₦airaland Forum

Blackspider:
Jesus, take the "captain marvel" debate to answer that question yourself. The fact that DC hasn't legally announced themselves as DC comics means they could change it at any given time. Just because they went with it doesn't change the fact that they were officially calling themselves DC comics in 1977, so base your arguments during that year and stop the golden age era strawmanning.

To answer your question,
1. DC started in the 30s but were called National allied publisher till they officially adopted the name DC comics in the year 1977.

2. Marvel started in the 30s also but were called timely comics till they officially adopted the name marvel comics God knows when.

3. There are no proven statistics that indicated who kick-started it like the above two where there are.

Lmao @ the denial in number 3. A simple google search will give you an objective answer.

Blackspider:
Have you ever heard of the terrifics? Legion of superhero? There is also one team that looks like the fantastic 4 but much older in creation, can't remember their name. Those groups have no sidekicks in them.

DC never ruled the market, it was always shared. I can show you the statistics but that one requires time. Image comics were known as the underdogs of comics.

Marvel came up with the name to rebrand themselves after surviving bankruptcy, the fact that it stuck can be applied likewise with DC having more iconic characters. They both hyped themselves and they both landed the gold.

The Terrifics and Legion of Superheroes aren't teen teams though. DC ruled the market up until Marvel came into the picture. When I say "underdogs", i don't mean in terms of sales. I meant in terms of how iconic and generally popular their characters were. Sure Spider-Man and the X-Men sold well. But to the audience, DC were the older brothers and Marvel the younguns.

Blackspider:
Lol, where did I read this before, I cannot remember. The DC logo were seen during the golden age era granted, but they weren't known as DC comics yet, it took years after that before they were known as DC comics. I will look it up and screenshot it for you

Modified: Here is the screenshot that proves that DC officially started calling themselves DC comics. That was in 1977. So if you want to base your arguments on when marvel was called marvel, I suggest you do the same for DC. That sounds fair.

I don't see how any of this changes the fact that Marvel introduced the "relatable hero" trope before DC. You seem to have gone on a tangent here. Even your scan states that company was already known as "DC Comics" before officially adopting the moniker, so i'm not entirely wrong. Answer these 3 questions:
1. When did DC, as we know it today, begin?
2. When did Marvel, as we know it today, begin?
3. Who kickstarted the "flawed, relatable hero" trope?

Blackspider:
Actually, it was marvel that named it "Marvel Age Of Comics" nobody did that. Talking about teens who weren't side kicks, i think DC started it with teen titans where most characters weren't side kicks of major superhero.

Lastly, marvel has never been viewed as underdogs in the comic world, that title belongs to image comics. Marvel and DC were juggernauts from the onset

Teen Titans comprised of sidekicks and heroes who were proteges of DC's major heroes. Think Young Avengers. X-Men & Spider-Man didn't have any such scruples. Marvel were underdogs in the sense that DC ruled the market before the "Marvel Age" and even till now, DC have more iconic characters than Marvel. Whoever came up with "Marvel Age" is irrelevant because it stuck among the comic reading audience and for good reason.

Blackspider:
You do know that when DC comics started, they weren't called so, I think they were named National allied comics or something like that. They also underwent name changes like marvel. If you want to use that era (30s) against DC, marvel weren't that far behind coming 2-4 yrs later (still in the 30s) though they were called timely comics.

But if you use when marvel were known as marvel to justify their relatable characters, you should also use DC when they were also known as DC to justify their characters too. I hope I am making sense?

Look up DC's wiki. National Allied Publication changed their name to Detective Comics DURING the Golden Age. Of course the name DC was based of the anthology series that introduced Batman in '39.

Marvel was initially known as Timely magazines in the 30s. Then Atlas in the 50s. Atlas didn't publish superhero comics until the name change to MARVEL in 1961.

hulk616:
1. It is absolutely abnormal and a disease.

This doesn't even qualify as a reason. Biology easily disproves this. Do some research.

