Robot 6

Quote of the day #2 | Tom Brevoort explains the difference between DC and Marvel

By its nature, the DCU has a more optimistic outlook on the world, and the Marvel U has a more pessimistic outlook….the DCU is Aaron Sorkin’s “The West Wing”–it’s not how government actually works, but it’s the way you wish that it worked, the way you’d like it to be–idealistic, passionate, energetic, spirited….But too often, DC seems to try to turn away from their core viewpoint, to make their characters darker or more dystopic or more downtrodden. And it just doesn’t play in the long run.

Judging from the comment-thread contretemps they always seem to touch off, everyone either loves or loves to hate Marvel Senior VP of Publishing Tom Brevoort’s publicly aired thoughts on DC Comics. Readers of Brevoort’s Formspring account appear to be no exception, judging from a recent question that asked Brevoort to expand upon his earlier notion that part of DC’s problem, as he perceives it, is their attempt to be more like Marvel rather than playing to their own strengths.

Brevoort’s response advances something akin to a Grand Unified Theory of the Big Two Shared Superhero Universes, in which Marvel is defined by its pessimism and DC by its optimism. DC fails, Brevoort argues, when in an attempt to mollify today’s cynical audience, it sexes up its superheroes by making them grim and gritty. (I couldn’t help but think of the phrase “brasher and more brooding” from today’s Superman press release.) I’m not sure the distinction is that clear. It seems to me that superheroes from any universe, or even those who stand on their own from Invincible to Hellboy, have a shared vocabulary of self-sacrifice, self-actualization, spectacle, action, and violent triumph over adversity; it’s tough for any of them to remain pessimistic for very long, lest they become something other than super heroes. At the same time, though, there’s something to be said of how far we can tolerate one universe or the other to be pushed in the grim’n’gritty direction; for one silly example off the top of my head, Spider-Man’s black costume “works” in a way that a similar makeover for Superman just wouldn’t, and Spidey’s arguably Marvel’s jolliest, noblest character.

What do you think? To be fair, Brevoort calls this theory just the start of a discussion he doesn’t have the space to do justice to on his Formspring. Is it a good start at that?



I usually think Brevoort is a dick, but he’s dead on this time — and every time DC tries to become Marvel, it blows up in their faces. Didio and company are just terrified to embrace what makes their characters work, and until they’re canned, the company is screwed.

I don’t completely disagree with Mr. Breevort but i don’t quite see it that way. I see DC comics as the place for big stories. DC characters are larger than life and yes they speak to the optimism those types of stories bring with them. But Dc dose not fail when they try to make their characters more human they fail when they forget what being human means. For example Green Lantern Hal Jordan, Hal had one of the biggest and greatest falls from grace in literature. When has was infected by Paralax and he was exposed to fear it was one of the best things that could have happened to the character. That moment of vulnerability made Hal relate-able no longer this fearless guy who just got out of every scrape with a wink and a smile, he became human exposed to all our fears and frailties. The journey for hall then became over coming fear instead of just never knowing it. It makes him more human and less wooden. Now Hal made a mistake and he must atone now Hal Know that in order to truly be brave one has to overcome fear not just be immune to it. But then DC forgets and before you know it Hal is just some cocky power fantasies of how some people wish to be not how they actually are and then things get boring. DC wouldn’t need all the Gimmicks of they just found their characters strength and focused and simplified their narrative. Gods have flaws too just look at the Greeks. no need for grim and gritty just solid dramatic story telling.

I’m no fan of Tommy but but I must salute the man here. Tabernacle preach, synagogue speech! He’s 100% dead on with this. as Dave said above, anytime DC tries to marvelize their characters it just doesn’t work. Batman IS their Marvel character leave it with him and just do you. I read both companies books because I like both styles of storytelling and character portrayal. But why read a flimsy DC knockoff of a Marvel book when I can read an actual well done Marvel book?

The Truth Speaker

July 18, 2011 at 5:48 pm

There’s no difference between Marvel and DC. They both publish the exact same kind of negative, uninteresting, pointless, fan-oriented, soap-operatic trash. Neither one of them has anything truly creative to offer, which is why they’re both yesterday’s news and on the way out. The future of comics is in independent, creator-owned projects — period.

