Who is the greatest publisher ever ............ DC or Marvel?

[Boozad]

[whisp]

DC has produced some nice silver age books when it comes to war books and the covers by Joe Kubert and Russ Heath.

 

Marvel has some nice bronze age horror covers (Gil Kane mmmm) which in my opinion beat out DC bronze age horror.

 

When it comes to 80's and up I choose Marvel again since have GI JOE which is one of my all time favourite stories to collect. Also have my Moon Knight

 

For modern it seems to be again Marvel with some independents mixed in. I did get some of the Whats Next reprints of certain DC series and the Batman Hush was ok along with the Green Latern.

 

Don't have any gold age so don''t know.

 

In the end I choose Marvel.

 

[Silver]

It's so obviously DC. They had the first super heroes in the GA; the first superheroes in the SA; the greater number of characters recognized all around the globe.

 

And, they brought us Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, nothing like them from Marvel, certainly not at the time.

 

O, and everything Kubert!

 

O x2, Kirby did his best work at DC.

 

But most importantly, they gave me (er, us) Barry Allen and Adam Strange by Carmine Infantino. :luhv:

 

I don't agree with the Kirby comment (Capt. America and FF > anything he did at DC) but the rest of it 100%

[burntboy]

Always an interesting discussion, to be sure.

 

Having begun collecting with DC's in the mid/late 1950's, the arrival of FF/Thor/Spidey/Hulk in the early 60's was culture shock...

 

Even back then I realized that Marvel had hit on an idea that would resonate with comic fans in a big way. They were simply more exciting and more fun to read.

 

Unlike many I seem to really enjoy DC cover artwork during the early 60's as much as Marvel. Kubert, Infantino, Heath, Kane, Anderson, etc. can still stand up to anyone in my opinion....

 

But Marvel heroes fought with each other and had more realistically based lives and surroundings.

 

On the other hand i believe that the DC characters are more firmly planted in the american/world culture. Many more iconic "things" in the DC universe; Kryptonite, fortress of solitude, Kandor, Batmobile, Batcave, utility belt, Invisible plane, magic lasso, Power ring, phantom zone, etc....

 

the 1967 circulation numbers were a real eye opener to me. i would have thought Marvel would have overtaken DC years before that. I can hardly believe that Tarzan was pumping out more copies than Spider-Man...

 

In the end, i've always followed my heart and wind up a fan of both publishers, but feel DC due to longevity and their greater iconic qualities is number 1...

[dekeuk]

 

 

 

On the other hand i believe that the DC characters are more firmly planted in the american/world culture. Many more iconic "things" in the DC universe; Kryptonite, fortress of solitude, Kandor, Batmobile, Batcave, utility belt, Invisible plane, magic lasso, Power ring, phantom zone, etc....

 

 

 

Clark Kent and Lois Lane

 

Ask the average person on the street who they are and they will know.

 

I cannot think of any other comic characters where the alter ego or a non-hero comic character would be known to the general public.

 

Not even Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker have the recognition of Clark Kent.

 

 

 

 

 

[lbtrip23]

MARVEL ALL THE WAY

1-X-MEN

2-WOLVERINE

3-PUNISHER

4-GHOST RIDER

5-HULK

6-SPIDERMAN

NUFF SAID

 

[dekeuk]

MARVEL ALL THE WAY

1-X-MEN

2-WOLVERINE

3-PUNISHER

4-GHOST RIDER

5-HULK

6-SPIDERMAN

NUFF SAID

 

Ghost Rider? Really?

 

He's about the equivalent of Deadman in the DC world in terms of importance.

 

 

[s-man]

I am a definate Marvel fan and voted for them in this poll, but I didnt expect them to have this much of a lead over DC!

[dekeuk]

I am a definate Marvel fan and voted for them in this poll, but I didnt expect them to have this much of a lead over DC!

 

 

I expected it to be 75% Marvel, I am surprised the poll is only 60% for Marvel.

 

DC is doing better than I expected ......... and I voted for DC

 

 

 

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

My personal opinion here, yes DC has Superman and Batman, the 2 most exceptional iconic characters in all of comics. But this is not about who has the most iconic characters. It is about who is the greatest publisher ever. And my vote would go for Marvel. Why?

 

Better creators, better characters, more realistic characters, and stories and characters which both push the envelope and have remained relevant and have always been easier for the readers to relate to. And with the exception of the Straczynski Spider-man , very little revisionist history/continuity mess.