Blackspider
Just for re-iteration & clarity sake. I'm aware DC characters are relatable but that wasn't how they were initially written. Batman and the gang have all evolved. Yes. However, the classic (golden age) versions of these heroes were the epitome of perfection. That is why the stigma is still there. DC always had this stuff about legacy and it still rings true today. Marvel was always the underdog in every sense of the word. Stan Lee's 60s creations targetted college aged audiences. Johnny Storm, Spider-Man & The X-Men started the new wave of teens who weren't sidekicks and who weren't younger versions of major heroes. They didn't call it the "Marvel Age Of Comics" for nothing.

Blackspider:
Lol, Espanyol came first doesn't mean they ball more than Madrid. Using your analogy, who introduced comic books? DC or Marvel?

Relatability depends on the individual, there are people who doesn't find spiderman relatable but would understand Batman even when both suffered losing loved ones. The fact you find Spider-Man more relatable doesn't mean he is the most relatable character. This depends on the consumer.

See my most recent post. I'm done.

pu7pl3:
Lmao

This basically means "I see your point and you are right but I rather die than admit that"

Go back to my original post. Absolutely NO ONE said DC's characters are unrelatable (except maybe TheKingIsHere). Now let me start over

DC, as we know it (Superman, Batman et al) started out in the 30s all thru to the 50s. Marvel, as we know it began in the 60s. Pre-marvel, heroes were written as one-dimensional. Flawless. Stan Lee & Jack Kirby changed that with Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, X-Men etc. DC has tons of relatable characters like Wally West & Jason Todd. But Marvel kicked it off. THIS IS THE REASON that "relatability" stigma remains. DC characters became more grounded later on but by then it was too late. The original characterization of Superman and Batman and WW and GL and Flash etc were one dimensional. But Spidey, x-men, f4, hulk, iron man, ant man were all flawed since day 1. Thor was the sole exception.

Blackspider:
Lol, the fact that "relatable" is commonly used with marvel doesn't make it entirely true.

For example now, DC is term "too dark or dark comics" which is not entirely true. Can you name 10 characters from DC that are not from the batlore that are dark? Or closely related to Gotham. But it has become a common stereotype against DC.

Secondly, you claim that DC characters are written as gods playing men. But that was only during the golden age of comics. The new 52 and rebirth era as the most watered down DC characters of all time but the 616 marvel characters are so overpowered but nobody is calling them gods.

Stop the use of stereotype and see things as they are.

And you missed my point. Again. It basically comes down to this: Which company introduced superheroes with flaws? Marvel or DC?

Both have relatable characters. Marvel's are just more well known. Twist in anyway you want, Supes & Bats aren't more relatable than Spidey & The X-Men

hulk616:
I agree with you for the first time. Marvel characters are more powerful than DC

FALSE DC's are generally stronger.

Minemrys:
me, i am talking abt the c0mic b0oks and how the characterz have been written in them. Yea, s0me characterz are relatable for dc but the largely kn0wn 0nes aren't in the traditi0nal sense. And there are marvel characterz that are unrelatable but largely many marvel characterz are relatable. I find it hard relating to barry allen h0nestly. The character i find m0st relatable is wally west.

Blackspider, this guy gets it

Blackspider:
That still doesn't change anything, the fact that you still use the golden age era to justify your point against DC and yet will run back to 1961 to show how relatable marvel character are is pure fallacy. Both comic book has relatable and unrelatable characters period.

I see no "pure fallacy" here. If you think there's one, kindly demonstrate.
edit: BTW I'm not saying DC doesn't have relatable heroes. All i'm saying is that Marvel (Stan Lee really) started the trope, hence why "relatable" is affixed more to Marvel. DC only started catching up in the late 60s. Seriously, read and compare the wiki pages of the two companies and you'll understand. Maybe i'm not explaining it well.

hulk616:
you have come again How do you expect me to like that nonsense? Jesus Christ!!! i rather die than being gay

List just ONE thing wrong with being gay

Blackspider:
That analysis is completely flawed. Both comic book has character that are unrelatable. There are many DC characters that are more relatable than marvel like;
Black lightening - Racism,
Flash - Loss,
Mr terrific - Loss,
Raven - Pains and burden,
Wonder woman - Choice,
Cyborg - Isolation,
Batman - Trauma
Green arrow - Loss