Brevoort usually comes across as a PR shill and a guy who personally wants to be the next Stan Lee but doesn’t have the charisma. But this time, he’s dead on. Anytime that DC tries to compete with Marvel on their playing field, it backfires on them because on an editorial level DC seems unwilling to fully commit. DC’s characters work because the optimism of the eras in which most of them were create are intertwined with them. With the exception of Batman, most of DC’s characters are basically happy. Marvel’s characters may have the same level of sacrifice, but the more successful ones all have a cynicism, reluctance or fear built directly into them. The Fantastic Four and Steve Rogers (note that these are some of the oldest successful characters in Marvel’s stable) are among the very few I’d say could potentially work in the DCU.

When you look at the announcement of Supeman’s redesign making him more brooding, you know right then that this new direction is doomed to failure. I think a lot of this redesign is due to the success of JMS’ Earth One. But the problem with that project is that 1) a lot of people bought it as a novelty, so they won’t be coming back; and 2) it wasn’t very good, a lot of THOSE people won’t be coming back.

Brevoort’s right; any time DC has gone down this path to grimness and grittiness, it’s failed in the long run. Projects like Watchmen or The Dark Knight work specifically because they’re examining the super-hero model and they have a finite run. With the exception of Jonah Hex and the Gotham City heroes, I can’t name a single hero or title in the DCU that has been successful in the long term by going dark and moody.

On the other hand, I am drunk, so that may color my viewpoint a little.

I think there is some truth in it, but I also think that Marvel has had periods — we’re just coming out of one, I believe, which mainly started with Avengers Disassembled and ran through Civil War and related books, and from which I think we’re starting to recover — in which they’ve taken that “darker” aspect and run it so far into the ground that, yes, the heroes indeed became “something other than super heroes.” (Ironically, perhaps, it’s been some of the traditionally darker characters like Wolverine who seemed to retain their own moral centers during all of this.)

Amazingly, I’m going to agree with Tom Brevoort on this one, too. It’s basically what I’ve been saying for years: that the DCU is fundamentally based in Science Fiction and its underpinnings, where the Marvel U is based on the underpinnings of Horror.

I would never describe the tone of Marvel comics as pessimistic. The ethical motto for much of their world seems to be “persevere and you will thrive.”

@Chris Jones:

Yeah, but there’s an inherent moodiness and whinyness that’s necessary in a lot of Marvel characters and fundamental to the way the Marvel U works in a way that the DCU doesn’t. Just off the top of my head I can think of Spider-Man, The Hulk, Silver Surfer, Ben Grimm and the entire mutant corner that allows the characters to wallow in their own gloom that just doesn’t seem to work with any DC character other than Batman.

To put it another way… it just rains more in the MU than in the DCU.

Honestly Brevoort feels like a troll (of the forum/comment variety). This is just like every other marvel attempt at a joke on DC and yet marvel still houses the biggest joke in the industry in Bendis.

DC produced many interesting comics when they became more like Marvel. Teen Titans and the LSH in the 1980s were both sort of more pessimistic/realistic take on the superteam that Marvel pioneered, and it worked great. The Post-Crisis DCU as a whole was sort of Marvel-inspired, they even got Marvel stars like Byrne and Miller to do it. Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, and the early Grant Morrison weren’t exactly optimists. Suicide Squad wasn’t optimistic. They also produced some bad “Marvel” comics (JLA Detroit?!?), but that’s life.

This obsession with the fun vs. grim dicothomy is actually a 1990s development, and it’s revisionist to view the entirety of superhero comics history through this lens.

What bothers me about the reboot isn’t the pessimism itself, but a) how that particular brand of pessimism feels so very 1990s. b) how they’re keeping most of the same people from before the reboot. c) how they’re not going far enough with it. with this crap of reboot character A totally, keeps character B’s history intact, and as for character C, pick and choose.

If we’re going to reboot, reboot totally. At least you’d really gain in new reader-friendliness.

I’ve got to agree with Tom here. I always viewed DC as being about the super-hero first…the big, bright colors and ideas and the spectacle associated with them…while Marvel was about the people behind the mask, who have doubts and fears and flaws but fight past them to become heroes. And while there are exceptions to that basic rule (Batman could be a Marvel character, Captain America could be a DC character), as well as cases where one company taking the other’s approach has worked well, typically trying to graft the Marvel “angst” (for lack of a better word) onto the bright and shiny but underdeveloped DC cast makes it feel forced and awkward.

So, Tom’s comments are basically the cherry on top of the “Bad Choices for Superman” sundae that DC served up today.