 

To me, DC is vanilla(with the exception of the really early Superman, Batman, and Spectre, and some of the late GA stuff like Green Lantern and Flash) and Marvel was a sundae. Captain America was fighting Hitler, Superman was fighting the Prankster or having an old lady drop a TV on his foot. Torch and Sub-Mariner battled each other, Superman, Batman, and Robin were going skinny dipping or riding bumper cars. DC had House of Mystery and Tales of the Unexpected, Atlas had Menace, Mystic, etc.

 

In the Silver Age, DC basically recycled all their old characters with new origins and costumes, but Marvel recreated an entire universe of completely new characters with problems that most readers could relate to. Not saying DC characters were bad, just not as interesting as Marvel characters.

 

I think you can do this same parallel with the Marvel artists and writers as well. Not that they were all great, but Kirby, Everett, Schomburg, Shores, Maneely, Ditko, Romita,etc outclass most of the people who were drawing for DC.

 

 

[Speedy-D]

My personal opinion here, yes DC has Superman and Batman, the 2 most exceptional iconic characters in all of comics. But this is not about who has the most iconic characters. It is about who is the greatest publisher ever. And my vote would go for Marvel. Why?

 

Better creators, better characters, more realistic characters, and stories and characters which both push the envelope and have remained relevant and have always been easier for the readers to relate to. And with the exception of the Straczynski Spider-man , very little revisionist history/continuity mess.

 

To me, DC is vanilla(with the exception of the really early Superman, Batman, and Spectre, and some of the late GA stuff like Green Lantern and Flash) and Marvel was a sundae. Captain America was fighting Hitler, Superman was fighting the Prankster or having an old lady drop a TV on his foot. Torch and Sub-Mariner battled each other, Superman, Batman, and Robin were going skinny dipping or riding bumper cars. DC had House of Mystery and Tales of the Unexpected, Atlas had Menace, Mystic, etc.

 

In the Silver Age, DC basically recycled all their old characters with new origins and costumes, but Marvel recreated an entire universe of completely new characters with problems that most readers could relate to. Not saying DC characters were bad, just not as interesting as Marvel characters.

 

I think you can do this same parallel with the Marvel artists and writers as well. Not that they were all great, but Kirby, Everett, Schomburg, Shores, Maneely, Ditko, Romita,etc outclass most of the people who were drawing for DC.

 

 

I gotta say man, this notion that Marvel is somehow more realistic than DC seems a bit silly to me. I never thought of the characters from either publisher as particularly realistic or easy to relate to until Watchmen, and then not much after that really. I mean, if you're looking for realistic characters, comics is the wrong place to look! But this is far from a bad thing. For my money, the John Broome and Gardner Fox early Silver Age writing is some of the best that comics has ever had to offer. Their Flash and Adam Strange stories were fun, and are still fun today. They're silly, totally creative and playful, and very satisfying, and in their own way they're coherent. If you want a totally different kind of writer, both Alan Moore and Frank Miller did their best stuff for DC.

 

As for artists, both publishers had boatloads of the all time best. Kirby worked for both publishers throughout his career, although it's true that he's much more identified with Marvel. For my money, Infantino beats him at his best, but this is personal opinion. Neal Adams got started at DC, and he rocked DC's world with Batman and GL. Then there's Nick Cardy on Aquaman and Teen Titans, Gil Kane on the Atom and Green Lantern, Joe Kubert making absolutely any comic thrown his way into a gem ... I personally prefer DC's artists but I know that's just an opinion and that in truth it's impossible to say who had the best roster over all.

 

O shoot, I forgot all about Bernie Wrightson! As an artist who could transcend comics, I think he's second only to Frank Frazetta.

[kimik]

DC published "Batman".

 

End of thread.

 

 

FYI, I love Batman, but only in his post TDK form. SA and BA Batman was lame and GA Batman was gay. If Batman's books were as consistent as Spidey's have been, I'd be a serious Batman collector as well.

 

Spidey is consistent? Give me a break. The book started to decline towards the end of the the McSpidey run and has not recovered since then. It was good fun up until then. Once McFarlane left to do the new Spidey title it seemed like ASM lost its mojo both artwork (especially artwork) and storywise. That is when I dropped it from my file, which was an all Marvel file except for Batman and Detective.

 

Early pre-Robin GA Batman was great, and even some of the post Robin GA books are fine. I agree that the early SA Batman was horrible, but towards 68 and 69 it started to shape up and BA Batman was great, especially the O'Neil/Adams run.

