DC's Fundamental problem...

[Comicopolis]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

[Bosco685]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

[Comicopolis]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

[Bosco685]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

 

Then you read the wrong article. Go back.

 

[Comicopolis]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

 

Then you read the wrong article. Go back.

 

 

[Bosco685]

[dupont2005]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

When you copy you can't hope for much better

[aggr1103]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

 

I think Marvel has been copying DC more lately than the other way around. Marvel Now! Was an attempt at rebooting titles a la DC 52. Necrosha X was a crappy rip of Blackest Night.

 

I think DC has been telling better stories overall than Marvel over the last 5 years.

[Davenport]

I think Marvel has been copying DC more lately than the other way around. Marvel Now! Was an attempt at rebooting titles a la DC 52. Necrosha X was a crappy rip of Blackest Night.

 

I think DC has been telling better stories overall than Marvel over the last 5 years.

You could easily expand that 5 years further back, at least a decade or two. Or more.

 

Start naming titles and one-shots that stand the test to time and many are going to be DC works. DKR, Kingdom Come, Killing Joke, Sandman, Starman, Swamp Thing, Infinity Crisis, Birds of Prey, Gotham in Gaslight, Gotham Central, and on and on.

 

What Marvel did manage better than DC is to wall off their fans and convert them to rabid acolytes, not just sing Mighty Marvel's praises but to actively hate anything DC Comics. That's a much different tact than competing with better stories and greater risks, but it worked for Marvel in a huge way.

In hindsight marketing will be marketing, storytelling is storytelling, and history bears witness to both.

[jools&jim]

 

Start naming titles and one-shots that stand the test to time and many are going to be DC works. DKR, Kingdom Come, Killing Joke, Sandman, Starman, Swamp Thing, Infinity Crisis, Birds of Prey, Gotham in Gaslight, Gotham Central, and on and on.

I guess. But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me). They are also generally VERY SERIOUS (as the author of the article points out), a market which DC still has cornered to this day.

 

Sure, I've read most of them, and they're good titles -- I have no doubt they cut whatever swill Marvel has been pumping out for the past decade or so (of which I am, I'll admit, blissfully ignorant). But will they "stand the test of time" in the same way as, say, the first 100 issues of FF, Amazing Spidey 1- 50, Simonson's Thor, Miller's DD, Claremont & Byrne on X-Men, Byrne on FF, etc.? Doubtful...

 

For a classic DC series in that "timeless" league, Kirby's "Fourth World" books are all that really comes close. But it's such a personal and idiosyncratic work that I fear it will always be criminally under-appreciated...

 

 

 

[Comicopolis]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

When you copy you can't hope for much better

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Comicopolis]

I thought he made some interesting and valid points.

 

Although educational, it seemed slightly one-sided in thinking. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of good details.

 

What did you get out of it on valid points?

 

That most of what DC does is krappy and that they've had to copy what Marvel have been doing since Stan invented the modern super-hero.

 

I think Marvel has been copying DC more lately than the other way around. Marvel Now! Was an attempt at rebooting titles a la DC 52. Necrosha X was a crappy rip of Blackest Night.

 

I think DC has been telling better stories overall than Marvel over the last 5 years.

 

I read all of the New 52 for the first year and then I had to stop as the temptation to throw myself into a combine harvester became too great..

[Comicopolis]

I think Marvel has been copying DC more lately than the other way around. Marvel Now! Was an attempt at rebooting titles a la DC 52. Necrosha X was a crappy rip of Blackest Night.

 

I think DC has been telling better stories overall than Marvel over the last 5 years.

You could easily expand that 5 years further back, at least a decade or two. Or more.

 

Start naming titles and one-shots that stand the test to time and many are going to be DC works. DKR, Kingdom Come, Killing Joke, Sandman, Starman, Swamp Thing, Infinity Crisis, Birds of Prey, Gotham in Gaslight, Gotham Central, and on and on.

 

What Marvel did manage better than DC is to wall off their fans and convert them to rabid acolytes, not just sing Mighty Marvel's praises but to actively hate anything DC Comics. That's a much different tact than competing with better stories and greater risks, but it worked for Marvel in a huge way.

In hindsight marketing will be marketing, storytelling is storytelling, and history bears witness to both.

 

Why would Marvel fans hate DC, or vice versa? I grew up reading both, as I'm sure most did.

 

I'm not sure what the demographic is for both companies now - it is certainly not me - but the majority of what they both publish (IMHO) is pretty poor.

 

The best written comics being published today come from the independent companies.

[Comicopolis]

Start naming titles and one-shots that stand the test to time and many are going to be DC works. DKR, Kingdom Come, Killing Joke, Sandman, Starman, Swamp Thing, Infinity Crisis, Birds of Prey, Gotham in Gaslight, Gotham Central, and on and on.

I guess. But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me). They are also generally VERY SERIOUS (as the author of the article points out), a market which DC still has cornered to this day.

 

Sure, I've read most of them, and they're good titles -- I have no doubt they cut whatever swill Marvel has been pumping out for the past decade or so (of which I am, I'll admit, blissfully ignorant). But will they "stand the test of time" in the same way as, say, the first 100 issues of FF, Amazing Spidey 1- 50, Simonson's Thor, Miller's DD, Claremont & Byrne on X-Men, Byrne on FF, etc.? Doubtful...

 

For a classic DC series in that "timeless" league, Kirby's "Fourth World" books are all that really comes close. But it's such a personal and idiosyncratic work that I fear it will always be criminally under-appreciated...

 

 

 

+1

[CBT]

I have always run a big pull list, mostly Marvel, when new 52 came out, I gave a bunch of them a try, cancelled it all but the main Batman book at 12 issues. Since then, I gave Constantine a try, cancelled it after 2 issues.

 

[Comicopolis]

I have always run a big pull list, mostly Marvel, when new 52 came out, I gave a bunch of them a try, cancelled it all but the main Batman book at 12 issues. Since then, I gave Constantine a try, cancelled it after 2 issues.

 

That Constantine book made me cry.

 

And not in a good way.

[Davenport]

Start naming titles and one-shots that stand the test to time and many are going to be DC works. DKR, Kingdom Come, Killing Joke, Sandman, Starman, Swamp Thing, Infinity Crisis, Birds of Prey, Gotham in Gaslight, Gotham Central, and on and on.

I guess. But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me). They are also generally VERY SERIOUS (as the author of the article points out), a market which DC still has cornered to this day.

 

Sure, I've read most of them, and they're good titles -- I have no doubt they cut whatever swill Marvel has been pumping out for the past decade or so (of which I am, I'll admit, blissfully ignorant). But will they "stand the test of time" in the same way as, say, the first 100 issues of FF, Amazing Spidey 1- 50, Simonson's Thor, Miller's DD, Claremont & Byrne on X-Men, Byrne on FF, etc.? Doubtful...

 

For a classic DC series in that "timeless" league, Kirby's "Fourth World" books are all that really comes close. But it's such a personal and idiosyncratic work that I fear it will always be criminally under-appreciated...

 

 

 

+1

Even from there it's still a fairly far stretch to conclude...

* DC Comics has a problem

* It's fundamental

* It's been in play for the last 50 years

* It's that DC wants to be Marvel

 

"The Problem is that DC wants to be Marvel, and they have for the past 50 years."

 

Yeah, ok. (backs slowly away from the Marvel Zombie)

 

 

 

 

[FineCollector]

But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me).

 

Gaiman's Sandman? Personal taste, or do you have any examples why? Gaiman writes fairy tales... there's nothing more timeless than that.

[aggr1103]

Sure, I've read most of them, and they're good titles -- I have no doubt they cut whatever swill Marvel has been pumping out for the past decade or so (of which I am, I'll admit, blissfully ignorant). But will they "stand the test of time" in the same way as, say, the first 100 issues of FF, Amazing Spidey 1- 50, Simonson's Thor, Miller's DD, Claremont & Byrne on X-Men, Byrne on FF, etc.? Doubtful...

 

For a classic DC series in that "timeless" league, Kirby's "Fourth World" books are all that really comes close. But it's such a personal and idiosyncratic work that I fear it will always be criminally under-appreciated...

 

At the very least those DC titles will stand the test of time better than the Marvel stuff that was largely printed during that same period.

 

And while I agree that Kirby's DC work is under appreciated, its not something I would call timeless. I don't think its even on par with the marvel books you mentioned, and I actually liked Kirby's DC work - especially the New Gods.

 

For me, the work that is grossly under-appreciated at DC has to be Moore's Swamp Thing run. It's mostly dollar bin fodder.

[vaillant]

But those are all titles written for, and marketed to, adults/young adults, and lack the cross-generational appeal of Marvel's best output (some of them also haven't aged particularly well, either -- Sandman comes to mind for me).

 

Gaiman's Sandman? Personal taste, or do you have any examples why? Gaiman writes fairy tales... there's nothing more timeless than that.

 

Fairy Tales? I am not enough familiar with his work to comment properly, as I never liked it, but Gaiman’s writing definitely owes more to flawed philosophy than to any fairy tales tradition.