In what ways is Marvel more realistic than DC?

  • 69 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Jnr6Lil (7689 posts) - - Show Bio

@filthythebear: Being in a wheelchair isn't a cause. Oracle isn't a cause. He rarely brings up what happened in the Killing Joke anymore. She just happens to be in a wheelchair. All you're doing is trying to bring in psychology to cover up your ignorance. Relatability is going through the same thing as someone else. People can relate to not having parents like Batman.

But hey since you want to bring in psychology, the Hulk has multiple personality disorder. Don't know anyone who reads comics, relating to that.

#52 Posted by filthythebear (26 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil: hey i think you might have a few issues and i'm really starting to worry about you. Remember when i said Oracle might indeed be a relatable character. Do you remember when i said i imagine dcs characters are probably more relatable now? I never said being in a wheelchair was a cause and you seem so furious that someone might offend your favorite make-believe characters that i think its messing up you cognitive reasoning. How can i simplify what i'm saying for a fifth grade level? Let me see...

Ok. What defines Batman in your mind? Is it that he is a kid who's parents were murdered? Or...is it how he dealt with that? Answer...? What defines batman is how he dealt with the murder of his parents.

Oracle. What defines Oracle? Is it her being in a wheelchair, as you seem to think, or is it how she deals with being in a wheelchair? Answer? And you better get this one right because people in wheelchairs hate being defined by their disability. Answer? Its how she deals with being in a wheelchair.

I'm doubting even this will be clear to you so let's see if i can make it even simpler.

Let's say Oracle is in a wheelchair, but in writing Oracle the writer writes her as someone who doesn't care about being in a wheelchair and just says her legs were crap anyway and she's happy they don't work. Now not only would this be bad writing, but it would not be relatable to anyone, especially people who are wheelchair bound.

Do you understand?

Is this clear?

I'm really spoon feeding now.

Being in a wheelchair doesn't automatically make her relatable if she isn't written like a person in a wheelchair would really be. Same with Batman. His parents being murdered doesn't make him relatable if the audience can't see truth and realism in how he reacted and reacts to it. Batman's writers admit he's nuts. Listen to Kevin Smith's podcast Fatman on Batman. He interviews batman writers and creators all the time and they often say he's a paychopath.

Now i know what part of your next post will be, so let me just make something painfully clear AGAIN!!!

I believe DC has made many of their characters more relatable, thereby negating (that means ending) this debate. My above comment about oracle is hypothetical (that means an imagines scenario) and not based at all on how the character is written. I'm sure she is written quite well and is relatable because of how she is written as a character, not simply because she's in a wheelchair. That is a patronising assumption to make and you shouldn't say things like that. Its saying that people in wheelchairs must like her because she's like them. Can you see how disgusting that is? Thats no different than saying all Asians relate to all asian characters just because they are asian. Its soooooo patronising.

I agree that a person might relate to the situation of being in a wheelchair, but we're talking about stories and characters, and its just not enough to base a character's relatability on. Its how she reacts to it that makes a wheelchair bound character relatable or not in story.

I'm not trying to dazzle you with any kind of psychology. This is pretty basic stuff.

Just think about what it is about a character that makes you keep buying a book every month. Say you were born on a farm. Do you say, "i totally get Superman, because i was born on a farm!" That's obviously stupid right? Of course it is. I grew up in a country town. Most of the guys in my town became alcoholics at 18. None of them ever went out and changed the world and the fact that Superman also grew up on a farm doesn't make him relatable to me. Its other things that make him and other characters relatable. Its how they react to what life throws them. Do you get that? Why do you think they've depowered Superman? To try and bring him down from being a god and make him more relatable.

I'll remind you about the fact that i believe DC is making its characters more relatable these day in a moment, but first let me comment on your hulk comment. I might have to simplify this a bit like my other points...

Hulk is not relatable because of a disorder he might have, just like Oracle is not simply relatable because of a wheelchair. Again, this is condescending and an afront to anyone with a mental disorder, which by the way is a growing problem. Google the stats on people with bipolar disorder in the U.S. Its scarey how many people have it and it makes people who have it do violent and nasty things that they wouldn't normally do.

