NationStates Jolt Archive

Which one is better overall. DC or Marvel. I say DC by a mile.

neither, next question?

It's been done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_vs._Marvel

Marvel won. *nod*

Marvel all the way, DC can't make characters that have real character flaws.

Having too many powers is not a character flaw.

Marvel all the way, DC can't make characters that have real character flaws.

. . . .

batman?

DC, because of the Vertigo (http://www.dccomics.com/vertigo/) line. No contest.

Marvel, because of sheer variety of independent powers, and the fact that they can coherently present a multiverse. DC has a guy dress as a bat and throw pieces of metal shaped like bats.

. . . .

batman?

Punisher?




Marvel has a lot of weak, crappy characters.

Depends, are we counting the branch lines too? If so, DC. Vertigo rocks!

Marvel all the way, DC can't make characters that have real character flaws.

Having too many powers is not a character flaw.
Whereas Marvel seems to just have settled with angst. I swear, sometimes Mavel's lineup sounds like that would happen if you give emo kids superpowers. I half-way expect them to all start writing bad poetry, cutting themselves, and talking about how the world doesn't understand them over coffee.

Depends, are we counting the branch lines too? If so, DC. Vertigo rocks!


Whereas Marvel seems to just have settled with angst. I swear, sometimes Mavel's lineup sounds like that would happen if you give emo kids superpowers. I half-way expect them to all start writing bad poetry, cutting themselves, and talking about how the world doesn't understand them over coffee.

A lot of them already do. Spiderman anyone?

. . . .

batman?

One of... how many characters?

As opposed to:

Tony Stark: Drunk, struck by what damage his company did (in early comics).

Peter Parker: Holds himself responsible for his uncle's death, and has a shitty social life.

Mutants (several hundred UNIQUE characters): Considered "freaks" by the rest of the in-universe society. Some have superiority complexes (Magneto), some feel that society is right (Beast), and a boatload of others.

Way too many to list (or remember) ATM.

And then,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av6fWfmugds

Marvel and DC were on parity for a while. Then in response to the Comic Books Code, DC went Camp. Now, they have Batman, Superman, Green Arrow, and Green Lantern. Marvel and DC have stolen character ideas from each other relentlessly, but with the exception of Captain Marvel, Marvel has done them better.

It sucks, because Batman and his Rogues Gallery are some of the best out there, but Marvel just does a better job across the board (though Post-Civil War, and even in the middle some places, Quesada has been driving Marvel down the S*** hole)

Marvel and DC were on parity for a while. Then in response to the Comic Books Code, DC went Camp. Now, they have Batman, Superman, Green Arrow, and Green Lantern. Marvel and DC have stolen character ideas from each other relentlessly, but with the exception of Captain Marvel, Marvel has done them better.

It sucks, because Batman and his Rogues Gallery are some of the best out there, but Marvel just does a better job across the board (though Post-Civil War, and even in the middle some places, Quesada has been driving Marvel down the S*** hole)

Batman is literally the only good superhero from DC.

Poll fails, Dark Horse 4 the win +1

Marvel superior, DC inferior.

Marvel has Thor.

DC has Doctor Manhattan.
I have no reason to choose which one is better, when I enjoy both as is. :p

Is their an option to choose "they both suck?";)

If I had to choose though, and as someone who's not much of a comic fan and is going largely off of movie adaptations, I'd say its pretty close.

DC:************************** Marvel:

Pros:*************************Pros:

Batman***********************X-men

The Joker

Cons:************************Cons:

Superman********************Not sure


I'd say Marvel probably edges it out for X-men, Spiderman, and not Superman. But I have a hard time voting down Batman.

Uh yeah, because after all, a guy who is so broken as a result of child abuse that he develops multiple personality disorder, exacerbated by his radiation exposure, is so much more relatable a decent stand-up newspaper reporter.

I realize I'm in the minority in thinking that Superman is totally relatable and awesome, whereas there's a huge contingent of 90's-comic-book hero fans who despise him, but anyone who thinks Supes is dumb because "he has too many powers" only proves 1) that they're totally clueless about Superman's mythos (a thumbnail sketch of characters with powers roughly equal if not more so than Supes runs as follows: Darkseid, Mongul, Batman, Doomsday, Martian Manhunter, various Green Lanterns, Damn Batman, Brainiac, Zod, Goddamn Batman, a magic-user of any substantial ability, etc.) and 2) that they haven't clued in on the fact that muscles only take you so far against a guy pulling levers from behind the scene if in fact you care about concepts like doing the right thing for the right reason. This of course ignores the fact that comic-book fans don't really hate Superman because he's "too powerful", but because he's a role model.

