Marvel v.s DC?

[Western Yeetville]

Marvel v.s DC?

Who would you choose and tell me why!

[Western Yeetville]

MARVEL! That's who I would choose!

[Mzeusia]

DC because Batman.

[Four Truths]

I suggest you read these.

[Zyr and Pony]

Also, this belongs in Arts and Fiction, not General

[Western Yeetville]

Marvel v.s DC?

Who would you choose and tell me why!

[Sunstruck]

I suggest you read these.

I second this

[The first Galactic Republic]

If I had to list off the best superhero comic stories, most of them would probably belong to DC. I’d have to say I like Marvel a little more in general though. Their characters seem a little more diverse in backstories, powers, personalities, motives, etc. It seems like the A list DC heroes are always defined primarily by their power, but Marvel is willing to give the spotlight to more street level characters. Yeah DC has Batman, but the writers frequently have him shoulder to shoulder with other Justice League heroes fighting aliens or magic users or whatever. Marvel has a lot of very popular street level heroes, and I think they more consistently deal with street level problems. Of course if you like stories about characters with godlike powers fighting against villains with godlike powers, Marvel has that too.

Marvel is completely blowing DC away with non comic media. The only thing DC has is that their animated movies used to be much better, but they’ve gotten really crappy.

[Cannot think of a name]

There are more Marvel titles that I like than DC, but I can dig both.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Marvel's better

[New haven america]

DC.

Marvel's only recently gotten a major fan boost thanks to the MCU (Which while it started out well, is currently becoming increadibly samey), but if you look at the comics and animated works (Plus earlier movies like Superman and the Dark Knight Trilogy), then DC takes the cake.

Also, get a better OP.

[Forsher]

Marvel's only recently gotten a major fan boost thanks to the MCU (Which while it started out well, is currently becoming increadibly samey).

lol, wut

Ragnarok isn't at all like Black Panther... which is the most DC Marvel film since Thor 2, which was years since the previous DC-vibey one (i.e. Hulk). Comparisons between Ragnarok and GOTG exist purely they're set in space. Black Panther's plot, to be fair, is fairly similar to that of Ragnarok's... which isn't so different to Inhumans (but, let's put it this way, would you really want a shared universe to take wildly different philosophical stances?)... but this isn't immediately obvious.

Homecoming is the MCU's first take at the thing Marvel has always done best, i.e. teen superheroes, and hence is quite different. It's also much more dependent on characters and plot than Doctor Strange, which is all about visuals.

The MCU movies are, generally speaking, most similar to the other ones in the same sub-series (e.g. Iron Man films are Iron Man films, Captain America films are Captain America films) with the exception of the three Thors which are actually all quite different to each other (Ragnarok especially so).

DC.

Marvel's only recently gotten a major fan boost thanks to the MCU (Which while it started out well, is currently becoming increadibly samey), but if you look at the comics and animated works (Plus earlier movies like Superman and the Dark Knight Trilogy), then DC takes the cake.

Also, get a better OP.

DC's superheroes are all boring invincible bricks... Superman is only fascinating when he's a parodied, ripped off or Snydered. There's a reason I never kept reading DC's stuff when I started off looking at superhero comics. There's a reason the DCEU turned Snydery.

That being said, I am really not convinced I'd have kept reading X-Men comics if I started out reading them today... as I said, teen superheroes is what Marvel is all about. Not superheroes who are aged between 13-19. Teenagers who are superheroes. It's one thing to migrate from X-Men to the wider universe, but if you're limited to Kamala Khan you're directed to reading Captain Marvel? Carol Danvers is a boring character, always has been and always will be. Alternatively to Champions? Which leads you to dickhead TeenGrey?

Yes but animated Bane totalling the Batmobile? I've seen that.

[The Popo Police]

Marvel's better

AGREEEEED!

[New haven america]

Marvel's only recently gotten a major fan boost thanks to the MCU (Which while it started out well, is currently becoming increadibly samey).

1.lol, wut

DC.

Marvel's only recently gotten a major fan boost thanks to the MCU (Which while it started out well, is currently becoming increadibly samey), but if you look at the comics and animated works (Plus earlier movies like Superman and the Dark Knight Trilogy), then DC takes the cake.

Also, get a better OP.

