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?
I don' t really have a problem using made up cities over real ones. Lets face it Metropolis is suppose to represent NY but the more upbeat, progressive and modern aspects leading the way to the future, while Gotham is more dark gritty. Its a shadowy reflection of NY.
I do think about how many Marvel heroes are in the NY area and I have to wonder if in real life a group of people were responsible for destroying large portions of the city several times over they would not be hailed as heroes but instead would be treated as pariahs and probable run out of town.
I think back then, until Marvel came around, comics were sort of made up. Superman was a superhero who saved the day, the characters didn't have much depth according to interviews I have seen, and the stories were fantasy and weren't trying to be too real. Marvel changed things by making superheroes more real and down to Earth, feet of clay, Peter had problems before being a superhero and even more after, so they used real locations from around them to reinforce this idea. Spider-Man seemed more real because he lived in a real neighborhood and would swing by real locations.
Personally I LOVE the real locations. I once saw a documentary called Marvel's Guide to New York City. It showed real locations juxtaposed with the comic book versions of those locations. What the Daily Bugle could have been based on, Dr. Strange real apartment, where Gwen Stacy died (both locations), what Avenger's Mansion could have come from, Hell's Kitchen, and so on. They would even do some live action stuff, showing a guy with an eye patch and a trench coat walk into a Barbershop and sit down. Then explain Nick Fury's secret entrance to SHIELD. They would also interview people, fans and comic creators, about it. Joe Quesada said growing up reading Spider-Man he found out he could take a bus and go visit where Peter lived in Queens since it was down the block.
Gallery
Real locations, to me, is such a fun idea. Allowing the reader to feel that the character is out there, or imagine "What If" the character was out there, what would that be like.
In my comic, Monkey Boy, I used San Diego because I liked the idea of real cities, San Diego hadn't really been focused on (mostly focused on New York), and I live closest to San Diego, not New York or LA.
But another thing about using real locations instead of fake ones is that the writer and artist, with real ones, has real reference to go off of. There is a real Downtown San Diego. That can be easier than trying to make one up, but then again you cannot alter, change, or add or make up parts of the city. Not really. In made up cities like Gotham or Metropolis you can design a whole city and make it look how you want, and when you need a new location just add on to it. In Starman James Robins said that he wanted to create a city, and so they made up Opal, came up with the idea of whats on the outskirts of Opal, the style of the buildings, it's French background, whats underneath Opal. It allowed them the freedom to create a whole city and its rich history. So each has their advantages and limitations from a creative standpoint. But personally I love the real locations.
Fake cities are better. The writer can be more creative. And novel agents/publishers tend to agree since they have often rather have fake cities than real ones, unless the city is really important to the story.
I prefer either or. I mean, even the fake cities had a natural look to them. Also, I think the recent layout to Gotham is a compilation of a few cities like Chicago, New York, and another city, despite it being located in NJ. I forgot where I read that at.
personally I like real cities. Fake ones, or ones only based off real ones (Gotham/Metropolis) just seek to further disjoint you from the setting and take more suspension of disbelief.
though not indictive of whether I prefer Marvel over DC...I DO prefer Marvels use of "real" cities over DC's "fake" ones.
A little interesting tie-in to this topic: on the episode of young justice where Amazo was split in two parts, you briefly see a map of where the two parts are going: Star labs in boston and new york. Gotham is actually placed right over Bridgeport, Connecticut (the state I'm from)... If you know Bridgeport and the hard times its gone through, calling it Gotham is funny/sad
A little interesting tie-in to this topic: on the episode of young justice where Amazo was split in two parts, you briefly see a map of where the two parts are going: Star labs in boston and new york. Gotham is actually placed right over Bridgeport, Connecticut (the state I'm from)... If you know Bridgeport and the hard times its gone through, calling it Gotham is funny/sad
I like real cities but I must say, over the years of reading about Gotham and Metropolis they feel real enough. But one of the oddest feelings I've felt in recent years regarding this topic was when I was working in Stamford CT it was around the same time Civil War started.
I dont feel fake cities make me feel any less over anything that happens in them, no more than do the fake characters in the comics (except for Flaming Carrot of course, who everyone knows is actually real).