[kimik]

My personal opinion here, yes DC has Superman and Batman, the 2 most exceptional iconic characters in all of comics. But this is not about who has the most iconic characters. It is about who is the greatest publisher ever. And my vote would go for Marvel. Why?

 

Better creators, better characters, more realistic characters, and stories and characters which both push the envelope and have remained relevant and have always been easier for the readers to relate to. And with the exception of the Straczynski Spider-man , very little revisionist history/continuity mess.

 

To me, DC is vanilla(with the exception of the really early Superman, Batman, and Spectre, and some of the late GA stuff like Green Lantern and Flash) and Marvel was a sundae. Captain America was fighting Hitler, Superman was fighting the Prankster or having an old lady drop a TV on his foot. Torch and Sub-Mariner battled each other, Superman, Batman, and Robin were going skinny dipping or riding bumper cars. DC had House of Mystery and Tales of the Unexpected, Atlas had Menace, Mystic, etc.

 

In the Silver Age, DC basically recycled all their old characters with new origins and costumes, but Marvel recreated an entire universe of completely new characters with problems that most readers could relate to. Not saying DC characters were bad, just not as interesting as Marvel characters.

 

I think you can do this same parallel with the Marvel artists and writers as well. Not that they were all great, but Kirby, Everett, Schomburg, Shores, Maneely, Ditko, Romita,etc outclass most of the people who were drawing for DC.

 

 

I gotta say man, this notion that Marvel is somehow more realistic than DC seems a bit silly to me. I never thought of the characters from either publisher as particularly realistic or easy to relate to until Watchmen, and then not much after that really. I mean, if you're looking for realistic characters, comics is the wrong place to look! But this is far from a bad thing. For my money, the John Broome and Gardner Fox early Silver Age writing is some of the best that comics has ever had to offer. Their Flash and Adam Strange stories were fun, and are still fun today. They're silly, totally creative and playful, and very satisfying, and in their own way they're coherent. If you want a totally different kind of writer, both Alan Moore and Frank Miller did their best stuff for DC.

 

As for artists, both publishers had boatloads of the all time best. Kirby worked for both publishers throughout his career, although it's true that he's much more identified with Marvel. For my money, Infantino beats him at his best, but this is personal opinion. Neal Adams got started at DC, and he rocked DC's world with Batman and GL. Then there's Nick Cardy on Aquaman and Teen Titans, Gil Kane on the Atom and Green Lantern, Joe Kubert making absolutely any comic thrown his way into a gem ... I personally prefer DC's artists but I know that's just an opinion and that in truth it's impossible to say who had the best roster over all.

 

O shoot, I forgot all about Bernie Wrightson! As an artist who could transcend comics, I think he's second only to Frank Frazetta.

 

Agreed. Adams and Wrightson blow away any of the Marvel artists, but I would argue that EC had the top stable of comic talent ever assembled. If you like boxy artwork then Kirby is your man, but for those of us who started reading comics in the late 80s/early 90s his artwork looks weak. Ditko's style is not appreciated by all (me included), and Romita was solid but not spectacular artist like Infantino or Anderson. Everett is not that great either IMHO, and while I love Schomburg covers DC had some great GA cover artwork as well (MF Spectre run, for example).

 

While I agree with Dale that the Marvel characters were much more interesting in the SA, that was only for what, a 10 year period? GA Timelys were a step below DC (and even Fawcetts pre-CM lawsuit) story and more importantly, character wise. Yes, they have pretty Schomburg covers but overall the characters and stories were weak (although, you can say the same about almost all GA stories). Besides, if it wasn't for the SA DC character reintros would Marvel have even launched FF #1? Since B&B #28 with the reintro of the JSA as the JLA is what got Marvel to do a team book = FF #1, I doubt it. Thankfully it did, as the Marvel SA changed comics for the better.

 

I would argue that since the end of the SA both companies have been putting out similar quality books, with lulls for certain periods depending on the creative talent. However, neither company has really had a huge edge like in the past since talent moves between companies or go independent more readily, AND, more importantly for us, there are a lot of great writers and artists in the industry right now.

 

So, if you are keeping score at home, DC had a 23 to 0 lead during the gold and atom ages, Marvel had a 8-9 year run during the post 1960 SA when it was noticeably better, and they have been essentially tied since the BA with intermittent periods of dominance.