2. DC's superheroes are all boring invincible bricks... 3.Superman is only fascinating when he's a parodied, ripped off or Snydered. There's a reason I never kept reading DC's stuff when I started off looking at superhero comics. There's a reason the DCEU turned Snydery.

1. Everything's a muted color, full of sarcastic quips (A lot of which are present at the worst possible time), they usually run around 90-120 min, and have forgettable villains. There, every current MCU movie in a nutshell.
2. Except they're not.
3. Go watch Superman TAS and Justice League/Unlimited. They adapt a lot of stories from the comics and make them more easily accessible (I can give you specific episodes too if you want). Also, All Star Superman is a pretty fun time.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Both have their merits, both have their negatives, i like both, dont really have a favourite of the two though Batman is my favourite hero.

[Forsher]

1.lol, wut



2. DC's superheroes are all boring invincible bricks... 3.Superman is only fascinating when he's a parodied, ripped off or Snydered. There's a reason I never kept reading DC's stuff when I started off looking at superhero comics. There's a reason the DCEU turned Snydery.

1. Everything's a muted color, full of sarcastic quips (A lot of which are present at the worst possible time), they usually run around 90-120 min, and have forgettable villains. There, every current MCU movie in a nutshell.
2. Except they're not.
3. Go watch Superman TAS and Justice League/Unlimited. They adapt a lot of stories from the comics and make them more easily presentable (I can give you specific episodes too if you want). Also, All Star Superman is a pretty fun time.

What don't you get here? The concept of Superman is completely uninteresting. Completely. He's like a worse version of Captain America.

And there is just so much wrong with your "they're all the same". The colours aren't muted (have you seen Ragnarok) and the villains aren't actually forgettable (except, maybe, Malekith who is from a movie that's five years old now and Red Skull who is from a seven year old movie).

Even if these things were true you've zoomed out so much you've also described every action movie ever... which, you know, is obvious as Marvel largely makes action movies (not superhero movies). This scale is useless and vapid. It's one thing to essentialise something specific to what's being criticised (they're all boring, invincible bricks) and it's entirely another to use an essential criticism of a wider genre to target a specific something. One way cuts to a kind of Truth... a disagreement at a fundamental scale... whilst the other raises all kinds of issues. If your problem is with action films, why did you ever enjoy these movies?

[New haven america]

1. Everything's a muted color, full of sarcastic quips (A lot of which are present at the worst possible time), they usually run around 90-120 min, and have forgettable villains. There, every current MCU movie in a nutshell.
2. Except they're not.
3. Go watch Superman TAS and Justice League/Unlimited. They adapt a lot of stories from the comics and make them more easily presentable (I can give you specific episodes too if you want). Also, All Star Superman is a pretty fun time.

1.What don't you get here? The concept of Superman is completely uninteresting. Completely. He's like a worse version of Captain America.

2.And there is just so much wrong with your "they're all the same". 3.The colours aren't muted (have you seen Ragnarok) 4.and the villains aren't actually forgettable (except, maybe, Malekith who is from a movie that's five years old now and Red Skull who is from a seven year old movie).

5.Even if these things were true you've zoomed out so much you've also described every action movie ever... which, you know, is obvious as Marvel largely makes action movies (not superhero movies).6. If your problem is with action films, why did you ever enjoy these movies?

1. Execution>Concept. Also, you ignored my recommendation and points. Or do you think Superman going to the future, losing all his powers, and going Mad Max on bitches that try to mess with him wouldn't be interesting? Or him getting a terminal illness and either needing to find a successor or cure boring? Or him getting attacked by a parasite that feeds off his greatest desires and forces him to live through them and give them up as emotionally empty?

The only reason you're saying he's boring is because you haven't actually seen or read good pieces of media with him, even though they're pretty damn plentiful.
2. No there's not, because they are.
3. Yes they actually are. I hate to say it, but the current DC Cinematic Fuckery has more vivid and varied colors.
4. Yes they totally are. This is an accepted problem in the MCU, even fans of the things accept this and want it fixed.
5. Except I didn't. DC has great villains: The Dark Knight has Joker and Two-Face (Bane for TDKR), Superman has Lex and General Zod (And his little team), etc... Also, when it comes to colors and lighting in a superhero movie, I expect the colors and designs to actually be vivid and to stand out, which is something the MCU doesn't do. It's like they just film the scene and add the CG, but decide not to touch up on anything else.
6. I don't have a problem with action movies, I have a problem with the MCU.

