The Bendis Board reacts to Joe Quesada’s comments about DC trying to Marvelize, from last Friday:
“I think Quesada can be a bit petty at times, but I’m not going to say he shouldn’t be sniping at the competition. If anything, I think DC needs to get nastier and stop thinking of themselves as ‘the old, respectable company’ that doesn’t sink to that level.”
“I dont care if he’s wrong or right, but that was well spoken and well articulated. He could have been an asshole about it and really put DC down hard. Was there any need for it, probably not, but for what it was it was well said.”
“Sometimes Joe Q does rattle the cage but it’s always been like this DC is good but… they never had a Stan Lee type figure who goes out there and talks to the fans. Joe Q has his own weekly interview with Newsarama the only close thing I’ve seen DC doing is 5.2 but thats in relation to 52 more then anything else [...] In this case it’s a well thought out view, to me DC heroes have been very distant and somewhat hard to relate to, and no amount of bumbling Clark Kent does will ever make me think otherwise.”
“Very classy indeed and hopefully dc can listen to joe so it can be a decent company again.”
“Not really, given how Marvel is a perfect comic book company and DC’s characters are so inherently weak for the purposes of storytelling that they will never produce stories as good as what Marvel has to offer. It’s science.”
“It’s useful to stick with a phrase like marvelize, because that could mean a number of intangibles regarding characterization, stories,art, hiring specific creators, etc . That’s 1969 talk, and frankly both watches what the other does and copies the other’s best ideas. (cough vertigo cough) [...] If anyone truly believes Marvel has been the only innovator in comics during the last 40 plus years, then you’re just sipping kool-ade brewed by the house of ideas.”
“I know the guy takes a lot of shit online, but it has to be said: he’s one of the most intelligent, well spoken men in the industry. No EIC can ever be perfect, but the man brings a fresh perspective to the company, and he’s really concerned about helping the industry, which, as someone that wants to work in the industry, I have the utmost respect for. I agree with him. I think DC needs to take a close look at some of their characters. I find DC’s crop of characters, for the most part, unrelatable. The last time I was really interested in any of them was during Morrison’s tenure on JLA. I loved the portrayal of Kyle Rayner, Wally West and Plastic Man. In fact, I kind of liked seeing how Kyle felt like these characters were too big to relate to.”
“No one’s saying DC wasn’t trying to copy Marvel in the beginning. They were new, fresh, and doing things very differently. Of course DC should try to copy a thing or two. But he acts as if DC’s still doing it. DC and Marvel have been on the same even writing keel since the 80’s. Neither side is doing anything different or grandiose than the other one. All the stories tend to be recycled through as many realistic filters as possible. The only real difference here is Marvel doesn’t have as many corporate people looking down wanting to make sure the characters will always be licensable the same way so they have more oppurtunity to rock the boat. DC usually does follow up when they can but in a different storytelling ability. But Joe always wants to act as if to say ‘Marvel always does things first.’ And its not true.”
December 26th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Whatever Happened to the Man of Steel, For the Man Who Has Everything, Kingdom Come, New Frontier, What’s So Funny About the American Way, Peace of Earth, Trinity, All-Star Superman, etc.
Funny, for a character that’s weak and at his best “quaint,” he sure is featured in a lot of classic stories that people loved.
One could argue that Superman has starred in more beloved stories in the past 25 years then most of the characters at Marvel.
It’s also funny, since there is no Spider-Man clone at DC. Yet, Marvel has been trying to create their own Superman clone for decades.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
since there is no Spider-Man clone at DC
The Ray 2
Blue Beetle 2 (& 3?)
Firestorm 1 (although slightly inverted)
That’s just off the top of my head.
Spider-Man has inspired new approaches, directly or indirectly, to other DC series, as well. In short, it’s been a two-way street.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the Marvel plagarism front, of course. It’s pretty disgusting, and should have been gently stamped on a long time ago. The Sentry was a fine mini-series, for example, and a nice homage to Superman-inspired comics such as MiracleMan. But Squadron Supreme Power - and the defacto Marvel/DC crossover it has inspired - are a step or two over the line.