[Cimm]

My personal opinion here, yes DC has Superman and Batman, the 2 most exceptional iconic characters in all of comics. But this is not about who has the most iconic characters. It is about who is the greatest publisher ever. And my vote would go for Marvel. Why?

 

Better creators, better characters, more realistic characters, and stories and characters which both push the envelope and have remained relevant and have always been easier for the readers to relate to. And with the exception of the Straczynski Spider-man , very little revisionist history/continuity mess.

 

To me, DC is vanilla(with the exception of the really early Superman, Batman, and Spectre, and some of the late GA stuff like Green Lantern and Flash) and Marvel was a sundae. Captain America was fighting Hitler, Superman was fighting the Prankster or having an old lady drop a TV on his foot. Torch and Sub-Mariner battled each other, Superman, Batman, and Robin were going skinny dipping or riding bumper cars. DC had House of Mystery and Tales of the Unexpected, Atlas had Menace, Mystic, etc.

 

In the Silver Age, DC basically recycled all their old characters with new origins and costumes, but Marvel recreated an entire universe of completely new characters with problems that most readers could relate to. Not saying DC characters were bad, just not as interesting as Marvel characters.

 

I think you can do this same parallel with the Marvel artists and writers as well. Not that they were all great, but Kirby, Everett, Schomburg, Shores, Maneely, Ditko, Romita,etc outclass most of the people who were drawing for DC.

 

 

I gotta say man, this notion that Marvel is somehow more realistic than DC seems a bit silly to me. I never thought of the characters from either publisher as particularly realistic or easy to relate to until Watchmen, and then not much after that really. I mean, if you're looking for realistic characters, comics is the wrong place to look! But this is far from a bad thing. For my money, the John Broome and Gardner Fox early Silver Age writing is some of the best that comics has ever had to offer. Their Flash and Adam Strange stories were fun, and are still fun today. They're silly, totally creative and playful, and very satisfying, and in their own way they're coherent. If you want a totally different kind of writer, both Alan Moore and Frank Miller did their best stuff for DC.

 

As for artists, both publishers had boatloads of the all time best. Kirby worked for both publishers throughout his career, although it's true that he's much more identified with Marvel. For my money, Infantino beats him at his best, but this is personal opinion. Neal Adams got started at DC, and he rocked DC's world with Batman and GL. Then there's Nick Cardy on Aquaman and Teen Titans, Gil Kane on the Atom and Green Lantern, Joe Kubert making absolutely any comic thrown his way into a gem ... I personally prefer DC's artists but I know that's just an opinion and that in truth it's impossible to say who had the best roster over all.

 

O shoot, I forgot all about Bernie Wrightson! As an artist who could transcend comics, I think he's second only to Frank Frazetta.

 

Agreed. Adams and Wrightson blow away any of the Marvel artists, but I would argue that EC had the top stable of comic talent ever assembled. If you like boxy artwork then Kirby is your man, but for those of us who started reading comics in the late 80s/early 90s his artwork looks weak. Ditko's style is not appreciated by all (me included), and Romita was solid but not spectacular artist like Infantino or Anderson. Everett is not that great either IMHO, and while I love Schomburg covers DC had some great GA cover artwork as well (MF Spectre run, for example).

 

While I agree with Dale that the Marvel characters were much more interesting in the SA, that was only for what, a 10 year period? GA Timelys were a step below DC (and even Fawcetts pre-CM lawsuit) story and more importantly, character wise. Yes, they have pretty Schomburg covers but overall the characters and stories were weak (although, you can say the same about almost all GA stories). Besides, if it wasn't for the SA DC character reintros would Marvel have even launched FF #1? Since B&B #28 with the reintro of the JSA as the JLA is what got Marvel to do a team book = FF #1, I doubt it. Thankfully it did, as the Marvel SA changed comics for the better.

 

I would argue that since the end of the SA both companies have been putting out similar quality books, with lulls for certain periods depending on the creative talent. However, neither company has really had a huge edge like in the past since talent moves between companies or go independent more readily, AND, more importantly for us, there are a lot of great writers and artists in the industry right now.

 

So, if you are keeping score at home, DC had a 23 to 0 lead during the gold and atom ages, Marvel had a 8-9 year run during the post 1960 SA when it was noticeably better, and they have been essentially tied since the BA with intermittent periods of dominance.

 

I'd have to say that was a pretty fair assessment, kimik! Well done

[s-man]

Poll count: 66 to 99!!