[Forsher]

1. Execution>Concept. Also, you ignored my recommendation and points. Or do you think Superman going to the future, losing all his powers, and going Mad Max on bitches that try to mess with him wouldn't be interesting?

Yes.

Get this through your head... I don't care about or for Superman, Clark Kent or Kal-El.

You can't polish a turd.

I ignore your recommendations because they're irrelevant. Why are you trying to convince me I will like something I don't. That's absurd. Focus on correcting errors of fact:

The only reason you're saying he's boring is because you haven't actually seen or read good pieces of media with him, even though they're pretty damn plentiful.

He's boring because he bores me.

2. No there's not, because they are.

Circular logic is circular.

3. Yes they actually are. I hate to say it, but the current DC Cinematic Fuckery has more vivid and varied colors.

You and I watched a very different Batman versus Superman. I'm really at a loss to explain how these movies aren't vivid. Do the colours not pop enough for you? Boo hoo, what a pathetic and irrelevant criticism. Some Marvel films are very colourful whilst other ones aren't. Sameness is not an issue.

In the majority of Marvel movies, unlike action movies generally, they do not put the action scenes in total darkness. Even a movie as bright as End of Watch still falls into this trap. That's an issue with colour/lighting that actually affects the ability of the movie to execute its concept.

4. Yes they totally are. This is an accepted problem in the MCU, even fans of the things accept this and want it fixed.

Fans of the MCU don't give a hoot about the movies. #edgy

Just because a lot of people have an opinion, doesn't make it true (argument ad populum). Consider:

5. Except I didn't. DC has great villains: The Dark Knight has Joker and Two-Face (Bane for TDKR), Superman has Lex and General Zod (And his little team), etc... Also, when it comes to colors and lighting in a superhero movie, I expect the colors and designs to actually be vivid and to stand out, which is something the MCU doesn't do. It's like they just film the scene and add the CG, but decide not to touch up on anything else.

Sorry to break it to you, but the only difference between the Joker and Malekith is that the actor playing him didn't die before the movie was released. The Joker is exactly the "let's watch the world burn just 'cause" character you allegedly have a problem with.

I consider it telling that you don't actually try and break down the villains that are supposedly problematic. If it were true, it'd be easy. And if it were easy, you'd do it. The truth is people just don't want to admit that 99% of the time the generic take over the world bad guy actually has a logical motive. And the other 1% of the time it's the Joker.

6. I don't have a problem with action movies, I have a problem with the MCU.

When you offer a reason which is true of the MCU and not of action movies more generally I'll believe it. So far you've offered trite generalisations true of all action films, your preference for something else (you know that doesn't demonstrate that the thing we're talking about is the same, right?) and complete lies.

[New haven america]

1. Execution>Concept. Also, you ignored my recommendation and points. Or do you think Superman going to the future, losing all his powers, and going Mad Max on bitches that try to mess with him wouldn't be interesting?

1.Get this through your head... I don't care about or for Superman, Clark Kent or Kal-El.

You can't polish a turd.

2.I ignore your recommendations because they're irrelevant. Why are you trying to convince me I will like something I don't. That's absurd. Focus on correcting errors of fact:

The only reason you're saying he's boring is because you haven't actually seen or read good pieces of media with him, even though they're pretty damn plentiful.

3.He's boring because he bores me.

2. No there's not, because they are.

4.Circular logic is circular.

3. Yes they actually are. I hate to say it, but the current DC Cinematic Fuckery has more vivid and varied colors.

5.You and I watched a very different Batman versus Superman. I'm really at a loss to explain how these movies aren't vivid. Do the colours not pop enough for you? Boo hoo, what a pathetic and irrelevant criticism. Some Marvel films are very colourful whilst other ones aren't. Sameness is not an issue.

In the majority of Marvel movies, unlike action movies generally, they do not put the action scenes in total darkness. Even a movie as bright as End of Watch still falls into this trap. That's an issue with colour/lighting that actually affects the ability of the movie to execute its concept.