Tom’s right, but it’s BS. When DC did bright and happy stories, people claimed that’s why they liked Marvel better–because of it’s relate-able characters and “edgy” stories. Now DC tries to tell stories along those lines and suddenly everyone has a problem with it.

The pre-1990s DC characters are idealizations of human characteristics wedded to amazing abilities.
The pre-1990s Marvel characters are human characteristics wedded to amazing abilities.
(in both cases there are a couple of notable exceptions, but only a couple)
Characters created in the 1990s (and since) are interchangeable between the companies.

I think the difference, as a generalization, is that DC is “fantasy” and Marvel is “science fiction”. That is to say, Marvel at its best tends to be about human protagonists with a single specific difference living in a shared universe quite similar to our own. (There are more exceptions on the Marvel side, but those exceptions are pretty old; Kirby Fantastic Four or Ditko Dr. Strange, yes, but not the current ones).

DC’s superheroes are an alien living on earth, a shape-shifting alien living on earth, an amazon goddess, a dude with a magic ring that can do anything, the king of atlantis, Hawkman (I don’t even know how to begin to summarize *that*), Robin Hood, etc. Batman is the closest thing to grounded, and his city is a surrealistic nightmare.

Both companies try to do what the other does better, and rarely succeed; Thor has been trying to be a DC book for 40 years and only any good when Simonson was in charge of it. On the other hand, DC has been chasing Marvel for the past decade or more, to nobody’s benefit.

Honestly, you would think that given the very large corporation he now works for, he would stop for second and realize he might want to STFU before the suits catch wind of all of his cross company bashing. It’s poor form, and only comes across as very immature.

Jake Earlewine

July 18, 2011 at 8:35 pm

Mr. Brevoort is right, as usual. It’s a shame DC doesn’t have anybody in editorial who has Mr. Brevoort’s clear perception of today’s comics market.

However, I do think Marvel takes the “pessimism” too far. I read comics (and books, and watch movies) to escape from the ugliness of the world. I don’t need it shoved in my face when I’m seeking entertainment.

For example, Civil War ruined forever my ability to empathize with Tony Stark (and I haven’t cared to buy an Iron Man comic since then). And a gun-toting killer in a Captain America costume just isn’t Captain America.

When modern creators pervert longtime characters to make them more “grim and gritty” — which is such a nineties cliche, c’mon now! — it’s like they’re urinating on Kirby’s grave.

I agree with Tom. I think the best DCU ever was the Justice League Unlimited. It was dark and there were consequences, but overall it was ideal and the characters were fun and interesting. Multiple worlds, body switching and government conspiracies with other planets governments. What makes it good is that it’s fun pulpy sci-fi.

And maybe lay off continuity. My favorite DCU stories are barely in continuity, if at all.

What are the Top 20 DC comics featuring their superheroes of 30 (or so) years? That list has to include THE DARK KNIGHT, BATMAN: YEAR ONE, ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, Wolfman & Perez on TEEN TITANS, Alan Moore on SWAMP THING, Levitz & Giffen on LoSH, Perez’s “Who Killed Mindy Meyer?” from WONDER WOMAN, Morrison and Porter on JLA, James Robinson’s STARMAN and bunch of other stuff that is not exactly “sunny”.

Yep. Obviously Brevoort hasnt heard of a character named Batman, who I think you could call more than a little exception.

I rarely agree with Brevoort, but I do think he’s got a point this time, at least to some degree.

The Avengers/JLA book cover above touched on the difference – in the MU, metahuman heroes are often viewed with suspicion with some exceptions (Fantastic Four, Avengers…), whereas DCU, there’s more of a futurist approach, that metahuman heroes are often celebrity or at the very least admired, again with exceptions.

Thing is, you can still have dark stories with inherently optimistic characters. Heck… In some ways, I think we need more idealistic characters right now more than ever with all the cynicism in media in general. As long as the stories are well done, which pretty much works both ways.

(Ugh I am too tired to be coherent)

Brevoort doesn’t bash DC, he gives an opinion. He favors marvel but he’s had a lot of positives to say about dc , and when asked his favorite character in all of comics he responds the flash. Tom knows DC can’t hurt marvel, and the only thing that will hurt marvel is a bad marvel product

This is Brevoort’s attempt to make DC appear unsophisticated or childish but DC was, let’s not forget, the publisher that introduced the very subversive and very complex British Invasion that gave the world Vertigo and a whole slew of mature (“mature” being used literally here and not in the juvenile shock-tactics sense) superhero and fantasy comics. Whether or not Marvel comics having a dark worldview is even a good thing (in and of itself debatable), I don’t even think they can lay claim to that… much of Marvel’s tone these days originated in themes and character beats originally created by Warren Ellis and Mark Millar in the pages of WildStorm comics, WildStorm also being owned by DC.