Coupled with the facts that we have the most relatable villains

Most of the characterization for the DC heroes you listed started with the Silver Age (50s to 60s). Golden Age (30s to 40s) heroes were mostly one-dimensional (yes, even including Namor and Captain America). But Marvel (1961) was the first to kick off the whole relatable schtick with Spiderman, xmen etc. Unlike DC, Marvel has been like that since Day 1. By day 1, I mean Marvel Comics. Not Timely or Atlas.

Minemrys:
thekingishere uninspiring and unrelatable are 2 different beasts. U relate to s0mething if u can see yourself as that thing. But u can be inspired say by the thought of that thing to do s0mething else. Who can see himself in superman or batman? I can't. But i am inspired by superman's optimism and batman's sense of justice. Then again, i see myself, though little aspects in peter parker. I can relate to peter parker, but i can't relate to superman. But btw the two, i get inspired to be optimistic when i remember a superman quote.

Exactly this.

hulk616:
they are

Put together? That's debatable. Individually? The Living Tribunal licks them all.

abduleez1:
Manhattan has edited, erased and changed the DC Multiverse timeline times without number, you wouldn't even know if he did it. He can simply rewrite history. Manhattan's powers are limitless, no one knows the full extent of his powers. I can say he is as powerful as the Living Tribunal. Living Tribunal >>> Franklin. So Manhattan STOMPS!!!

I'm aware of the Rebirth arc.

You write off Franklin too easily. Franklin has equally recreated the Marvel universe, created pocket universes. As a child, Franklin is easily celestial level. At full power, he is eternity level. Marvel has haxed him enough to beat beings slightly higher than celestials even as a child.

What you get is Telekinesis, Telepathy, nigh-omnipotent (but above deity-level) reality warping and matter manipulation VS matter manipulation (which Manhattan mostly uses). But then again, we don't know the full powers of either of them! This is far from a stomp. REBIRTH is the only reason FR doesn't spite

TheKingIsHere:
Russo brothers said that DC characters are not relatable, yet DC characters continue to inspire people around the world.

Wonder woman is such a huge inspiration to young girls and women worldwide.

Women love to be called wonder women.

How many women want to be called a widow? Lol

Unrelatable =/= uninspiring. What you have is a non-sequitur fallacy.

You know the old saying that "DC characters are gods trying to be people, and Marvel characters are people trying to be gods", right?

I always liken DC heroes to Greek pantheon: God-like in sheer powers and abilities, perfect, beautiful etc. Even a human like Batman is deified because of his pitch perfect attributes. Marvel heroes on the other hand are losers. They're flawed. Even with their powers, they seem like the underdogs. They are essentially "people". That has always been their characterization since 1961.

All this doesn't mean we can't be "inspired" by DC heroes. Both Marvel and DC inspire. EOD

If we're talking of the comic book versions (which makes sense because we haven't seen Franklin Richards yet), Franklin takes a majority over Doctor Manhattan mostly because Franklin has way more high end feats. Another important factor is which version of Franklin. A fully powered adult Franklin facing off against the Doctor would be a spite match in favor of Franklin.

abduleez1:
Ellaine Belloc, Lucifer Morningstar, Michael Demiurgos, The Spectre, Mr Mxyzpltk are more powerful than them!!

I don't believe any of the above are more powerful than the Living Tribunal. But lemme check and get back anyways
edit: Aaand I'm back. Living Tribunal is above them all

hulk616:
Please I have a question
If DC wants to release this snyder's cut, will it be in cinemas? So that I can prepare my box office monitors

I doubt it

Nickshrapnel:
I won't outrightly call him a villain

Depends on your definition of "villain". Marvel Encyclopaedia, for instance, lists him as one.

Sultan5:
From YouTube tho, but it's like we heard the same thing really. Its possible there may be two teams one to deal with the comic threat which is Galactus and another to deal with Dr. Doom. I honestly can't wait to see what Marvel does with Dr Doom.