//\Oo/\\
December 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I think DC tried to come up with a “Spider-Man clone” type of character with Gerry Conway’s Firestorm.
Obviously the powers are different but you basically had a teenaged superhero as the lead character in a comic (not as a sidekick to an adult hero or as part of a team of teenaged superheroes), derived his powers in part through an accident involving his own bad judgement, and who was still in high school and facing personal problems.
I think while DC tried to ignore Marvel through the decade of the 60s, it was finally during the mid 70s, long after Marvel’s sales overtook DC’s sales, that DC consciously tried to ape Marvel’s approach. For example, Steve Englehart was drafted to write JLA and was explicitly told by DC Editorial that they wanted the team to more resemble what Englehart had done on The Avengers by emphasizing character interaction and conflict.
In the 80s, DC’s most obvious sales juggernaut, NEW TEEN TITANS, was for all intents and purposes a Marvel comic with each of the characters having personal struggles and problems. LSH, DC’s #2 best seller of the 80s, also adopted a more Marvel-type soap operatic approach.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I think Quesada is a jerk with a fratboy mentality. He cant go two paragraphs without taking shots at DC. Dc and Marvel both take ideas from each other.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
I was thinking of an arch-type where DC had a spider-type character, the way Marvel has a few Superman clones.
Personality wise, yes you are all correct. Firestorm was a Marvel character in a DC U and the New Teen Titans were a Marvel team in the DCU. Ronnie Raymond had a lot of Peter Parker’s personality traits, (though I always loved the fact that the Jock was picked on and humiliated by the genius). Both worked. It worked. Dido convienently ignores the fact that the Fury of Firestorm series was a big hit and it’s only when he left high school (changing the dynamic of the book), lackluster artwork, and Gerry Conway burning out, did the series suffer. But, that’s another argument.
The Ray 2 is another great example of DC taking a Marvel character, having sucess with it, and then allowing the concept to flounder because of inferior storytelling and/or artwork.
But, it’s funny how he goes on about DC trying to copy Marvel characters while completely ignoring that Marvel has done everything it could to copy DC’s characters.
The statements even sillier because Superman generally outsells most of the Marvel characters.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
>>I think Quesada is a jerk with a fratboy mentality. He cant go two paragraphs without taking shots at DC. Dc and Marvel both take ideas from each other.
Quesada certainly makes his share of what can be construed as provocative statements.
But his argument wasn’t that Marvel doesn’t occasionally steal ideas from DC (although he would probably deny this anyway) but that most Marvel characters, at their root, are more intrisically interesting, sophisticated, and adaptable than most DC characters.
And I think to a certain extent he’s right. The DC characters were created during a time in an era of economic Depression and wartime and they were larger than life, almost mythical, characters. They were idealizations of who Americans could or wanted to be in order to defeat great enemies both at home and abroad.
By contrast, the Marvel characters were created during post-WW II affluence and during a time when the counterculture’s influence and critique of American character, wealth, and power led more artistic/creative types to create more flawed tragic characters (see also Philip Roth and Arthur Miller). The Marvel characters in great part share this distrust and wariness towards power and technology (and its unintended results - see Spider-Man, the Hulk, etc.) and a general sense of the absurdity and anxiety of living in a Cold War world in which power and technology have both extended and enhanced life and yet made death and destruction ever more palpable.
In other words, the possibilities and limitations of the DC characters created in the 1930s and 40s and the Marvel characters created in the 1960s and 70s are pretty much etched in their respective DNAs and trying to make one set of characters too much like the other often ends up with a character that does not feel very authentic to its original conception.
I think what Quesada said about Batman being the most “Marvel like” of DC’s characters is generally true. If you look at the treatment of Batman in “Batman Begins” you can see how the character’s core identity was not essentially changed - even enhanced, in fact - by giving Bruce Wayne a more troubled past and complex interior life than any other previous screen treatment.
By contrast, the attempt to turn Superman in “Superman Returns” into someone with problems who can’t have the girl he loves and the child he sired ended up with a movie that felt dour and depressing and not the type of character most Americans associate with Superman (hence the perceived disappointing box office). Americans want to see an inherently upbeat, optimistic Superman of the Christopher Reeve variety. Not a Supermope.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
I think somebody’s a little upset about Joe Q’s comments, aren’t they. Yes they are. They’re all upset. Yes they are. Yes they are! Koochie koochie koo!
December 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I find it interesting is if Didio ever badmouthed Marvel (or make jokes about what has happene in the DCU), the internet would be up in arms and break in half. But if Quesada takes a shot at DC (or comments on what has happend in the MU), he’s playing hardball.
I like the fact that DC doesn’t feel the need to make fun of the competition. They’re taking a high route by letting the work speak for themselves.
I’m surprised that people think that Batman is more of a Marvel character. Everything about his origin and mind make up is pure DC. Its a twisted, dark DC, but is DC none the less.
Also, if we’re talking about who’s more innovative in the last twenty, thirty years, then I don’t know what Joe is smoking. DC has been doing innovative stuff and taking chances on their big titles long before Marvel had their Slpenda line MAX. They still tend to take chances far more than Marvel does. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that Spider-Man’s identity will still be known in five years.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
“The DC characters were created during a time in an era of economic Depression and wartime and they were larger than life, almost mythical, characters. They were idealizations of who Americans could or wanted to be in order to defeat great enemies both at home and abroad.”
This rationale is false. The characters created in the era of economic depression and WW II didn’t exist in the Silver Age. The Green Lantern, Flash, and Superman characters of the late fifties and early sixties aren’t anything like the characters of the fourties. It was also the success of those characters in the early sixties that led to the creation of the Fantastic Four. Characters created a couple of years before Marvel’s character are no longer relevant?
As for the Superman Returns comment. The movie made more at the box office then the Fantastic Four. The movie would have done better had there been more action.
And, again, the character outsells most Marvel characters.
It also ignores one simple fact. One of the most influential artists (Neil Adams) worked primarily for DC Comics. Marvel as far back as the sixites was lifting ideas from DC Comics.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
“And, again, the character [Superman] outsells most Marvel characters.”
In what universe does this take place? Because when I look at the ICv2 charts, the Superman books vary wildly in performance relative to the specific title and are not squatting on the top of the chart. Despite the recent relaunches increasing the performance of these books, they have been in the doldrums for years. Perhaps if you refined your statement a bit more, I might be more inclined to buy it.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
No, David the rationale is not false.
First of all, three of DC’s most recognizable and long-lasting icons - Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman - were created in the 1930s/40s. These are the characters the public recognizes.
Other popular characters created in the Golden Age, such as Flash, Green Lantern, and Hawkman, were dusted off and their powers/origins basically updated and given a more sci-fi spin. Essentially, the Golden Age characters were used as templates for the Silver Age characters. Because of this “legacy connection”, these Silver Age characters retain much of the mythic aura of their namesakes created in the 30s and 40s. Again, because DC was basing these characters on their Golden Age predecessors who were godlike and infallible.
And like their Golden Age counterparts, for the most part, they have untroubled existences and no interior lives, unlike most Marvel characters whose characters were unshackled by connections to previous legacies.
Captain America is the major exception to this rule at Marvel, as he was a Golden Age creation. Marvel managed to update him in the 60s by giving him heavy grief over Bucky’s death and the whole “man out of time” and loneliness thing for a while but you can only do so much with that. In general, while you can put Cap in interesting stories, the character himself is not particularly interesting partly because he is so shackled to the mythic patriotic larger than life heroic ideal common to the DC characters created in the 40s. Because of this, out of all the Marvel characters, Cap could most easily fit into the DC Universe with very little tweaking.
As for Superman Returns, yes, Superman made more BO than the Fantastic Four and that was mainly because of the greater recognizability of the character, previous knowledge based on earlier movies, and the hype surrounding the movie. However, in terms of the expectations game, Superman Returns was considered a disappointment and word of mouth was generally bad to mediocre. By contrast, FF was a surprise hit, made bigger BO than expected, and was quickly greenlit for a sequel for just two years later. Was anyone expecting that? I wasn’t. By contrast, there was some uncertainty over whether a Superman sequel would be approved and even after it was approved the budget was smaller than the first (almost unheard of in filming sequels where the studio approves a larger budget) and Singer has acknowleged that he may have hit some wrong notes in making Superman too much of a tragic figure and will be making more of a straightforward action movie next time - which is what audiences associate with Superman, not internal conflict a la the Marvel characters.
Part of the reason why word of mouth was bad for Superman Returns was not just because there wasn’t enough action but because what replaced the action was a poor attempt to “Marvelize” the character by giving him pathos and letting him sit and moan about not being able to be with Lois. Nobody wants to watch that because it goes against the core DNA of the character.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Almost every franchise vary wildly in performance relative to the specific title. All-Star Superman is a great seller, if no one “cared” about the charater anymore that wouldn’t be so. The book still sells more then 100,000 copies an issue. All-Star was also has been a bigger seller then Mark Millar’s run of either Wolverine or Spider-Man.
In June, Superman and Action outsold Sensational Spider-Man, Cable Deadpool, Thunderbolts, Daredevil, Incredible Hulk, Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, Captain America, New X-Men, Ms. Marvel, and other Marvel books.
Most of the Marvel books have seen increases due to Civil War, which has been a gigantic success. Using these past few months as an example of Superman not mattering anymore is just wrong.
In July, Superman and Action outsold the Hulk, Captain America, Daredevil, Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, Iron-Man, etc.
In August, All-Star Superman outsold every single Marvel book except for New Avengers, Wolverine Origins, Astonishing X-Men, and Civil War Frontline. The book didn’t make the top ten due to 52. Superman sold almost 67 thousand copies and Acton sold almost 58 thousand copies.
In September, Superman and Action outsold Sensentional Spider-Man, Daredevil, Hulk, Ghost Rider, Captain America, etc.
In October Action was a big seller, selling almost 79,000 comics. It was the 19th best selling book, so it outsold a lot of Marvel books that month.
In November Action and Superman outsold the Eternals, Ultimate Fantastic Four, Sensational Spider-Man, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman, etc.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
I’m sorry, but you need to check out the first volume of the Superman Archives. That version of Superman bears no resemble today of either the Silver Age version or the Byrne reboot.
The Silver Age versions of Flash and Green Lantern weren’t legacies of anything. That’s a retcon done by the original Crisis.
I’m not arguing that DC didn’t see the sucess Marvel had and decided to add some of those elements to their characters. But, Joe Q. ignores the fact that Marvel began lifting ideas from DC as well.
It is also false to suggest that no one can relate to Superman (since this country still has immigrants coming to out shores every year and there are still people who feel like they are outcasts in our society). Sorry, but if no one cared, no one would watch or buy.
And, I would suggest stating characters that were created almost 45 years ago as being more relevant or meaningful then characters created 60 years ago is a bit silly.
December 27th, 2006 at 3:19 am
And, I would suggest stating characters that were created almost 45 years ago as being more relevant or meaningful then characters created 60 years ago is a bit silly.
The Marvel/DC discussion aside, timeliness is often directly related to relevance. Lee/Ditko/Kirby Marvel was a hit because it spoke to the times. People weren’t reading Superman on college campuses, they were reading Marvel comics. Superman was the establishment, and there was definitely a vein of “fight the power” underneath a lot of Marvel books. DC Comics was Dad Comics.
So, no, suggesting that characters created more recently than others are more meaningful or relevant is perfectly fine. It isn’t a hard and fast rule, but it is often true. Gilgamesh, Ghenghis Khan, and Huckleberry Finn are all facets of pop culture. Which one is more relevant or meaningful? I’d say Huck Finn, myself.
Joe Q not mentioning Marvel lifting DC ideas in a brief quote about the differences between Marvel and DC isn’t ignoring anything, or at least not the malicious, history-rewriting ignoring you seem to think it is.
