What's new
  • Guest
    As per our long standing policy of not permitting medical advice on the forum - all threads concerning the Coronavirus will be locked.
    For more info on the coronavirus please see the link below:
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html

Marvel or DC?....Go.

Marvel . . . their whole objective was superheroes as relatable human beings.

Captain America is a "man out of time", trying to find his place in a world which has passed his value system by.

Peter Parker is a young adult with amazing powers, which would seem to be helpful in the romance dept., but he's hopelessly lost in spite of his gifts.





Look at the two biggest DC characters.

Bruce Wayne has a lifestyle no one could possibly relate to

Kal-El is basically God in the form of an alien being. He can do everything but resurrect the dead, despite what you saw in the Chris Reeves film version.
 

CJB3

Contributor
Marvel, although I do like Batman a lot. Marvel has a number of my faves, though—Dr. Strange, Conan, Iron Man, Spider-Man, the X-men, the Avengers.
 

JCarr

Contributor
I've enjoyed both over the years. One of my favorite books was Justice League. Guy Gardener made for a hilarious Green Lantern.
 
Marvel. I’ve loved the X-Men and the Avengers since I was a kid. I like DC too, but make mine Marvel.

Though my absolute favorite will always be Hellboy.
 
Marvel if id have to choose.

Marvel studios presents some pretty amazing movies. For example the 2 ant man movies are incredible
 
I'm not really into comics, so Marvel because the overall quality of their movies tends to be better.
 
DC has Superman and Batman. DC is my choice.
I grew up with the Silver Age DC Comics, and even subscribed to Batman and Jimmy Olsen. The DC Family stories then were SF-oriented, but there was a distinct lack of interstellar war and a sense of wonder about the world and the universe.

Mort Weisinger and his writers loved to pop in a mystery. For instance, Superman is exposed to red kryptonite, and it takes away all his superpowers for 48 hours -- though Prof. Potter tells him that a strong dose of something called "ascorbic acid" will restore his powers. Before he can do anything, though, a group of criminals kidnap him and are going to execute him. He asks for a last meal -- of limes, lemons, and oranges. The criminals laugh . . . but Superman has the last chuckle, as he becomes invulnerable again, and we find out "ascorbic acid" is Vitamin C, contained in those citrus fruits. Sure, an easy puzzle for grownups, but not for 10-year-olds.

An earlier Jimmy Olsen story featured a Dr. Cyclops scenario, in which Jimmy and Lucy Lane (Lois's sister) are doped and wake to find they have been shrunken to tiny doll-size. The story chronicles their attempts to escape the gigantic furnished room. At one point Jimmy rips open a feather pillow, and we see him sneeze at the cloud of feathers around his head as Lucy laughs at him. But that is the crucial clue, and Jimmy realizes it: The feathers are in proportion to Jimmy and Lucy. They are not the gigantic objects they would be if the humans were really miniaturized. The whole thing is a hoax with giant furniture and props!

Now I don't recall the purpose behind the hoax, so I don't know if the story works overall. But the clue is fair and is clearly shown, and you are distracted in the best classical mystery fashion by the comedy. Well done!
 
Now, that said . . . I outgrew comics when I was 11 and chanced across the Alfred Hitchcock anthologies, the grown-up crime and terror story collections that appeared during the post-war years and into the Sixties. I had also discovered James Bond, and after that, Jimmy Olsen seemed pretty tame.

But in the '80s a friend pressed me to try the X-Men series (then being written by Chris Claremont). I was astonished at how much more adult the themes and the dialog were compared to the DC stuff I recalled. Not only did they have a more cinematic visual style to the storytelling, but they featured unhappy endings, psychological issues (Storm's claustrophobia played into one story) . . . I was impressed.

As for the films, I enjoyed the first Spiderman, and the first two X-Men movies. I think those did a much better job of capturing the characters, and were much more enjoyable movies, than the new Superman flicks with Henry Cavill (though that first one does have a LOT to recommend it). Christopher Reeve's Superman/Clark Kent is still the best.
 

Doc4

I'm calling the U.N.
Moderator Emeritus
Kal-El is basically God in the form of an alien being. He can do everything but resurrect the dead, despite what you saw in the Chris Reeves film version.
Superman is basically too super. Remember when he started? "Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound"? That became "he can fly" ... that became "he can fly in space so fast he changes the rotation of the planet and turns back time" ...

If he's invincible ... unstoppable ... what challenge is there for him in facing the bad guy?
 
Superman is basically too super. Remember when he started? "Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound"? That became "he can fly" ... that became "he can fly in space so fast he changes the rotation of the planet and turns back time" ...

If he's invincible ... unstoppable ... what challenge is there for him in facing the bad guy?
Exactly . . . there is actually a pretty interesting piece on the dangers of Superman pro-creating with a non-Kryptonian. without getting too graphic, lets just say that the non-"super" side of the equation does not fare well.
 

Doc4

I'm calling the U.N.
Moderator Emeritus
Exactly . . . there is actually a pretty interesting piece on the dangers of Superman pro-creating with a non-Kryptonian. without getting too graphic, lets just say that the non-"super" side of the equation does not fare well.
There's a scene in the Will Smith superhero movie "Hancock" ... let's just say ... "mountaintop" ...
 
Top Bottom