But look, the disorder is just a tiny piece of what makes hulk a relatable character to a lot of people (not all perhaps, but a lot) is the way Banner handles what happens ro him ( although to be honest i think Marvel has screwed Hulk up a bit and made him rather unrelatable recently, but then i'm sure you'll remember the times i've said the differences between the companies don't really exist anymore? Oh no wait, thats one of the bits you keep missing. I'm sure you'll miss it again but i'll just keep going anyway.)

Actually if you take away Banner and ignore his struggle, hulk is more like what Batman and Superman used to be like.

Its like this. Batman, Superman and many of the other original flagship characters of DC were made to be characters audiences would aspire to be. They were an ideal, how we should be. Marvel tried to make their characters more like how we are and thereby more relatable to the average person. Read any book on the history of comics and let someone else tell you if you won't believe me. Its historical fact.

You seem to find this a bad thing and i want you to answer me this question. If you don't i'm going to have to just take it that you're not capable of any clever thoughts and give up on you. The question is this: why do you think making a relatable character is more important than making a character that is beyond us, someone we should aspire to be instead of who we already are?

I ask this question because its the crux of this whole debate. This is what DC fans are so angry about and fearful of.

Captain America isn't relatable to most of us. He's just so good and perfect and noble, but like Superman he is someone we aspire to be like. I'm interested to know why you are so horrified by this idea.

Anyway i'm bored of repeating myself and am disappointed your arguments haven't been more of a challenge, so i probably won't reply again. I'll only do so if you try a bit harder. Otherwise...try to lighten up a bit mate. Its only comics.

#53 Edited by xtremekidx (576 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

@juliedc said:

So is it still like that today? I definitely have noticed the moral, noble feel in DC now that I think about it.

How about the actual stories? Is there a difference between the way DC stories go and the way Marvel stories are done?

Also how long are Marvel stories before they move on to the next story compared to DC?

The only reason I am asking these questions is that I'd like to know more about Marvel to see if I would like to start reading their stuff, I know there have been some characters that have interested me but I am worried that I won't like it since I know next to nothing about Marvel outside of cartoons and movies.

I think it's evened out a fair bit. Since the Bronze Age, DC has begun introducing flaws into even their most infallible heroes. Superman struggles with his legacy and with doubt nowadays, Batman has his paranoia about superhumans, Aquaman is torn between his surface world heritage and Atlantis. So on, so forth. Overall, DC's heroes seem to be held to a more higher standard, but that's changed in recent years.

The stories have changed as well. Marvel started doing multiple issue long plots in the Silver Age, while DC was still stuck doing single issue stories. Now, both are experimenting with various storytelling styles. 'Writing for the trade' was popular in the early 2000s, but now there's a variety. Both companies have some titles that write the traditional six-issue arc, and other titltes that have one issue stories that tell one larger tale.

My advice is go for it. Superhero comics thrive on variety, and some days I feel like DC and others I feel like Marvel.

Best answer i've seen here!

#54 Posted by Jnr6Lil (7689 posts) - - Show Bio

@filthythebear: Dude cut the BS, Bring in psychology and long posts, just to change the fact that I named characters who is relatable isn't going to make your argument look better. You really shouldn't be talking at all about DC, due to being 30 years out of place. All you're repeating is what people have been saying for the past 40-50 years.

#55 Edited by DH69 (4258 posts) - - Show Bio

Most of the Hero's live in actual cities

Villains can actually win

Superheroes are actually people, and not just Capes that pretend to be people when it suits them

#56 Edited by Extremis (3334 posts) - - Show Bio

I really can't think of any reasons other than how people always claim Marvel is more realistic because Stan Lee created these characters as flawed at their inception. That is a good point, however... even if it were true that DC's characters weren't as a realistic at one time (which is more of a debate that inevitably spirals into the 'DC having more Godlike characters' argument) it's silly to assert this nowadays. All modern interpretations of Marvel and DC's characters are far more realistic and show them as flawed heroes/anti-heroes/villains.

