₦airaland Forum

Blackspider:
Are you kidding me, you think DC characters has no flaws, how many times have they shown that batman has anger issues or should they write it during the intro of all his movies? How many animated movies have you seen batman back and Alfred telling him to go easy on himself. Just because he doesn't cry because of his many wound doesn't make him unrelatable. Or the fact that he is rich and a control freak that planted tracking chip in his robins, so you can't paint a mental picture of a rich man doing so?

Superman flaws, his do good attitude that many including lex luthor takes advantage of is not relatable to most people you know? Because I know people that wants to do just by every one taken for a fool.

Flash flaws, basically his speed, he thinks he has all the time that (he doesn't wait and think) and plan his strategy.

Most DC character flaws are their major strength, just because you don't see that aspect doesn't mean it isn't there.

hulk616:
what are you saying about madrid ?

That they were a better football team

hulk616:
i can't live with gays

I did not say live with them, I said mind your business

hulk616:


When?

Blackspider:
In the marvel thread.

Blackspider:
I did not say live with them, I said mind your business

Blackspider:
That they were a better football team

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

AfricaGalactic:
See my most recent post. I'm done.

hulk616:
be careful
Mind what you say about Madrid because I won't take it lightly

Madrid as I am hearing are a trash team, same as Barcelona where mediocre team can beat blue black

Oya, wait for me outside let's fight

hulk616:
but they are not minding this business

So long it is not your property they are after, it is not your business too.

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?

AfricaGalactic:
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.

AfricaGalactic:
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.

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

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.

AfricaGalactic:
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.

AfricaGalactic:
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:
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.

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.

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

AfricaGalactic:
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.

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

AfricaGalactic:
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.

AfricaGalactic:
Blackspider
Just for re-iteration & clarity sake.[b] 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.[/b]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.

AfricaGalactic:
BTW Blackspider, I haven't committed any strawman. Based on their initial characterizations, make out a number of A-list heroes from Marvel and DC and see how majority of Marvel's top tier heroes, unlike DC's top tier heroes, were more flawed at the time of their introduction. Case in point: Superman (1938) and Spider-Man (1962). Obviously, you'll see exceptions. But see if you discover a pattern

Blackspider:
If the legion of superhero are not teen teams, name one marvel teen team that are;

1. Made up of actual teenagers no adult included.

2. No former sidekicks.

3. No affiliation to any major superhero.

Just one marvel team is all I ask.

Do you even know that up untill the early 2000s spiderman was more iconic than batman? Where is XxSabrinaxX so she can tell you more. Do you know how many iconic characters are in the X-Men universe alone? DC only came 3 yrs earlier but that hasn't stopped marvel from having iconic characters. Image comics has only Spawn as their iconic character. That is the true definition of underdogs. Not marvel, they never were.

pu7pl3:
Wrong!!

The characters have always been the way they are character wise

AfricaGalactic:
What does this even mean?