Which comics have attractive female characters: Dc or marvel? (films, interracial, family)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DC has Wonder Woman and ... umm ... umm ... I'd have to Google it to find more beyond the heroines who are just female versions of pre-existing super heroes (Batgirl, Supergirl, Hawgirl, etc.)
Marvel has a far richer lineup of super heroines.
DC seems to focus more on WW then the others for some reason I will agree with you there. After that the other's don't seem to be very popular. DC doesn't really seem to care the rest which sucks because they have their own stories to tell.
Admittedly, not much outside of the Batman comics. But the question you ought to be asking is, "Why don't you read much DC?"
My guess is you didn't have much exposure to DC's books and/or you didn't know anyone who did and/or you read one other besides Batman, didn't like it, and threw in the towel. Either way, being a Marvel zombie is a choice, not an obligation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Which brings me back to my original point: DC Comics aren't nearly as interesting. I preferred Marvel Comics for a very simple reason: They're better.
That's like saying you "prefer Wes Craven to John Carpenter, because [he's] better." (Which would mean you haven't watched enough of John's movies.)
Ironically, when I took my first sabbatical from comics (due to blowing too much money on music, instruments, and other things, and Daredevil, Spider-Man and Uncanny X-Men were definitely sucking), I still kept up on things. A friend managed a comic shop in a regional chain. I was there when all the ridiculous variant-cover nonsense hit and the "Image explosion" happened, in which one crappy book after another by McFarlane/Liefeld/Platt/Campbell, etc., swarmed the shelves and fought DC's and Marvel's books for space and everyone's hard-earned dollars.
I remember when Marvel began to shart out one one underwhelming and UNnecessary X-book after another: Uncanny X-Men was joined by (simply) X-Men, plus X-Force AND Excalibur, and an ongoing Wolverine book, on top of the already-existing Alpha Flight, New Mutants, and X-Factor. "X"-this, "X"-that...talk about overkill! They were relying on mutants because sales on everything else had dipped. Some of those new mutant titles didn't last the decade, either. And Uncanny X-Men had really nosedived in quality, along with Daredevil. So I stopped buying them. Denny O'Neil had quit writing Daredevil, and Chris Claremont was running on empty when it came to X-Men (both of them). (I hated how all the "X"-nonsense had saturated Marvel's books, anyway.)
And when it came to horror comics, DC soundly handed Marvel's ass to them. House of Mystery, Ghosts and House of Secrets contain many fantastic (and some award-winning) stories. Besides Tomb of Dracula in the'70s (written by that Wolfman guy, and drawn by Gene Colan, another all-time great), Marvel's horror roster was pretty pathetic, overall.
So, no, Marvel is not better than DC. And they've copied DC quite a bit, too, even recently. DC's New 52 is the reason Marvel's NOW! imprint happened...and it sucks! Monkey see. Monkey do.
DC seems to focus more on WW then the others for some reason I will agree with you there. After that the other's don't seem to be very popular. DC doesn't really seem to care the rest which sucks because they have their own stories to tell.
Stop into your local shop and see what's on the shelves. There's more to DC heroines than Wonder Woman.
Pick up the trade edition of the Batwoman reboot by J.H. Williams III. It's awesome. The story is great, and Williams' art is phenomenally good. A win-win!
That's like saying you "prefer Wes Craven to John Carpenter, because [he's] better." (Which would mean you haven't watched enough of John's movies.)
No. I would say that John Carpenter is far better than Wes Craven ever dreamed of being, because I have seen a lot of their movies. Craven's movies (aside from the voodoo one, whose name escapes me) were always too goofy to be good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
So, no, Marvel is not better than DC. And they've copied DC quite a bit, too, even recently. DC's New 52 is the reason Marvel's NOW! imprint happened...and it sucks! Monkey see. Monkey do.