So really, no. Marvel is not more realistic than DC.

#57 Posted by Jnr6Lil (7689 posts) - - Show Bio

@extremis said:

I really can't think of any reasons other than how people always claim Marvel is more realistic because Stan Lee created these characters as flawed at their inception. That is a good point, however... even if it were true that DC's characters weren't as a realistic at one time (which is more of a debate that inevitably spirals into the 'DC having more Godlike characters' argument) it's silly to assert this nowadays. All modern interpretations of Marvel and DC's characters are far more realistic and show them as flawed heroes/anti-heroes/villains.

So really, no. Marvel is not more realistic than DC.

#58 Edited by filthythebear (26 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil: now you're just looking silly. you discard arguments just because you can't understand the concepts. Its pathetic.

#59 Posted by Jnr6Lil (7689 posts) - - Show Bio

@filthythebear: No, its the fact that you're bringing in things that have nothing to do with your argument. If Superman was raised on a farm, and a comic book reader was raised on a farm that makes him relatable, no need for psychology to explain the simple definition of a word, that can be easily found on Google. I'm still holding on to the fact you shouldn't be commenting on something you haven't read for 30 years. That's like saying, the rap albums of today suck, but I haven't listened to one since the 90s.

#60 Posted by WaveMotionCannon (5186 posts) - - Show Bio

Characterization is a big thing. While DC's heroes are (for the most part) - noble and self-sacrificing with high moral standards, Marvel heroes are more 'human' because of their obvious flaws. This was something that Stan Lee really wanted to introduce - so he made the FF a bickering family, Spidey have teenage problems, and the X-Men being hated and feared. They were still heroes, but unlike the infallible icons of the Silver Age DC heroes, they felt more 'real' to readers because of their personalities and problems. In a biography of Kirby, it was mentioned that readers of Marvel at the time felt like Marvel was the best stuff, while DC's was still stuck in the Stone Age.

#39 Posted by PCN24454 (77 posts) - 2 days, 23 hours ago - Show Bio

Marvel originally dealt with more realistic problems about being a superhero/different than dc did. Now that DC is doing it too, the distinction can't be made anymore.

These.

#61 Posted by filthythebear (26 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil: you're holding onto it because you're missing the whole point completely. I'm not saying DC characters are not relatable today. I'm simply not saying that. Its like you are a goldfish because you don't understand that basic fact. Its astounding that you think i'm saying that. I have also said that people might relate to situations, like growing up on a farm, but that this isn't enough to make you relate to who a character is. That is why writers spend so much time fleshing out their characters. If they didn't, as veshark said, make, to use his example, Superman struggle with his legacy and doubt nowdays, you wouldn't find him anywhere near as relatable. Is this really so hard to understand? I'll say it again using an example. Superman was not as relatable as his Marvel counterparts years ago but i imagine he is just as relatable now.

DC characters not being relatable these days has never been my argument because that isn't what i think. This is why you seem silly, because you don't get this.

We're debating what makes a fictional character most relatable and why BACK IN THE DAY (not now but years and years ago) Marvel was more relatable and therefore where the old debate originated. One being more relatable is not a relevent argument anymore you fool.

I really think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on what makes fictional characters most relatable because THAT is what you and i are debating here. We both agree that DC characters are relatable these days. So if you argue that i'm wrong about today's DC characters, when i have said over and over that i believe they are most likely relatable nowdays, then you are saying you don't think they ARE relatable, and thats fruity.

#62 Posted by Jnr6Lil (7689 posts) - - Show Bio

@filthythebear: Relatable is a term that doesn't mean relatable in all aspects.

#63 Posted by colonyofcells (2038 posts) - - Show Bio

Marvel also has a few realistic characters like Punisher who unfortunately is not doing well in the movies. I hope dc uses Black Canary without super powers in tv or the movies.

