less efficient, specially if they avoided worse threats in the past?
Anyway, both are great. DC uses as much real and fake places as Marvel. Only on the opposite side of the spectrum. Many heroes are based on real places, DC also has NYC, Washington, Chicago, etc.. And place fake cities all over the USA. Marvel instead has created a strange world outside the USA. Wakanda, Genosha, Atlantis, Madripoor, Muir Island, Savange Lande, Transia, etc..many places I can't imagine how they would fit in Europe, living there myself - like Latveria. How does it fit in our Continent??
It depends what role the writers/artists want to give those cities and characters. A rotten dangerous and dark city like Gotham was needed to the Batman. But Spidey is a "popular" kind of character and needs to be grounded. Though the universe of Marvel is a bit more fantasy, what with all the mutants, etc.. DC heroes are more god-like, maybe, but it's a more scifi oriented universe.
It won't make any difference if the story is any good.
That being said, it's still nice to have a hero "from" your city, so to speak: Runaways were from Los Angeles, and being in that vicinity it was pretty nice to see buildings I recognize and pass by regularly in their stories. I probably lean more towards real cities, but a fake city is just as good if it's done well.
I prefer real cities. As the guy above said, "It just makes geography a lot harder on the reader and the writer." Look, you know where Chicago is located. It isn't that far from Milwaukee, it's a enormous city, placed around Great Lakes, etc, etc. But what do you know about Gotham? When Gotham was founded? It is a city of american settlers or european imigrants? Is there a river crossing the city? Is it located in Illinois, Missouri or Alaska? (By the way, i'm not a reader of Batman, so, I don't know the answer). Each city has it's own features, it's own traces. They can be valuable, when writing a good history. Why Jericho Drumm came from Haiti and lived in New Orleans? He's a supernatural superhero and this explains a lot, considering the social-cultural background of the city. When Thor located Heimdall, he was a human guarding a bridge on the debris of New Orleans (N.O. again?), devastated by the Katrina. This matters for me. Reality is full of amazing places. Buuuuut.. Fake cities are useful only when presenting a new concept. Why invent a new gigantic urban center when there is a lot of big cities around? NY, SF, San Diego, LA. I still keep asking myself the reason of Smallville existence. I know there's some little city in Oklahoma or Nebraska that Sups would fit perfectly. It's just find out. They could spread out. San Antonio is the seventh city of the country, Houston and Dallas aren't far from that. Phoenix is also a big city and Seattle is relevant, as well.
I like both, DC did a smart thing making fake cities because while I do love marvel I just think it is ridicules that you have Avengers, FF, Young Avengers, Avengers Academy, and not to mention all the lone wolf heroes who are active in the city. I know its a comic book but its hard to believe so many people can be so active in one place. NYC isn't that big. I like how California is being used by Xmen and the runaways, but you can probably squeeze another team. There are also other cities out there like Boston, and Chicago. However is probably would be too late in the game for Marvel to start making up cities so I'm just going to have to deal with it
In my opinion both have their pros and cons, a good balance would be ideal. The main problem with real cities is they tend to be over used and have to many heroes, while fake cities will tend to have a much smaller hero population. On the other side real cities are more relate able and balanced in comparison to fake cities, which tend to be a little extreme with certain ideals or shapes.
I personally somewhat prefer fake cities because they have more freedom and it doesn't seem as though every hero lives in the same State and city. For me it's just important that these fake cities have something realistic about them and don't feel way out there
I prefer made up ones since these are made up stories afterall, not a knock against using real cities in comics but...reality is boring but we all know Gotham is inspired by NYC, Chicago and Metropolis more LA...
I'm for the real cities because I prefer to be able to imagine Spider-Man in New York or the X-Men in San Fransisco. It does seem that in the Marvel U, almost everyone is in NYC though. Its probably because other locales seem to flop aka Great Lakes Avengers and West Coast Avengers.
I tend to prefer real cities because they give the story a more authentic feel by allowing me to imagine the regional culture of the story's setting.
I really don't mind imaginary cities, but where in the U.S. are Central City, Coast City, Fawcett City, ect.? I understand that Gotham City is supposed to represent New York City and I've heard speculation that Metropolis was based on Chicago, but both of these cities seem far different that their real world counterparts nowadays.
It is an utterly ridiculous stance to say that having real cities in comics makes it all more relatable. That's like saying fake buildings - or hell - fake people make comics less relatable. If I read about Spidey swinging in New York, I'm not gonna feel some kinship with him because I see him passing some dirty bridge that actually exists. If I see the FF in their jet, flying past the Empire State, I'm not going to get the sense of nostalgia - or at least, no more than watching a movie like Men in Black, or some other work of fiction located in real cities. It just doesn't work like that. Seriously when was the last time any of you watched one of a million movies based in New York, and cared? I don't bat an eye whenever I see Boston in a work of fiction. There is nothing relatable about it because it's not real. If a big crater gets blasted into Manhattan, who here is going to go, "hey, I can relate to that"?