Marvel Comics are definitely in a creative slump these days. They have turned to gimmicks instead of storytelling again. They do this every 10 or 15 years or so. I think it is probably because all of their money and creativity are focused on the movies. Comics are a niche market, and Disney/Marvel is a multi-billion dollar monster.
But if I had the choice between sitting down and reading 50 years of DC Comics and 50 years of Marvel Comics, there's no real contest. Marvel wins. Marvel introduced depth and complexity to comics long before DC ever even considered it. Marvel has often copied DC --- and vice versa. The Fantastic Four was a blatant attempt to capitalize off DC's JLA. But FF was far better than JLA in every respect.
No. I would say that John Carpenter is far better than Wes Craven ever dreamed of being, because I have seen a lot of their movies. Craven's movies (aside from the voodoo one, whose name escapes me) were always too goofy to be good.
I prefer John's movies, too, but Wes made some good ones. Of course, his Nightmare series was a hit, but I always felt it was overrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Marvel Comics are definitely in a creative slump these days. They have turned to gimmicks instead of storytelling again. They do this every 10 or 15 years or so. I think it is probably because all of their money and creativity are focused on the movies. Comics are a niche market, and Disney/Marvel is a multi-billion dollar monster.
Marvel's been in a slump for a long time. It's got nothing to do with the movies. The publishing branch is its own entity. The writers and artists aren't "focused on the movies." LOL. Everything Marvel does, apart from Star Wars-related stuff nowadays, is some kind of response to something going on at DC, like their excellent Blackest Night mega-arc.
Ending Spider-Man at #700 and rebooting it with Otto Octavius (and then "Spider-Gwen," LOL) was one of the dumbest things I've seen any publisher do. Writer Dan Slott took a lot of heat, deservedly, for that.
Now starting over with Thor #1, with the character now being a female, was kind of cool. But the novelty factor's already worn off.
You're going to see the quality bar drop even further across the board at Marvel, now that they've released a bunch of Star Wars comics. The same thing happened in 1977: Marvel was experiencing a serious sales decline, and publishing Star Wars saved the company's ass — not to mention Stan Lee initially turned it down! I believe it was Roy Thomas who told Stan to rethink his decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
But if I had the choice between sitting down and reading 50 years of DC Comics and 50 years of Marvel Comics, there's no real contest. Marvel wins. Marvel introduced depth and complexity to comics long before DC ever even considered it.
Again, I just don't see it that way. Your mind seems made up (though you've yet to cite a single example), but refer to my list. Those are some of the best comics published within the last thirty-odd years, and many, many, many readers agree. And DC's still kicking ass. The second volume of their Batman: Earth One graphic novel series is out, and it's better, both story- and art-wise, than it has any right to be. Scott Snyder's and Greg Capullo's ongoing Batman is one of the best comics currently on the market, period.
Also, don't forget DC's momentous turn when they tackled drug addiction by revealing Green Arrow's sidekick to be an addict in '73. This is one of comics' most famous covers. Shoot, the whole Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams run of the time was critically lauded.
That was YEARS before the "Demon in the Bottle" storyline in Iron Man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Marvel has often copied DC --- and vice versa. The Fantastic Four was a blatant attempt to capitalize off DC's JLA. But FF was far better than JLA in every respect.
The FF were copped from the Challengers of the Unknown, the same way the X-Men from the Doom Patrol (some people disagree, but it's obvious). It's okay for you to prefer one team/comic over the other. It's just sad how people miss out by serving only one publisher as though it's some kind of church. Hence the old, old joke "Marvel Zombies."
Stop into your local shop and see what's on the shelves. There's more to DC heroines than Wonder Woman.
Pick up the trade edition of the Batwoman reboot by J.H. Williams III. It's awesome. The story is great, and Williams' art is phenomenally good. A win-win!
As I said above DC does but WW is their focus. Don't get me wrong I love me some WW! However is one of THREE main hero's that have Batman, which is my fav on the DC Superman & WW. I think without those 3 DC might not fair so well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