Anyone else vote Tom Brevoort stop talking about DC entirely, since he’s almost always wrong and only speaks in absurd generalizations and sweeping denunciations?

Ricardo Amaral

July 18, 2011 at 9:57 pm

In a very broad and simplistic way, Brevoort sounds right, but it is not really the essence of the difference. I think DC is a more mythological and (as someone said) fantastic Universe. Big themes work better at DC in general (and this is probably the reason that – if you took an election to the best trade books/long storylines between both publishers, DC wins by a landslide). Marvel seems (and numbers prove) to handle the monthly fix better. DC is (used to be) “book writing” while Marvel is still the “soap opera” side.
Marvel best works are usually very long term taking and not story specific (Jim Starlin’s Thanos Saga, Claremont & Byrne’s X-Men run, Simonson’s Thor, Frank Miller’s Daredevil). DC is better at the story-level (Watchmen, Year One, Terra Mosaic, Great Darkness Saga…).

Brevoort is right. No question about it. Didio is trying to make DC the un-DC and it is not going to work. Marvel and DC are different, and so it should be.

Well at least DC follows through on their storylines (Spider-man: Clone War 1990’s) and continuity, instead of bogging us down with a slew of convoluted series of story arcs with no apparent ending (X-men) as well this has leaked into Marvel’s movies also… starting over franchises you might as well just keep telling a crappy story, also complete letdowns (Bubaker’s Daredevil)… let me add the killing and dismal restructuring of the Marvel Ultimate line, this is truly a waste of paper of course of course DC is more optimistic I think they have better characters, storylines, creators, and better editorial staff…

Well at least DC follows through on their storylines (Spider-man: Clone War 1990’s) and continuity, instead of bogging us down with a slew of convoluted series of story arcs with no apparent ending (X-men) as well this has leaked into Marvel’s movies also… starting over franchises you might as well just keep telling a crappy story, also complete letdowns (Bubaker’s Daredevil)… let me add the killing and dismal restructuring of the Marvel Ultimate line, this is truly a waste of paper of course DC is more optimistic I think they have better characters, storylines, creators, and better editorial staff…

I don’t know if “throwing it all out and starting over every ten years” really qualifies as “follows through on their storylines.” Marvel history can be as convoluted as possible (especially with some horrible stories in the 90s and the Jemas period thrown in the mix), but at least they try to make it all gel. I admire that more than just giving up and rebooting everything again and again.

A darker Superman does not mean he’s as pessimistic as a marvel character. Even DC’s darkest heroes like Batman is optimistic in his own way.

What stories are running away from DC’s core viewpoint that Brevoort is talking about? Identity Crisis? As far as I know, it still ended with optimism and brought a lot of readers into the DCU.

I dont understand this article.

I agree with Tom’s theory, but that is because I read primarily Marvel comics.

I think what this is, is less of an assessment of Marvel vs. DC so much as the Marvel view of DC.

From the Marvel Perspective DC is about icons. The simplisity of their characters, costumes and images are so clear and universal, it can be easy to view it as the whole of the DC U.

In truth the DC U gets as complex and twisted as the Marvel Universe, but from the exterior view, DC is Superman, Wonderman and Batman, you can even throw in Green Lantern and Aquaman too without disrupting the theme. In each of these characters their image and character are soo universal in our collective awareness that you know who they are even if you’ve never actually read a single comic featuring these characters.

At Marvel, probably the closest you come to that Iconic singular character is the Hulk, and the Hulk embodies something very differnt than any of those primary DC Icons. Sure, you can see spiderman or Captain America as Iconic as well, but they are not as universally ingrained as the Hulk or the DC Icons.

This isn’t just about cross media popularity either, there is something intrinsic about the golden age continuity of character that is embodied by DC.

Essentially, it is not that the golden age was more optimistic (it really wasn’t) it is that the characters were defined in simple terms in large part because they needed so little to set themselves apart. So often these DC characters were the first of their type and so, in creating them you could place them in far easier terms, this essential minimalism carries through even into the much more complex DCU.