#64 Posted by filthythebear (26 posts) - - Show Bio

@jnr6lil: ah, but the more aspects you relate to the better right? And characteristics, flaws, and the things that make us seem more alike, that make heroes more human, make characters more relatable right? This is why years ago Marvel characters were more relatable. Because you related to them on more levels. Now its different. Actually that is probably the clearest i've been on the subject.

Btw I apolagise if the argument has gotten heated on my part. I tend to have a temper sometimes. Anyway i think we are experiencing communication breakdown and we should both just drop it for now. I don't think either of us is enjoying the conversation.

#65 Posted by Jnr6Lil (7689 posts) - - Show Bio
#66 Edited by colonyofcells (2038 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman is a weirdo and I would assume not too relatable but Batman is the most popular dc property. Hal Jordan star wars stories are very popular now but I don't believe Hal Jordan is relatable. Wonder Woman is a god and raised by weirdo amazons so Wonder Woman don't seem relatable too. Flash has love triangles which maybe appeal to teen girls. Clark Kent raised as a human seems quite relatable but Superman is not selling well right now compared to Batman and Hal Jordan.

#67 Posted by lilben42 (2498 posts) - - Show Bio

@colonyofcells: Batman is like anti social haha. He would relate to Goth kids. Superman doesn't fit in. IDK about Flash and Hal. Wonder woman was lied to by her mother about her father now so thats relatable. The thing about repeatability is its predictable and cliche.

#68 Posted by lilben42 (2498 posts) - - Show Bio

@filthythebear:

Batman is self explanatory

Superman was unknowingly adopted and didn't know his real parents plus he tries his hardest to fit in.

Wonder Woman's mother lied to her about her father in the new 52 plus she has been isolated all her life and then she moves into the city.

The Flash feels isolated from the world because he moves so fast.

Hal felt his fathers death was his fault so he acts out.

Cyborg felt his father liked his work more than him.

Aquaman was not accepted by his people. Also he tries to do things his own way.

Teen Titans have usual teenage problems.

#69 Posted by Poncho (62 posts) - - Show Bio

id say the biggest difference is personal preference. one being more realistic than the other depends completely on who you ask. Marvel has a teenager who got bitten by a radioactive spider who got powers instead of cancer and DC has a highly trained, highly intelligent vigilante who's creativity is limited to bat-mobile, bat-cave, bat-plane, bat-boat, ect. The whole "realistic" arguemnt is just that particular fan's justification for liking one company more than the other. If its that big a deal just start reading Archie comics and move on.

#70 Edited by FelixLyons (11 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

Characterization is a big thing. While DC's heroes are (for the most part) - noble and self-sacrificing with high moral standards, Marvel heroes are more 'human' because of their obvious flaws. This was something that Stan Lee really wanted to introduce - so he made the FF a bickering family, Spidey have teenage problems, and the X-Men being hated and feared. They were still heroes, but unlike the infallible icons of the Silver Age DC heroes, they felt more 'real' to readers because of their personalities and problems. In a biography of Kirby, it was mentioned that readers of Marvel at the time felt like Marvel was the best stuff, while DC's ways still stuck in the Stone Age.

very true. Thats really the only edge Marvel has over DC, though. I mean both have time-travel, space wars, and magic.

#71 Posted by The Stegman (23162 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark said:

Characterization is a big thing. While DC's heroes are (for the most part) - noble and self-sacrificing with high moral standards, Marvel heroes are more 'human' because of their obvious flaws. This was something that Stan Lee really wanted to introduce - so he made the FF a bickering family, Spidey have teenage problems, and the X-Men being hated and feared. They were still heroes, but unlike the infallible icons of the Silver Age DC heroes, they felt more 'real' to readers because of their personalities and problems. In a biography of Kirby, it was mentioned that readers of Marvel at the time felt like Marvel was the best stuff, while DC's ways still stuck in the Stone Age.

very true. Thats really the only edge Marvel has over DC, though. I mean both have time-travel, space wars, and magic.

That WAS the only Edge Marvel had on DC. That was like 30 years ago.

#72 Posted by FelixLyons (11 posts) - - Show Bio

@the_stegman: yeah, true. I think they're pretty much equal now.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.