|
|
Post by furyconception on Aug 12, 2014 10:55:56 GMT -5
I recently heard Kevin Smith interview Neal Adams on Fatman on Batman, and Neal proposed that Marvel is basically kicking DC's ass because Marvel characters tend to be flawed heroes (one of his examples was Tony Stark as a former war profiteer) while DC characters (perhaps with the exception of Batman) are squeaky clean, all-American, "glint on shining white teeth" types (Superman). He thought the Boy Scout type heroes had their cultural appeal many years ago but that modern readers prefer a darker, more complex hero, that they are more relatable and interesting. I'm oversimplifying and Adams was much more eloquent, but it was a really interesting analysis. I'm interested to know people's take on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wamphari on Aug 12, 2014 16:48:18 GMT -5
I think it's not too far off mark, however I think you can and should have your squeaky clean types (cap, prof x, etc...). The difference is the more questionable types make them shine all the brighter. I think most art is about contrast, one reason why batman and superman make such a great team for so many. All that aside, I just feel like marvel speaks to my generation and younger more effectively than DC. I know this is a little bit of a nebulous of description but when I read DC I feel like I'm reading something a little old and a little stuffy (even the good stuff), and when I read marvel I feel like I'm reading something a little fresher (even the bad stuff).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2014 17:00:25 GMT -5
I don't know. I guess if modern readers prefer darker, more complex characters there's no reason why there should be so much negativity towards the New 52 or the DCCU, when they've obviously gone darker and complex and Marvel seems to be succeeding with making brighter, fun comics and films. It just seems no matter what each compay does, there is always this rivalry that doesn't do anybody any good. Just argument for the sake of argument.
Also completely contradicting everything I'm about to say, but some people read comics because they don't want dark and complex. It's why they're reading a comic about a man or woman in a ridiculous costume punching robots. There's such a thing as overcomplication.
But for the sake of Neal Adams comments, Marvel is just as guilty of squeaky clean characters as DC is, just like both have complex, darker characters.
On Marvels 'complex' side you've got characters like Tony Stark, Matt Murdoch, Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Bucky Barnes, Miles Morales, Wolverine
But then you've got Steve Rogers who is literally the most squeaky clean character in comics universe. He may serve an often corrupt cause but he always does what he believes is right, just like Superman.
I think what makes Superman more complex in modern times is the fact that he is this all powerful being who tries to do good but the world is affraid of him so they don't trust him, well Lex Luthor likes to use this as a weapon against him anyway. Not to get to analytical, but it's a good mirror to the world now. People are elected in government positions, they makes decisions that eventually the people hate, then the next one comes along and does what they wanted, but everybody finds another flaw. People always go on about Superman being unrelatedable and too godlike. Then you go to Marvel and you have Thor, a literal God, on their team. I love reading his comics, but he's not exactly complex. He's ancient, powerful and tries to do what is right, but then faces massive backlash because humans are affraid of him.
And then there's Batman, has his family taken away from him. Green Arrow, ignorant rich boy who is basically left for dead forced to fend for himself and face reality. Aquaman, who is of Earth just like any human and has as much right as any, but has to answer to the land humans for anything he does. Wonder Woman also. What I love about DC characters is the fact that people always act untrusting towards them regardless of how much they want to help. People as a group always think they can do things for themselves, but it never turns out that way. Look at any rulership and rebellion in history. It's why we have so many countries at eachothers throats, different religions against eachother, a ridiculous revolving door criminal justice system (Arkham Asylum anyone?)
All that rambling aside though, not every character needs to be dark and complex. Its why we all love Cap, or the Flash. It's why Hawkeye has such critical praise.
But to be honest I could barely get through those Neal Adams interviews. Never heard a guy blow his own horn so much in my life. Such a shame because I love his art. But he has no problem giving full credit to himself for any success in the comics industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Aug 12, 2014 17:04:32 GMT -5
I think it's not too far off mark, however I think you can and should have your squeaky clean types (cap, prof x, etc...). Professor X? Squeaky clean?!? The lulz are strong with this one.   |
|
|
|
Post by iamasianbatgirl on Aug 13, 2014 11:04:44 GMT -5
Neal Adams is right about one thing, Marvel is kicking DC's ass at the moment but I don't think it's for those reasons he stated in that interview. For a long time, probably since Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, DC has relied on the Batman franchise and its dark complexity to keep themselves afloat and relevant. What's most problematic is this idea that darkness automatically equals more complexity. As Marvel has proved in the last couple of years, fans are craving a different type of complexity. For superhero comics at least, I believe complexity comes with making these characters more three-dimensional than they were in previous generations but not necessarily with a drastic change towards dark and gritty situations claiming to be more "realistic." Instead of huge tragedies or sullen moments, we now can find a multitude of quirks and flaws in even the most outrageous characters, grounding them in relatable moments or by making them speak in familiar vernacular. Saying that "squeaky clean" superheroes aren't interesting or relevant is more of a display of laziness on the creators' side of things. You can take Superman and have a story like Superman vs. the Elite where his "squeaky clean" reputation is called into question and he proves everybody wrong.
Like I said, Batman and the Bat-family are the biggest draws for DC and they understandably take advantage of that. Their fault is thinking that all of their "families" need to have the same kind of tone. It doesn't always work unfortunately, and DC doesn't really have another hero with the same weight as Batman to help elevate them out of this hole. Marvel has the advantage of having several draws to their company. The X-Men, Wolverine, Deadpool, The Avengers, Spider-Man, etc, they all have their own "family" of team books and solo titles, most of which have very different styles. Marvel's artists help bring a different type of complexity with story-telling as we see with Chris Samnee in Daredevil, David Aja with Hawkeye, and Jamie McKelvie with Young Avengers. I feel like Western comics are working with a brand new canvas and Marvel got the head start. Luckily, DC seems to have caught on and are expanding their range of books starting with Batgirl and Gotham Academy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Aug 13, 2014 17:04:16 GMT -5
^ amen, and well-said
Along those lines, I think one of the obvious appeals that made Winter Soldier so effective (and wildly successful) is that they took a "squeaky clean" character in Cap and put him in a situation with boatloads of nuance. A patriotic character who has to navigate those mine-filled waters of 'what does patriotism mean anymore in the face of an unchecked and out of control military industrial complex and government-sponsored/run apparatus spying on its own citizens, slash-drone-strikes, slash-security-state-and-the-various-implications, etc'. That's some seriously philosophically-heavy shit to throw at your stars-and-stripes adorned perfect soldier, and it made for a fascinating and emotionally-charged story, which went on to break boxoffice records and is still, even after Guardians and the rest of the summer blockbusters, the biggest movie of the year, financially and otherwise. That's an impressive turn. The whole movie Steve is on unsure footing, and he's doing some serious philosophical deep digging, and questioning the core of what he stands for and who he's allied himself with and why and what's the right thing to do, and there's STILL room for punchlines and cute moments and so many mind-blowing heart-racing eye-popping action sequences that it set the bar for me forthwith for what an action movie ought to look and feel like. That's the sort of thing that can be done even with the squeakiest of squeaky-clean characters. Which is all to your point: you don't need a "dark" character to make an interesting world or story; all you need is good writing/execution.
|
|