I like the use of both real and fake cities in comics. I like seeing the real cities to see how good the artists do at rendering certain landmarks, much like in video games. But I also like the freedom that using a fake city gives to artists and writers.
Whenever I visited New York back in the eighties (and was reading Marvel religiously), it was cool to see real places featured in the comics. Not just the G.W. or Brooklyn Bridges or the Empire State Building, but also... ...Penn Station, where Karen said goodbye to her pimp and Ben Grimm boarded a bus with Miracle Man and Scourge. ...Strawberry Fields, where the X-Men fought Freedom Force and Spiral took Rachel to Mojoverse. ...the bar where Colossus fought Juggernaut after returning from the Secret Wars.
Fake cities make the world more crowded than it needs to be. Metropolis and Gotham City are cool, but where the heck are they supposed to be in relation to NY and Boston? And are Central and Keystone cities supposed to be Chicago and St. Paul?
" Real City Pros - If your loaded with money or live in America you can see where lots of cool comic things happened. - If your character lives there, strong chance their city won't be utterly destroyed ala Asgard style - Characters can run into famous people easier. Why would Uri Geller be hanging out in Latveria? - Won't spend years as a kid looking for fake places on a globe causing you to develop a inferiority complex.
Fake City Pros - Destruction on this magnitude can be amplified Groove Armada style. Permanently. - Don't have to worry about offending people from real cities. - Architecturally original and innovative designs can take place, who doesn't love creating and designing their own city? - You can make fun of actual cities and play up tropes. Imma go Real. I hate fakers. "
@aztek the lost: I was under the assumption that Brian Wood did live in New York. And I'm not knocking his stories. Either way, everytime I see a series is set in New York its a bit of a turn off for me. I just think, Why? Why not Miami, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Portland? Or be really creative and set your stories in rural Canada like Jeff Lemire's Essex County.
I like to see real cities in comics, but Gotham and Metropolis are iconic as hell. Wouldn't sound right to here Batman is based out of Detroit or something like that.
I think I've just grown accustomed to the way each company does things.... When DC characters are located in New York for extended periods of time, it bugs the crap out of me. Because DC stories are so much more fantastical, places like Gotham (with it's red sky and unearthly architecture) feels like The Shire or Mordor. And seeing them outside of those realms feels weird...Like seeing Frodo in an airport...
" i kinda like the fake ones better because they can act as metaphors Gotham city is literally all the bad parts of metropolitan life, it's nothing but crime, pollution, filth and mayhem, superman once described it as "A nightmare built out of metal and stone" opposed to that you have Metropolis, which for the most part is all the good aspects of a city, a strong sense of community, thriving business, high glorious skyscrapers, and there's superman to give everyone hope for a better tomorrow, plus you can blow up a fake city if you want without repercussions, but if you blow up new york people will be like "but um...New York's still here!!" "
This .... city (or locations) must be used as more than simple places where stuff happens , there must be a real reason for using them as part of the story
I like to be able to recognise places, whether I've been there myself or not, when I read comics. But imagining up new locations, scenery and colours...it shows imagination and skill.
I guess both are great. Just wish that the real life locations would be in Europe more often.
It's all about the character of the city and how it's used. Real cities lend themselves to a more textured realism. It's much easier to accomplish, and doesn't require much conceptualization or creation, just basic perception, copy and paste, so someone can simply focus on making the stories good. Their mirror is bound by the reality of that city. Of course with superheroes, this line of "reality" gets to stretch a bit so there is still freedom.
On the other hand, fake cities require much greater design and effort for the city to seem real, yet with skill can create essentially any story they can dream up. One could accomplish a similar feat with a real city, but when you're building from the ground up you get to play with elements you wouldn't otherwise see. Although, with cities like Metropolis and Gotham, you do still have certain guidelines to follow, but they're more like takes on Batman or Superman than say investigative journalism.
I'll just say, from guys like Bermejo and Azzarello , who already have gritty realism in their veins, I like the faker cities, and I believe that is the best storytelling, but it's so rarely done well, like a good Superman story.
Real City Pros: -Gives you something to relate to and find on a map. -Grounds things a wee bit more.
Real City Cons: -If you don't do your research about said locations, it shows. -If you put too many heroes in one real city, it gets kinda old. - Fake City Pros: -You can spread your heroes out more. -You don't have to worry too much about research, accents, landmarks, etc.