I don't think Dr. Doom can be classified as "street level" though. But lets watch as things unfold. The villains i'm hoping to see in the MCU down the line are Norman Osborn, Galactus, Doctor Doom & Mr. Sinister. Then MAYBE Doc Ock.

Minemrys:
oga, i never said superman the m0vie should gr0ss a billi0n at its initial release. I was outlining ur flawed logic of how a film's BO potential rests on a character's popularity. No superman film has ever outgrossed MOS whether 0n initial release or adjustd for inflati0n. Superman the m0vie if adjustd made 530 s0mething milli0n. And MOS made 600 s0mething mill. And superman is a popular character. M0re popular than Joker and aquaman. Ir0n man made m0re than superman the m0vie when adjustd for inflati0n, yet ir0n man was an unkn0wn character at its initial release.

Actually Superman made 300.2 million worldwide. That was 1979 dollars. In 2019, that would be over a billion. But that's besides the point.

I never said that superhero popularity is the sole factor. But you cannot write it off. I dunno about you but in my locality, pretty much the only CBM that had more hype than Joker was Endgame. Then maybe Far From Home.

Cottonmouth:
They won't

They will. The likes of WB and Universal will do just fine.

Minemrys:
how c0me inflati0n weren't adjusted at the time of it's debut. Or how a n0 name team would outgross superman films at the initial release. Mtchewww. Go and sit down. You're exhaustd.

Lmao. You do realize that the B.O gross of Superman (1978) was huge at the time of it's release, right? That was Superman's theatrical debut and rightfully, it was a hit. How do you expect a blockbuster to make a billion dollars in the 70s? What do you know about Box Office inflation and ticket sales? When you said a no-name team outgrossed Superman, i suppose you mean the Avengers? First of all, MOS was a controversial film receiving mostly negative reviews if i recall correctly. That hurt it's legs. Secondly, we've seen countless Superman films already. Some OK but mostly bad. The Avengers was the first of its kind and understandably, it had more hype.

Minemrys:
oga, marvel didn't rule the silver age. Dc spearheaded it bt marvel found its formulae to take advantage of c0mic rise then. It was like trying to find ur way while the big guns were hitting big.

No one is arguing who spearheaded the Silver Age. We're arguing who was more prominent in terms of content. Without Marvel, there would have probably still been a Silver Age but it won't have been as vibrant. Do some research. DC's Silver Age was riddled with gimmicks: Apes, ridiculous plots/covers, one-dimensional characters. Marvel was more vibrant and innovative with flawed and relatable characters, mature story arcs that dealt with real world issues like gun violence and alcoholism, not to mention Stan Lee and his handling of the Marvel comics with the funny intros, nicknames for the staff. Marvel just felt more interactive. Meanwhile, Batman and his crew were in full camp swing . Marvel outselling DC up until the 90s even when bankrupt just proves my point more.

Minemrys:
yeah, that was why superman films made a billi0n dollars at the box office with a pg 13 rating.

Yes. Adjusted for inflation, they did

TheKingIsHere:
Joker is more popular than Darth Vader IMO

Exactly. I just mentioned Vader because he is the only other fictional villain i can think of that you can call a cultural icon with a cult following.

TheKingIsHere:
Thanks bro for this.

It was just too obvious that Joker really struck a cord in Disney. They couldn't believe that a low budget R rated movie could make them look inconsequential.

People have forgotten that Disney had previously announced their movies for 2020-2021 with just 2-3 MCU movies per year. But after joker, they increased it to 4 per year while fixing an unknown movie for October 2022.

I'm done with this October argument but just wanted to point out that 2021 has 4 MCU movies slated for release. Obviously, this was following the whole Spider-Man rights saga that happened before (I believe) Joker was considered a runaway hit. Before Disney's recent announcement, 2021 already had 4 films.

pu7pl3:
I'm not seeing any nairaland Snyderbot on twitter pushing this hashtag now o...it's not later y'all would come here and complain

Is the Snyder cut even finished?