Coming later in a world that was already glutted with Heroes, each marvel character had to have a much more complex identity to set themselves apart in the comics world, and so they don’t have that exquisit minimalism that the DC universe has.

The difference between Marvel/DC has less to do with perceived pessimism/optimism of the characters/universes and more to do with the quality and attractiveness of their mainstream titles.

DC has (IMO) always done very well with special quality projects such as The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, Ronin, Kingdom Come, All-Star Superman etc. They have also produced great quality books under the Vertigo banner, such as Transmetropolitan, Preacher, Y The Last Man and so on.

However, when it comes to the monthly mainstream super-hero books, Marvel has always had them beat, hands down, because (IMO) Marvel have always had the superior talent pool, particularly when it comes to artists.

You can go back to the 60s books to see this in action. From my understanding, it appears that back then the personalities of the DC heroes were pretty interchangeable. Batman could be Superman who could be Aquaman and so on. They were not written with distinct voices. Stan Lee wrote the Marvel characters with distinct voices and personalities from the get-go. Spider-Man, Cap, The Hulk, Iron Man etc, all had differing motivations/feel/tone to their character/books.

Then you get to the art. Jack Kirby’s dynamic style of storytelling blew away the competition, with his influence still being felt today. It was in stark contrast to the well drafted, solid and controlled house style that DC had at the time. It was not bad, just not as exciting as Jack. Then you follow Jack up with Gene Colan, John Buscema, Jim Steranko, John Romita etc and you’ve got some really pretty, attractive, dynamic books that kids obviously couldn’t get enough of!

I would say that this has been the truth of the matter since then. You look at the two company’s books right now and Marvel still has the stronger pool of talent in both writing and art. DC can reboot as much as they want, but they are still competing monthly with Bendis, Brubaker,Ellis, Remender, Gillen, Pak, Waid, Hickman, DnA, Aaron, David, Hitch, Maleev, McGuiness, Acuna, McNiven, McKone, Ramos, Ribic, Andrews, Bianchi, Larocca, Deodato and Romita JR! That’s a STRONG team of creators on Marvel’s regular, monthly, top/middle/lower tier titles in their mainstream super-hero universe.

This is not a bash at DC as I am a self-confessed DC guy. I do acknowledge that while Marvel may not provide the overt literary quality of some of DCs projects, they deliver attractive and dynamic mainstream books, and have doe since I was a kid.


July 19, 2011 at 1:38 am

Now this is more like it!
I think this is a much better style from Tom B – it sounds less like bashing the enemy, and more just a solid, No BS, view of what’s happening.
If anything, I think DC doesn’t just try to be Marvel that’s the problem – they’ve had some great books that do that – it’s more when they try to out do Marvel at being Marvel that they run into problems. That’s where stuff like Identity Crisis and dead cat weapons come from.

So does that mean that marvel shouldn’t have optimistic stories? that’s weird, because the new happy daredevil looks awesome, as was thor tma, as was waids fantastic four!

meanwhile over at dc, the heaviest and violent, if not most pessimistic books (batman and green lantern and secret six) reach critical and in two cases commercial success.

its not about the outlook, stories can change to be more pessimistic or optimistic as long as the core of the character remains the same. Superman can be brash and brood, as long as he saves the day in the end.

As a DC loyalist for over half a century, I applaud the insight.

And, “Right on, Dave, right on!”

“It’s a shame DC doesn’t have anybody in editorial who has Mr. Brevoort’s clear perception of today’s comics market.”

I’ve got to disagree with you, Jake. NOBODY involved in comics at the Big Two have a clear perception of today’s market. Look at the sales numbers.

As for Brevoort’s statement, I agree with him. DC needs to be the more optimistic universe, Crisis On Infinite Earth’s was done to turn them into Marvel and it just didn’t work.

I agree to a certain extent, but remember that DC are also the ones who gave comics The Dark Knight Returns/Year One, Watchmen, Animal Man, Doom Patrol, Swamp Thing and, if you want to include Vertigo stuff like Sandman, then it’s clear that when DC do it right, they do it best. Marvel don’t have ANYTHING comparable to most of those series in their back catalogue. And they don’t have Batman: the grimmest, grittiest of them all!

If he’s referring exclusively to DC’s superheroes however, I think he may have a point. Though you could interchange the optimism/pessimism relation with fun/whiny or adventure/soap opera, comparisons which mean essentially the same thing as Brevoort talks about but makes the other side sound better.