In fact, Joe Q basically undermines your entire point when he says To me, the creation of the Marvel hero is very much like this. It took what Superman and other DC greats made famous, in many cases lifted whole parts, and added layers never before seen. Heroes with problems, heroes with Achilles heels, heroes who didn’t always make the right decisions, heck, sometimes they didn’t even beat the bad guy. This was a huge variation in the theme, the defining moment for everything..
He gives it up to DC right there in plain text. First four words, second sentence. They built Marvel characters off the backs of DC characters and added what’s now the signature Marvel twist. His line about DC trying to Marvelize their characters was intended to make the “Nuh-uh, DC is way better than Marvel!” crowd stop and think. Saying that Joe Q won’t give praise when praise is due is completely ridiculous. There is this kind of Joe Questrawman that some DC fans have built up on line that’s just as bad as the Dan Didiostrawman that some Marvel fans have dreamt up. Each time one or the other says something seemingly negative about the other company, and both of them do this, neither are exempt from mudslinging, good-natured or not, the fans get up in arms about it.
re: Superman–
Superman is only a story about an outcast rarely. Nine times out of ten, it is a story about a great man doing great things. Between Spidey and the X-Men, Marvel has themarket cornered on outcast characters. In theory, he is an immigrant. In practice, he is loved by everyone in the country, super powerful, and able to determine his own destiny, three things which even second, third, or even later generations of immigrants still struggle with. Superman is as American as mom and apple pie.
It isn’t that no one can relate to Superman. It is that Superman is something or someone to aspire to be, as is Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and the Flash, while Marvel’s characters tend to be closer to who we are. Peter Parker has bad luck and makes bad decisions. The X-Men are hated for who they are, which is something they have no control over. Captain America is very close to a DC hero, but he’s often faced with a government that goes against the ideals and freedoms he represents.
Marvel heroes are us, DC’s heroes are who we want to be. Hotshot jet pilot with no fear gets a magic wishing ring? Superpowered woman from a nation of simultaneously advanced and pastoral women comes to show men what’s right and wrong? An alien from space who is indistinguishable from a human is a true hero who everyone loves? These are DCs heroes.
Marvel’s heroes are the guy who let his uncle get killed because he was petty and vindictive, the arrogant man who trusted in his own smarts and ruined his friends and family’s life, a group of kids who society sees as worthless and disgusting because of their genes, and heroes who gain great power, only to screw up horribly when they try to use it.
I’m not saying that there is no overlap, because there definitely is, but in general, these are the differences between the Marvel and DC styles.
And honestly man, saying “Superman outsells most Marvel books!” is about as valid in an argument as saying “Spider-Man outsells most DC books!” Both are true. Amazing Spider-Man sold 118k last month. That is higher than every DC book but Justice League of America, which sold 140k. Big deal. If you really, really want to play the numbers game, then let’s talk about Marvel beating DC in market share for something like the majority of the past few years, despite the Crises, Our Worlds at Wars, and 52s. Market share in a discussion like this is petty and pointless, because you can twist the numbers however you like.
This conversation is veering dangerously close to “Marvel rulz, DC droolz! DC rocks, Marvel (negative word that rhymes with rocks)!” territory, so I’ll just make a couple points in brief.
There is no spider-inspired character at DC comics because that isn’t the appeal of Spider-Man. The appeal of Spidey is the everyman aspect of Peter Parker. Both DC and Marvel have aped that appeal with varying degrees of success (Richard Ryder, Ronnie Raymond). Superman’s appeal isn’t Clark Kent, stumblebum. It’s Superman, a godlike mortal.
I may hate ice breath with a passion (oh yes I do), but one of my favorite comics stories is the Death & Return of Superman because it was about a great man overcoming a great end. He died a hero and came back the same way.
One of my favorite Marvel stories is Kraven’s Last Hunt, a story about a man who fails on a number of levels (Ned Leeds, the crook who was funeralized, fighting Kraven), is punished (buried alive), and finally overcomes that failure and whose only thought when faced with that failure was that he might not see the woman of his life again.