4. Yes they totally are. This is an accepted problem in the MCU, even fans of the things accept this and want it fixed.

6.Fans of the MCU don't give a hoot about the movies. #edgy

Just because a lot of people have an opinion, doesn't make it true (argument ad populum). Consider:

5. Except I didn't. DC has great villains: The Dark Knight has Joker and Two-Face (Bane for TDKR), Superman has Lex and General Zod (And his little team), etc... Also, when it comes to colors and lighting in a superhero movie, I expect the colors and designs to actually be vivid and to stand out, which is something the MCU doesn't do. It's like they just film the scene and add the CG, but decide not to touch up on anything else.

7.Sorry to break it to you, but the only difference between the Joker and Malekith is that the actor playing him didn't die before the movie was released. The Joker is exactly the "let's watch the world burn just 'cause" character you allegedly have a problem with.

I consider it telling that you don't actually try and break down the villains that are supposedly problematic. If it were true, it'd be easy. And if it were easy, you'd do it. The truth is people just don't want to admit that 99% of the time the generic take over the world bad guy actually has a logical motive. And the other 1% of the time it's the Joker.

6. I don't have a problem with action movies, I have a problem with the MCU.

8.When you offer a reason which is true of the MCU and not of action movies more generally I'll believe it. So far you've offered trite generalisations true of all action films, your preference for something else (you know that doesn't demonstrate that the thing we're talking about is the same, right?) and complete lies.

1. Isn't it nice to live in a world where you're able to share wrong opinions such as yours?
2. To provide proof to your points, like how you keep trying to do the same with mine. It's called debating.
3. "Superman is boring because I refuse to watch anything good he's in because he's boring!"
4. The above logic presented just shows your hypocrisy.
5. Superhero movies are supposed to look visually appealing, the MCU movie look like bland bore-fests. So yes, this is a valid criticism.
6. You seem to be missing the point. Even fans of the MCU have accepted that boring/forgettable villains are a problem. Why do you think Killmonger has become so popular? Because he's actually interesting.
7. Aw, how adorable, you think Joker's popular because of TDK?

Good job forgetting his portrayals in Burton's Batman and his extensive history in the DCAU (Where he was played by Mark Hamill) and the Arkham games. Or the fact that he is the main subject of one of the best comics ever made, The Killing Joke. He was already an increadibly popular character before Heath played him. He was already well known and loved/hated before TDK was even written. But it's good to know you don't actually read/watch any of the source material, as that's made this a whole lot easier.

And good job bringing up a villain I'm pretty sure even most MCU fans don't remember.

Also, I never stated I had a problem with "Just watch the world burn" characters, you came up with that on your own. I have a problem with shitty forgetable ones, like MCU Malekith.
8. Except I haven't, because most action films actually try to be interesting. The MCU is a yearly copy and paste production, all of which have the same positives and negatives.

[Berhakonia]

Dark Horse Comics, my man

[Forsher]

1. Isn't it nice to live in a world where you're able to share wrong opinions such as yours?

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. I find Superman boring.

2. To provide proof to your points, like how you keep trying to do the same with mine. It's called debating.

Except we're not trying to do the same thing.

You're saying, "People have three heads" and I'm saying "I think it would be cool if people had three heads".

There's absolutely no reason to imagine that you'll change my opinion and convince me that it would not be cool if people had three heads. It is in fact absurd. After all, you believe people have three heads already.

It is, however, a useful assumption to imagine that I can convince you that you're wrong... that people do not, in fact, have three heads. Hence, error of fact.

3. "Superman is boring because I refuse to watch anything good he's in because he's boring!"

Yeah, except no, that's not what that means.

4. The above logic presented just shows your hypocrisy.

Here's what that means:

something bores me, therefore it is boring

Here's circular logic:

something is round because it is round

Being bored by something is literally how you tell that thing is boring. More to the point, what I was saying there is that I don't care for Superman. Shockingly, my point is connected to what I started out with, i.e. "it is a fact that I find Superman boring".

Also, it's so cuute that you think hypocrisy is at all relevant. It's not. Not ever. Notice how you've suddenly forgotten to justify any reasoning why they're the same at this point?

5. Superhero movies are supposed to look visually appealing, the MCU movie look like bland bore-fests. So yes, this is a valid criticism.