For me, DCs superhero stuff works best when it’s something like All Star Superman, comics that embrace the idealism in each character and have fun with the scope and breadth of the characters world, rather than Marvel’s ‘grounding’ of characters by giving them real-world problems. It’s hard enough to find a job these days myself, I don’t need to spend $4 on reading about how Spider-Man, with his amazing powers, can’t find one either!

Ed (A Different One)

July 19, 2011 at 6:17 am

@ PreacherCain:

“For me, DCs superhero stuff works best when it’s something like All Star Superman, comics that embrace the idealism in each character and have fun with the scope and breadth of the characters world, rather than Marvel’s ‘grounding’ of characters by giving them real-world problems.”

I think you summed it up right there. Personally, I’ve always hated, hated, hated Superman comics, but I loved All-Star Superman because it took an unabashed approach to what Superman is all about and had a hell of a good time with it. It’s when they try to make us take Superman seriously that I yawn and move on to whatever Marvel’s putting out that month.

DC has always been better at “Event Publishing” and the odd “Prestige Project” here and there. Marvel has just consistently nailed the monthly superhero fix better than anyone else. That, I think, sums them up pretty well.

Googam son of Goom

July 19, 2011 at 8:48 am

I have to tentatively agree with Tom on this. A brooding Superman is not Superman as others have siad there is plenty of room for drama and good storytelling with the well established character of Superman. That being said my two favourite DC books are very dark: Secret Six and Jonah Hex. Not the biggest sellers either but extremely well done.

It’s rather interesting that Brevoort has a better handle on what makes DC’s characters work than the company’s own ‘brain trust’. But perhaps this is part of why Marvel is still the #1 publisher; they’ve got their closest competitor in the market already figured out.

With so much wrong at Marvel, his time would be much better spent in looking at all of the mediocre to subpar to crappy titles in their own house before going after DC’s books.

Lennon Presley

July 19, 2011 at 10:47 am

“Its not about the outlook, stories can change to be more pessimistic or optimistic as long as the core of the character remains the same. Superman can be brash and brood, as long as he saves the day in the end”

That’s correct.

I can say with confidence that the folks at DC aren’t losing any sleep over his comments.

Breevort is hilarious.

Reading his comments reminds of when Gary Busey decided to give advice to Charlie Sheen… ;)

Whoah-kay, from the looks of things here, this is where I draw the line on this debate:

DC’s the (struggling) Republican of the comics industry, Marvel’s the (struggling) Democrat, while IDW, Dark Horse, Image, and Top Cow are, well, the independents who thrive because they know better than the big veterans. I like both companies, but hate most of the boneheaded decisions they’ve made; I hate how neither one of them is being aggressive in their advertising and reaching out to newer readers (resulting in stunts such as the DCnU), and I hate how the comics fandom is partially to blame for these stunts.

It’s because of these that I prefer stories regarding the top three of my Top Five favorite things: Godzilla, the Transformers, and GI Joe (the vs Cobra one). I personally believe the following–Godzilla could wipe out the Hulk, Snake Eyes could mop the floor with Green Lantern, and Optimus Prime is a better archetype than Superman because he knows that even when it comes down to it, there are some evils that MUST be destroyed (i.e., Unicron, who could totally out-eat Galactus).

Son Of Origins

July 20, 2011 at 6:20 pm

Simply put, DC is the “Adam-12″ of comics. Marvel is “Hill Street Blues”.

Since “Day One” Didio has been using books like SECRET WARS, INFINITY GAUNTLET, and Spider-Man as examples of what he wants DC to benchmark. He even admits to being more of a Marvel fan himself in the 80’s and 90’s and never had much faith in what DC was putting out then. It’s only natural that Dan wants to emanate what Marvel has been doing in DC’s books, which Tom and many people here have stated isn’t the way to go. Just be DC!

Son Of Origins

July 23, 2011 at 12:34 am

DC’s slice of the diamond sales chart pie has gone from half to nearly one third while Marvel’s slice has remained fairly consistantly at half. Clearly DC just being DC isn’t working. If DC was smart they would have copied Marvels “Ultimates”. That way they could have made their changes and still had the old continuity. If fans didn’t like what they were doing in Ultimates, they’d still have the original line of books to read. But since the majority of DC characters suck, it probably wouldn’t have worked like it did for Marvel. That’s why Marvel is number one and DC is closing in on third.

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives