Best thing I've ever read about the difference between DC and Marvel.
Kphil, however, does get one thing completely, absolutely wrong. He says, "the Absorbascon said this better". He is wrong; it did not. Kphil says it MUCH better than I ever have or ever could.
Kphil, my hat's off to you.
Fate makes Ben Grimm a monster, he has made himself a hero. Bruce Wayne with his many gifts could be the leader of his country and positively affect the whole world in addressing crime and it's consequences. Are we really sure that in his relatively isolated life we do not see his fate being played out?
I have to disagree here. The main point being made seems to be that most DC heroes chose to become what they are, while random chance factors in many major Marvel heroes. I just don't see that. I think random chance and personal choice both factor strongly in the origins of major heroes of both companies.
It was by random chance that Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by a mugger. It was personal choice that Bruce Wayne became the Batman to avenge them.
It was random chance that Peter Parker was bitten by that radioactive spider. It was personal choice to use the resultant powers to battle crime and help people. Sure, he needed a strong object lesson first, but that's part of Spider-Man's appeal, that he's as human as the rest of us and makes mistakes like we do.
I could cite many more examples but I think I've illustrated my point.
Although I somewhat agree with what Kphil and Scipio have to say on this matter, Kphil's discussion suffers from choosing examples that fit his hypothesis and ignoring (or forgetting) others.
Captain America was chosen to receive the supersoldier serum. He's gone on to forge himself into the shining symbol of North American. In a very small way, he's like Superman without the funky powers. And without being an alien. And all the other stuff.
Tony Stark, when struck by a piece of shrapnel that nearly kills him, chooses to build a suit of armour to save his life. Not only that but he then decides to use his new suit to fight crime.
There are a number of Marvel characters that overcome their fate rather than endure it. And, as Scipio has pointed out, there are a number of DC heroes who realise that fate cannot be overcome and simply submit to it.
However I agree with the comment that Marvel appears on the surface to be more real whereas DC tends to go more for archetypes.
Hphil is so perceptive. I've made the Marvel-DC move too, for pretty much the same reasons, but never been able to articulate them so well.
One detail to add, though. Back in Stan Lee's day even angsty types like Spidey and DD would occasionally cut loose and swing round NYC for the sheer fun of it, exulting in their powers. That sort of thing hasn't been seen in decades. I guess Bendis et al would be embarrassed by it, but in its acceptance of the fact that even the "curse" of superpowers (in the Marvel sense) can bring some good things with it, it was far more realistic than the permascowling of Marvel's heroes for the last couple of decades.
plus, DC has more talking monkeys per capita than marvel.
which is, to me, is the embodiment of hope.
"Batman: Guided Missile of Justice!"
That's a book just WAITING to happen.
I think the archtype arguement holds up a lot better than the chance vs choice.
A lot of folks make choices after chance hits them and other let chance have it's fun after they make a choice.
But what about Supergirl? Is she not resigned to her fate, Scipio?
Post a Comment