Spider-Man or Superman

Ahh, Spidey vs. Supes. It's weighty questions like this that make EvC the hotbed of top level intellectual discourse that it is today. Who says we've gone downhill?!Firstly, Crash, Huntard; be honest now... When was the last time you actually cracked open a brand new comic book? Because whilst your "Marvel is more human" criticism might have been true twenty years ago, it's no longer completely accurate. DC has gone through a whole lot of revamps and retcons in order to make their stern, patrician older-brother type heroes a little more empathetic. It's all personal taste of course and Your Mileage May Vary, but for me, DC have the edge right now. They just have more of the better creators than Marvel.Having said all that, I probably have to come down on the side of Spider-Man and it's because he is more human and more sympathetic. To the point of being a whiny emo-bitch on occasion (anyone see Marvel Zombies? Even undead, flesh-eating Spider-Man is a whiny little bitch. "I ATE MY WIFE AND AUNT! WHY DID I DO THAT?!"). I think a big part of the appeal is that whilst it's difficult for a kid to imagine that he's an alien sent to Earth, it is far easier to imagine that there's a good chance of being bitten by a radioactive spider... even if it is more likely to give you an itchy rash than super-powers. And whilst Kal-El pretends to be mild mannered Clark Kent, he really isn't. Whereas Spidey really is a little nebbish. That makes him easier for geeky teenage readers to relate to.Of course Superman is a very important character, so I don't want to talk him down. He may not have been the first super-hero, but he is certainly the trope codifier. The "S" symbol is one of the most iconic and recognisable images in the world. Superman's status as a moral paragon and his ridiculously over-the-top power mark him out as a rather more mythic figure than most Marvel characters, almost godlike. That can make his stories pretty inspirational, but damn it must make him hard to write. He's difficult to seriously challenge, a constant narrative problem with the character. But if a talented writer can embrace that mythic element with Supes, it can really work; the recent All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison is a good example.So on balance, Spider-man rather than Superman, because the former is just more human and sympathetic, but I don't think that you can extrapolate that to the whole DC vs. Marvel thing.Mutate and Survive

Hi Crash, Yeah, I liked civil war, although I couldn't buy into the whole "Whose side are you on?" bit. We're on Captain America's side. Obviously Because he's Captain America. Plus, Stark comes across as a massive douchebag throughout. I liked the fluid the crossover arcs ran from CW into Secret Invasion into Dark Reign though, I thought that worked well, especially compared to the awful and pointless crossovers of my youth... arrgh. Kingdom Come is one I'm keen to get hold of. If nothing else, the art is amazing.House of M was bloody great... right up until the end. I'm not keen on deus ex machinas. (Spoilers follow!) Again, I haven't read Whedon's X-Men, but if you recommend it, I'll hunt it down.My recent-ish DC picks would be;Geoff Johns run on Green Lantern. Starting with GL: Rebirth and running to date. GJ plots his books way ahead of schedule, so he can foreshadow and bring stuff in a little bit at a time. The central character of Hal Jordan is better realised than ever before and some of his horrific continuity snarls have been turned into positive virtues (Parallax). Gradually builds up to a couple of big cross-continuity events.Grant Morrison on Batman, especially the Batman and Son story line. Runs into the current Batman and Robin series. Morrison tends to divide fans, but for my money, no-one in comics writes better dialogue. He has the same knack Tarantino has for writing dialogue that's witty an clever but still feels natural.52 is fun, a weekly comic that spanned a year. It has probably the closest thing to Marvel-style storytelling you'll find at DC. With so many issues, there was plenty of room for lots of focus on character development. Some strands are better than others, but with so much going on, there should be something for everyone.Captain Atom: Armageddon is good. CA is stranded amongst the badass and edgy 90s douche-weasels of the Wildstorm universe. *shudder*Er... what else? Starman is very character focused and very good. The new Green Arrow series is promising. Justice League: Generation lost has me hooked.All told, we're pretty lucky. Looking back at the comics I used to read back in the Eighties, they were bloody awful. Modern comics are more squarely aimed at an older audience, so they've kind of grown up with me. They're better written and the art is just on a totally different level. We're a bunch of very lucky fanboys.Mutate and Survive

Hi Larni, DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT ONE MORE DAY! GRRR! Quesada should stick to drawing - which he's bloody briliant at - and not screw up the continuity with MAGIC RETCONS! AND LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER THING... arrgh.. urk...