Two very different stories about similar subjects.
But honestly, Marvel vs DC conversations are pointless. Both have good, both have bad, read what you love and ignore the rest.
December 27th, 2006 at 7:20 am
Quesada and his cronies are such jerks
December 27th, 2006 at 7:21 am
You guys at newsrama should see how bad the bendis borders talk bad about you because you dont kiss marvels butt like they do.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:34 am
I wont like either company if the editors pull more super-punch or chaos magic reset crap
December 27th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Almost every franchise vary wildly in performance relative to the specific title. All-Star Superman is a great seller, if no one “cared” about the charater anymore that wouldn’t be so. The book still sells more then 100,000 copies an issue. All-Star was also has been a bigger seller then Mark Millar’s run of either Wolverine or Spider-Man.
I would simply point out that I believe the success of _All-Star Superman_ has as much, if not more, to do with Grant Morrison and Frank Quietly than it does the character of Superman. Put Mark Waid and Mike Wieringo on there and it doesn’t sell 100,000, no offense to those two excellent and talented creators. Additionally, the recent bump in sales on _Superman_ and _Action Comics_ has come about because of Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek, Carlos Pachecho, Richard Donner, and Adam Kubert being put on the titles.
But my larger point is not to get into a DC vs. Marvel numbers game, nor to even argue Superman’s relevance or not. It’s simply to point out that your claim about Superman the character outselling most of Marvel’s library as proof of his continuing relevance is a) unsustainable; and b) meaningless in the grand scheme of things, since within recent history (i.e the last ten years or so) Superman sales have been rather poor relative to the rest of DC’s line. But oh look … things change. Amazing.
Most of the Marvel books have seen increases due to Civil War, which has been a gigantic success. Using these past few months as an example of Superman not mattering anymore is just wrong.
And using the recent post-Crisis bump for Superman books to argue he is still relevant is also ‘just wrong’.
For the most part, I agree with Quesada’s analysis and don’t see it as some sort of negative bash.
December 27th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
People who want to read comics about “outsiders” don’t read Superman, they read the X-Men.
Superman’s origin is indeed infused with the immigrant experience but Superman himself, as both a character, cultural icon and corporate icon, has long since become “assimilated” into the mainstream American identity. He is the Establishment.
If people feel like outsiders to the Establishment and want to read about characters they can relate to, they read the X-Men because the mutant identity is a metaphor for being an adolescent, or gay, or Black, or whatever today is defined as being outside of and not accepted by the mainstream.
If Marvel decided to cancel all of its X-Men title and restart the franchise over again (as DC did in the Silver Age with Flash, GL, etc) if they moved away from the template of the X-Men as being hated and feared outsiders, the franchise would not sell as well - because you are going against the core DNA of the character.
DC characters - whether created in the Silver Age or more recently - retain part of the core culture of the DC characters created in the Golden Age - nearly godless mythic characters who admired and worshipped by the general public. Kurt Busiek illustrated this distinction between the DC and Marvel Universes quite clearly in the JLA/AVENGERS crossover.
Neither company’s characters are inherently “better” than the other - they both clearly have their appeal - but at the end of the day, the cultural impact of the 1960s/70s counterculture, questioning and distrust of authority, and popularization of introspection/psychoanalysis still predominates in our culture today and it is why characters who are flawed, troubled outsiders who distrust authority and each other will always have greater cultural cachet than those who are seen as goody-goody two-shoes who are to be looked up to and admired unquestioningly.
All companies seek to co-opt the coolness factor of youthful rebellion in society and Marvel’s characters are just “hard-wired” at the point of their creation to be seen as rebellious and countercultural and that is why Marvel’s characters have a more natural appeal. And any new Marvel characters created after the 70s are still created in that template of rebellion.
December 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
The bendis board is full of newsrama hate.
December 28th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Bill, it’s almost as if you’re trying to say something about how the Bendis Board feels about Newsarama… I just can’t put my finger on it…