PS. Give New York a break - there's like eight hundred heroes and villains chilling out there. It's a wonder the city is still in one piece.
That said (aka rant aside), I prefer fictional cities that have amalgamative properties of real world cities. Taking a piece of the real world and merging it into something new, yet still grounded in the real world. Good example is Gotham. Gotham has the classic era criminal element of old-style crime lords, like Chicago, the gritty elements of desperate living, like New York, governmental corruption of enormous scales, like New Jersey, and industrialization levels along with overpollution, like Philadelphia. Everyone (hyperbole obviously) can see a little bit of their town in cities like these, if they're well done and fleshed out. It feels richer because of freeness of creativity (you can't place Star Labs in downtown Chicago without clashing with the real world's industrial geography), it has a merged culture of other cities, and it is subject to true change. We all know NY isn't going to get nuked (at least not before a time-changing plot device fixes that up), so if some kind of pre-devastation prospect occurs, we all know that the city will never truly be out of the game. This doesn't apple to fictional cities (we all remember Bludhaven's gargantuan earthquake).
The way I see it is that, a city in a comic is like a character in it's own right and plays a HUGE part! So, I'm not swayed either way. Gotham for example, has a FAR different, feel, vibe or 'character' when compared with NYC. They both bring a whole element of their own to the storytelling. So to say that one is better than another. A fictional city is better or visa-versa, well, personally, it doesn't make alot of sense to me. =P
I prefer the fictional ones. I see a lot more personality in a place like Gotham or Opal City than any of the real ones. And as others have stated, Marvel's everyone in NYC approach is just ludicrous. But the issue I have with real locations is for the most part is that writers and/or artists for the most part don't know enough about them to do them justice. I've read comics where LA is just a short drive from San Francisco instead of hundreds of miles away. Spidey can be visiting Aunt May in Queens and get to the Daily Bugle in Manhattan in about two minutes. Other than mentioning a sports team or showing a landmark in the background, the "real" cities could be just about anywhere. With the fictional ones more efforts gets made to flesh them out.
With made up cities the artist doesn't have to focus on making it fit the actual city. Plus, with having a made up city, the city itself becomes a character. However, a real city makes the story feel more real and immersive.
Fictional cities are the best. That way, you can do whatever you want with the fictional monuments and buildings without receiving any negative feedback.
I love Erik larsen's Chicago because it might as well be Lowell, MA or Little Rock, AR or whatever. Larsen does not really incorporate any of the Chicago landmarks like Sears Tower or Wrigley field. It is basically just a typical city that just so happens to be called Chicago, Illinois and the Dragon lives there (or used to) and fights crime. Anyways, who cares, as long as the story is good.
I will go with fictional cities. you have more breathing room. you don't need to worry about geography or accuracy. if for some reason or another you need a certain building or architecture you can use it with out worrying if New York or L.A. have it or not. it gives more freedom for other minor traits as well, we have learned about Gotham's sport teams, or minor laws to fit a story and other trivia. just go with what feels right.
i don't think i have ever given this much thought. i guess because i don't really care as long as the story is good. But if a had to pick i would say fake cites. I just think it adds to the character of the book. Because not only are you learning about the main character you are learning about the city too and how it works. Sure most are based off of real cities but its still feel different, not only that it helps having big events feel more believable when your not having to wonder where is NYPD when all craziness break lose in NY. Also it nice not having overused cities like NY, SF, and Chicago being used.
Look, i love Gotham City. No "real city" can give me the feelings i have about gotham city. so, i am in favour of fake cities. And i hate it, when they show the "chicago-gotham" in the new movies...
I personally prefer fake cities, or "real" cities, that don't resemble too much of their real world counterparts. I just feel, that it gives so much more leash for the creators to create a setting that allows the story and illustrations to reach their full potential, without any restrictions of the real world cities may have. I don't say, that real world city setting don't work, but I prefer fake or not accurate "real" cities. :)
Hmm.. I'd like to think that the "fictional" cities DC use are representations of real cities. Gotham for example is a mash-up of Tokyo, New York, Chicago and Kowloon just like in Chris Nolan's interpretation.
i prefer fake cities for superhero style comics, as it allows writers and artists complete freedom to do anything they want within the environment. Even Batman in Gotham City wouldn't be as good in New York or a realistic 'gothic' city like London, New Orleans, Prague.
that said I'm aways trying to figure out the real life equivalent..is Gotham City based on Chicago, New York, Detroit or Philadelphia?
For horror / alt reality comics I think you have to use real cities otherwise the sense of dread or skewed relaity don't work as well, and the metaphors are lost.
155 Comments