Still concerned with Joe Quesada’s theory of DC wanting to Marvelize, Comic Bloc wonders, “What does that even mean, anyway?”:
“I won’t expound on this at the moment, but the easiest way to see the Marvel formula is to consider the origin stories of their different characters. There is definitely a trend that runs through most of them. And they share such with Batman.”
Bruce Wayne became Batman because of atomic energy? No, wait… Maybe someone else can suggest what it means to emulate the Marvel method…?
“The notion of Batman being, as Mark Waid described him, ‘the zenith of human fortitude and ambition’, has always been a part of the character (even in the Silver Age), but the presentation was very different from a typical Stan n’ Jack (or Stan n’ Ditko) Marvel book. Batman was only an everyman in that he possessed no superpowers. In every other respect Bruce Wayne was very far removed from his audience - he was fabulously wealthy, had an endless supply of cool gadgets, was a father, and dated a string of gorgeous women. One of the big reasons Robin was introduced to the series was to provide a reader identification figure. Batman was who the reader would aspire to be when he grew up; Robin was who he’d aspire to be now. The Marvel characters, by contrast, were deeply flawed. Peter Parker was a nerd whose family was dirt-poor. Bruce Banner was a nerd *and* his ‘powers’ were a curse. The Thing was freakishly strong but also freakishly ugly. And so on. There was always a ‘hook’ for readers (many of whom were also outcasts) to hang onto. If anything, Superman was more ‘relateable’ than Batman because, despite his incredible strength, he had to act like a doofus around the woman he loved. He tapped into the notion of ‘She’d love me if she only knew what I’m REALLY like’. (A notion, by the way, whose removal from the modern Superman mythos has made it poorer.)”
Okay, that sounds right, but can anyone put the Marvel Formula more succinctly?
“Marvel Formula: Eye of Newt, wing of bat, Nightshade, mandrake root, Teredactal Egg, 1 worm from a bottle of Tequila, 3 black pearls. Pinch of Ash from the bark of an ash tree. Mix thuroughly with Blood, sweat & tears of a fanboy.”
Ah. That’s better.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:54 am
That description is all about semantics, and not at all about character.
What I think Joe means is not the concrete construction of character (white teenage underwear model turned adventurer, wealthy tax accountant turned child molester) but rather personality type and the personal issues that the writer addresses.
Spider-Man, in its classic age, deals with adolescent and family troubles. Peter Parker has real conflict, some of his own making, that any reader can appreciate.
Batman is similar to that (recently) because he has become so paranoid and withdrawn that he doesn’t engage others in a genuine way, aside from the worldwide gay romp he and the boys are on right now.
This is different from Superman whose chief concerns are classically avoiding a shiny green rock and duping his girlfriend into thinking he’s not a God.
I think the writer of the above comment knew all this, but couldn’t help himself from making a douchebag argument.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:18 am
I think the key is the Batman’s core is defined by vengeance. I know it’s a joke for Batman to be all “My parents are DEAD!” but he wouldn’t be Batman if they weren’t. It’s not his fault that they died, unlike Spider-Man, but it’s still a very key element. His wealth and genius aren’t what made him become Batman — it’s his dead parents.
December 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
This is a bit old. Both Marvel and DC rip each other off. Marvel is as guilty of DC-izing as DC is guilty of Marvelizing. It’s all semantics.
Maybe if Quesada spent less time on meaningless things like this and more time actually reading the crap he puts out, he could raise the quality of Marvel’s books out of the gutter. (Same applies to Didio)
December 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
True, Batman may be unrelatable to average readers because Bruce Wayne was “to the manor born” and had inherited wealth at his disposal to travel the world and train with the greatest martial arts masters in the world, build his Batmobile, Batplane, arsenal of weapons, etc.
But Marvel also has billionaire industrialist Tony Stark so it’s not like being wealthy in and of itself makes a character unrelatable.
And both comics companies have characters without superpowers, just training and/or fancy weapons.
No, I think what makes Batman the most “Marvel-like” of the DC characters is the fact that Frank Miller wrote one of the (re-)defining treatments of the character - just as he did with Daredevil, another “street-level” crimefighter. (Is it any wonder why people want to see another Batman/Daredevil team-up?)
Frank Miller’s DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, for better or for worse, made the character grittier and more driven and emphasized the tragic nature at the core of the character - his sense of helplessness and guilt at watching his parents gunned down before his eyes. While not a “flaw” in the classic Marvel sense, it does in some way make the character more human to us, as we can all relate to the anger, guilt, and helplessness that drive Batman to right the injustices of the world.
Add a few tweaks and I don’t think it would be too difficult to make Batman work in the context of the Marvel Universe.
December 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
>>This is a bit old. Both Marvel and DC rip each other off. Marvel is as guilty of DC-izing as DC is guilty of Marvelizing. It’s all semantics.
It’s not so much that Marvel and DC “rip each other off” (after all, as the story goes, Stan Lee was tasked with creating a superteam specifically as a response to DC’s new Justice League of America) as it is the relative extent to which one has borrowed from the other.
DC Comics used to show Superman Batman and Robin literally skipping down the street together arms linked together.
Several decades later, now Superman Batman and Wonder Woman and other heroes started to distrust and fight with each other in INFINITE CRISIS. Marvel was doing this decades ago when heroes would fight and argue with each other all of the time. DC is still just catching up.
December 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Marvel has a fanbase that DC doesn’t have. Stan Lee created this sense of community between his comics and his fans. One of the greatest things Joe Q. did was revive that fanbase (which previous management did everything they could to destroy). It’s also the main reason why Marvel will never have a big reboot.
DC has not been able to do this. A large part could be that Batman/Superman feud that was taking place for the past 25 years. It was generally Batman vs. everybody for the past 25 years. So it’s no suprise that most Batman fans at the DCU boards don’t like Superman or pretty much anyone else. Not exactly the best sales approach.
You’ll note that you don’t have Wolverine or Spider-Man making snide comments about Captain America or Thor. Certainly not at the consistant rate Batman had towards everyone else. Even this current Captain America/Iron-Man fued will ultimately heal itself.
DC’s change in Batman’s personality is a step in the right direction. The new DC Nation approach is trying to mimic what Stan started. It could be too little, too late.
So a Marvel fan is a Marvel fan. A person who likes Spider-Man doesn’t dislike other Marvel heroes, that’s a huge help when your trying to sell an entire line.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Strange, the things corporate fanboys argue about.
December 29th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
>>Strange, the things corporate fanboys argue about.
So why are you reading it then, dumbass?