Fake City Cons: -Locations of your fake cities can get muddled over time. Is Gotham an analogue for New Jersey or Philadelphia? is Metropolis really in New York? And so on and so forth. -Appearance can change GREATLY from artist to artist.
There's a positive and negative to each sides. Sometimes I think DC gets a little too wrapped up with their "fake" cities and their locations, but Marvel is just as bad with having everybody hanging out in NYC 24/7.
I absolutely love fictional places. I think Gotham is a character of its own and really makes Batman comics so much more interesting. Arkham Asylum is the same way on a smaller scale. I love how different the locations can be when the writers can freely take liberties. That being said, I actually am a Marvel fan over DC. So you can imagine how thrilled I am to see certain stories take place in Madripoor, X-Men's Utopia, and Shi'ar space to name a few.
" To me, as a whole, Marvel seems more grounded than DC. A lot of their characters don't have this god-like power, and they're more relatable and human for it. It's not a knock against DC, I just feel as though it's easier to see ourselves in Marvel's heroes. The whole fake city vs real city goes along the same lines; the cities, like the heroes, in DC are these iconic ideas (fast-moving Central, gritty Gotham, or utopian-esque Metropolis, etc.), so it's hard to get a true feel for what they'd be like. "
As it was previously stated, Marvel (or any) stories being in real cities help people to feel like they could actually see this stuff happening. Someone who lives in New York could actually imagine seeing Spidey swinging to the next emergency or someone in South America could imagine seeing Tyrone Cash cutting a bloody swathe through its jungles (even though this was only in the Ultimate Universe). However, I kinda enjoy DC's fictional cities for the simple reason they don't exist yet you're able to attach then to real cities. Star City would be Philadelphia, Gotham is Chicago, I'm back and forth with Metropolis being in Illinois or New York (especially seeing as how it Supes and Bats are almost always steps away from each other).
Personally, as long as the fake cities can be attached to real ones, I don't care. Because when the stories are written correctly, you can imagine the epic battle that took place directly in front of you. So actually, in my opinion, it depends on how well the art portrays the cityscape and how well the hero(es) are written when they interact with it.
I really don't have a preference. If the story is good I'll read it. The book I usually read takes place in Space so there really isn't a city that it is based in.
I have no real preference, I think it's good both ways. Because when I go through a city that has been in a comic I think of all the things that have happened there in comics. But I will get so into reading Batman that I will start thinking of Gotham as real (this goes for other comics as well). So I really have no preference.
Isn't daytime Metropolis based on Toronto? I think Joe Shuster first work for a newspaper that had a building similar to the daily planet's which sparked the idea for Clark Kent to be a journalist.
Don't remember where I saw that, but it also said that Gotham was night time NYC.
I think it's great to use 'real city's' in the comics. I remember going on vacation to America when I was 16, in New York City to be precise. And it was great to see all those famous spots, now just walking there myself. I kept thinking to myself, oow i know this spot, and here was that battle etc etc.
Fake for me... I think they are more interesting... I have been to all the real cities, they suck. I like stories that take place on Alien worlds so the cities are always fake... And I love them... Or under water is cool aswell, Atlantis, I would love to visit them. New York sucks, Chicago sucks, Boston is okay... Why don't we have more Superhero's from Boston? I know someone is going to make a Daredevil joke here.
Honestly, I don't really lean either way. Both approaches have their pros and cons, and I'm glad I can enjoy both from DC and Marvel. I'd hate for DC to abandon their fictional cities in favor of real ones. The fictional cities are part of their identity. All the same, I'd hate for Marvel to start using fictional cities. It's the more grounded universe and the use of real locations adds to that.
Real cities. It seems kinda retarded when you have a fake city, yet you refer to a real country. Where are they located in proximity to others? It just makes geography a lot harder on the reader and the writer. I would not be so against fake cities if their names were not so bad. Bludhaven? Really?
It always does confuse me when DC has cities like Gotham, but then also refer to New York, which I always thought of as New York. Then we have the issue of where does Metropolis refer to...DC? The buildings there arent over 40 feet tall according to local law, and I always remember skyscrapers in Superman comics. I guess that's why Marvel focueses on more real characters with real flaws, kind of like the real world we live in. Good topic!
155 Comments