Are they, though? Why should a superhero movie be "popping" and when is that what "visually appealing" means? And when does this get worse as the MCU carries on? And when... I could go on, there are vastly more questions raised by this than resolutions.

When you're offered counter-points it's kind of useful to not just parrot back your earlier case. You can't, though, because you're wrong.

6. You seem to be missing the point. Even fans of the MCU have accepted that boring/forgettable villains are a problem. Why do you think Killmonger has become so popular? Because he's actually interesting.

Killmonger isn't though?

Hurr durr, let's take over the world because my father was murdered. What a cliche. Seen it a million times before and I'll see it a million times again. W'Kabi is the vastly more interesting bad guy... unironic Fire Nation... no, wait, I've seen that bad guy too.

Killmonger is literally a plot device to make Wakanda open up to the rest of the world. Hey, if you can stop a bad thing from happening and you don't do anything... wait, where did I hear that before?

"When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you." ―Peter Parker.

SAME!

Furthermore, Killmonger has pretty much the exact same motive and plan as Zemo... I guess that makes Killmonger a great example of your same point. But here you're using him as a point of difference. lol, wut

And, again, you're unable to actually explain the problem with the baddies, instead turning to the same fallacious reasoning you used last time.

Wait... plot device bad guy? Sounds like Hela. Who is an evil relation claiming the throne whose evil plan will make the good-guy main character into a better king? Am I talking about Hela or Killmonger? The best bit is, technically it's Thor who's Killmonger... their claims are weaker, this actually makes Hela more interesting.

Notice how the similarities between Zemo, Killmonger and Hela don't actually make any of those movies feel similar?

also, again turning to the old argument ad populum

7. Aw, how adorable, you think Joker's popular because of TDK?

The Joker isn't particularly interesting.

Good job forgetting his portrayals in Burton's Batman and his extensive history in the DCAU (Where he was played by Mark Hamill) and the Arkham games. Or the fact that he is the main subject of one of the best comics ever made, The Killing Joke. He was already an increadibly popular character before Heath played him. He was already well known and loved/hated before TDK was even written. But it's good to know you don't actually read/watch any of the source material, as that's made this a whole lot easier.

I am sure you noticed this bit?

There's a reason I never kept reading DC's stuff when I started off looking at superhero comics. There's a reason the DCEU turned Snydery.

No? Yeah, it'd be too much asking you to read... or maintain consistency between points. I mean, if you were reading you'd have realised that the point I was making is that the essential essence of the Joker is Malekith-esque... that the difference between your "good" villain and what we're guessing is a "bad" villain is that one is DC and the other is Marvel.

And good job bringing up a villain I'm pretty sure even most MCU fans don't remember.

Also, I never stated I had a problem with "Just watch the world burn" characters, you came up with that on your own. I have a problem with shitty forgetable ones, like MCU Malekith.

You know why I'm having to put up ideas of what bad villains are? BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING.

8. Except I haven't, because most action films actually try to be interesting. The MCU is a yearly copy and paste production, all of which have the same positives and negatives.

You have categorically failed to offer a single reason why the MCU films are the same... except by offering a highly essentialised portrait of ALL action movies.

You are unable to explain why Ragnarok is similar to Black Panther, why Ant-Man is like Civil War, how Doctor Strange is the same as GOTG 2 (come on, that's an easy one) etc. etc. etc. If you don't do any work whatsoever, people aren't going to believe you.

[The Huskar Social Union]

fight fight fight

[Hirota]

fight fight fight

kiss kiss kiss...

No? Well, alright...

Me personally? I'm generally agnostic about the whole thing. I like both, but the impact the MCU has had whereas DC films have been...well - apart from Wonder Woman - pretty rubbish (and I personally thought WW was merely quite good) cannot be underestimated. I wish DC films were stronger, because I think competition makes everyone stronger.

I'm probably biased because my favourite show on TV is Shield, and whilst I enjoy the arrowverse, it's getting a little tedious for me and the missus.

In terms of the comics, I took a stab at DC and enjoyed them, but my favourites have been Marvel, although some of the individual Marvel comic series have been pretty awful.

[Conoga]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=435827

[Sensual Lettuce]

DC. Infinity War is going to suck hardcore. They already have a cop out with the stupid time stone. They are going to kill people but it will be entirely pointless since they can just bring them back.