​

*suffers brain aneurysm *er... never heard of it... Mutate and Survive

Hi hERICtic, Traditionally, that has been the case and I'm not saying that isn't a tendency for that to be true even today, but really, things have changed a lot. The modern style of storytelling has changed and the characters have changed with it. In a lot of cases, we're talking about the same writers. Is Paul Cornell going to suddenly stop writing convincing characters just because he's moved from Marvel to Action Comics? Of course not. Ant MAN, WONDER Man, the Invisible WOMAN, BLACK Panther, Marvel BOY... and so on... But... you've just listed four of the best realised, most human and empathetic characters in comics! The last run of Starman was almost entirely character driven. The previous incarnation of Blue Beetle (not originally a DC character incidentally) was anything but distant, he had no powers and was even a bit of a doofus. the current Blue Beetle is a classic Marvel-style troubled-teen-with-super-powers. Green Arrow has been a Badass Normal throughout his history, with a very well defined and grounded personality ever since Denny O'Neil decided to make him a raging why-oh-why liberal. And Animal Man? You're kidding? I can't imagine a more down-to-earth super-hero than Buddy Baker. You should check out the Grant Morrison run on Animal Man, it really is a classic, although it does deviate quite a bit form standard super-hero fare as the series goes on. Well, yeah. that is pretty much what they used to do back in the Sixties. DC are a little more prone to it because they developed most of their Sixties characters by revamping Golden Age heroes. That means that some of their characters are nearly seventy years old! Marvel, by contrast, created more original characters in the Silver Age, so they get it a little easier when modernising them. That's why DC have reordered their continuity several times with universe-busting Crises, whereas Marvel never felt the need; they just didn't have as much silly crap hanging around in their history. From the original JLA line-up, exactly half are non-human (Aquaman is half human, half Atlantean). Within a four years, the Atom, Green Arrow and Hawkman - all human - had joined. From the current roster, exactly half are human (one is a giant gorilla!). It's not quite as extreme as you suggest. But that's just the original line-up, which didn't last long. The Avengers have had their fair share of robots, aliens and gods over the years. In fact, they have way more divine heroes than DC and if you think aliens are hard to relate to, good luck relating to Hercules!I don't think it matters what a character's origins are, I think what matters is character development and the general quality of the writing. Even insofar as the "Marvel is more down-to-earth" thing is true, there is a flip-side to it; DC just do cosmic better than Marvel do. Spider-Man may be a more convincing character than Supes, but you can do sci-fi related things in a Superman comic that just wouldn't fly in the pages of ASM.I don't deny that Marvel's characters are a little more approachable, but to dismiss DC's characters as distant and un-empathetic is a criticism that seems years out of date to me.Mutate and SurvivePS; Oh, yeah... I feel your pain brother. But... torrents are your friend. I liked it, but I felt it dragged out too long, with a number of the satellite titles sucking large quantities of ass. Nor was I convinced by the segue-way into Siege. I mean... Edited by Granny Magda, : Smilie problem.

I agree, but I'm not talking about the moral arguments being made. I'm talking about the way that things were portrayed. Marvel made a big show of being editorially neutral during CW, but when I read the comics, it seems to me that they are on Cap's side. Iron Man is portrayed as bbelieving that he is doing the right thing and he makes some reasonable points, but the way he comes across makes it clear that he is mistaken and indeed, events after the Civil War (which I won't spoil for you, but clearly Marvel knew where they were going with this ahead of time) kinda show that Stark was wrong.Plus, Captain America is the moral centre of the Marvel Universe, just as Superman is for DC. If Cap is on one side, it's a pretty clear signal that his side is right. Urgh. Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut. Just awful. I really liked Kelsey Grammer as Beast, but that's about all I can find to say about that film that isn't abuse.Mutate and Survive

Not much. I like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but even he couldn't save that film from being a lacklustre, predictable, confused mess. What where half those characters even doing there? They served little purpose. Emma Frost was only in it for about thirty seconds and they still managed to derail her character. Why bother?Also, whilst I have to admit that I hate Deadpool, that movie even managed to screw him up. Making a sucky comicbook adaptation is par for the course, but making Deadpool suck worse than he did already takes a real talent for screw ups. I've seen worse though; some of the action was okay.Mutate and Survive

Absolutely. His performance was spot on and probably helped seal the deal on the upcoming Avengers movie.Mutate and Survive

Did he set it in Belfast and have Castle swill pints of Guinness and chase Irish girls? That's what he normally does. I've never quite forgiven Ennis for derailing John Constantine so badly.BTW, have you seen this... Frank Castle is... Franken-Castle! Now if you're going to derail a character, do it with style!Mutate and Survive

Or just someone who could act. Even a little bit. I'm optimistic about the GL movie. If ever there was a super hero character who was ideally suited to the CGI treatment, it's GL.Currently, the comicbook adaptation I'm most excited about is Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. (Linky) It's based on a six-volume set of graphic novels that rate as some of the best and most original I've seen in a long time. Edgar (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) Wright directs. Should be great. Mutate and Survive

Hi Larni (sorry for the delay) Well... as a bit of a douche, to be fair. But a different kind of douche. The wrong kind I felt that the Ennis just lacked the subtlety of previous incarnations. Suddenly Constantine was getting tanked on Guinness and bumming around Ireland whining about his love life. The whole run was too stuck in Christian mythology as well; when it comes to comparative mythology, Christianity is dull, oh so dull. It just lacked the flair of Moore, Gaiman or Delano. Much better versions of the character can be found in his original appearances in Swamp Thing or in Gaiman's Books of Magic.Of course Your Mileage May Vary. The Ennis issues are seen by most people as being the defining run of Hellblazer. I just find Ennis to be dull and repetitive. It's like someone said to him "Write what you know!", but it never occurred to him that he might try and know more than one thing.Mutate and Survive