But that's a fight for another day. I will say now that Marvel has some great characters, although this varies with the circumstances and the writing. Magneto, for instance, is a very compelling villian. But they also seem to go in for emo characters by the truckload, Wolverine is everywhere, and they've had significant trouble figuring out how to be "gritty" without being just goofy (really, Jean Grey, despite being happily married, you couldn't keep your pants on when Wolvie is around for 15 minutes? Really?). By contrast, I would say that DC has done some spectacular work and has some extraordinarily compelling characters that are nevertheless laden with huge amounts of baggage from their Silver-Age comic book counterparts. It's taken Christopher Nolan to mainstream the Batman that's been around since The Dark Knight Returns in the mid-80's, and they still haven't bothered to present a Superman on screen that matches John Bryne's retelling of the Superman origin from the same period. These characters are extraordinarily compelling, well-written, and yes, relatable, but they don't get the credit because we don't look past Silver-Age Superman's ability to pick up a mountain or Batman as portrayed by Adam West.

Superman -- how convenient an origin it is. Examples on both sides, even though I prefer Marvel:

1.) Batman: Parents killed in a violent murder-robbery as a young child, scarring him for life and leaving him with a hatred for crime.

2.) Iron Man: In the process of hustling more weapons to take more lives, he is captured and forced to build weapons for his captors; he escapes, knowing that the zero accountability is no longer an option and vowing to fix that. (Comic version, not 2008 film).

3.) Spiderman: Irradiated spider (it was new, at the time, and in vogue) bites a scrawny nerd who fails at social life, and he abuses his new powers to be cool. In his coolness, his inaction to be responsible kills his uncle. Now he juggles stopping crime and his personal life, and this is a crucial part of the series (unlike most comics, where sure, they have personal lives, but it's kinda side-story).

But DC has too many "given lots of power by nature" characters. For example, Superman is from another planet, and Wonder Woman is from some vague Amazon island. The problem with Superman is that he is literally unstoppable -- there's just the little thing with Kryptonite. Both are impossibly strong (it's not physically possible to lift a building, no matter your strength -- size-weight ratio dictates this); both can fly (at least in DC canon I've seen); Superman has a myriad of random powers (freeze breath, laser eyes, x-ray vision), whereas Wonder Woman has gauntlets that can deflect anything (and superhuman reflexes, to deflect a bullet).

Any Marvel character would be hard-pressed to have any two of these powers at once. It's just a stupid idea (novel in its time) to have an all-purpose supe.

\
The problem with Superman is that he is literally unstoppable -- there's just the little thing with Kryptonite.

And everytime it's used, Superman ''somehow'' figures out away around it, to escape and save the day.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with Superman is that he's often too perfect, and too all-powerful. He's too much plot device, and not enough character.

Batman is a good character, but he also has some pretty dodgy ethics. Of course, this adds interest, as Batman is always balancing on the edge of madness that his adversaries have fallen over. And he has the perfect adversary in the Joker. They're like two sides of the same coin. Batman channels his madness into creating order, and the Joker channels his into creating chaos.

The nice thing about X-men and Batman, though, is also that they have limits on their powers. Especially Batman. This makes for some interesting dynamics.

Erm, what do you call the X-Men if not characters "given lots of powers by nature"? And it's not like Marvel is short of characters with lots and lots and lots of abilities; just take a look at the Hulk sometime (seriously, he's substantially stronger than characters that are supposed to be gods like Thor, he regenerates faster than Wolverine, he's magic and psionic-attack resistant, he has a gps locator that lets him track his place of origin, and he can breath in space. And if you hit him, all those abilities start increasing in power. To the point that Sentry once hit him with the equivalent of a thermonuclear explosion, and he regenerated faster than nuclear fusion could take him apart. It's doubtful that the modern Superman could survive that.) Apocalypse has pretty much every mutant ability not given to Magneto. Magneto could tear apart the planet if he ever wanted to. Charles Xavier with Cerebro could tear apart the mind of every person the planet except for Magneto and the Juggernaut, and that's because they have equipment to resist it. Ah, but the Hulk is a victim of severe child abuse.

The fact that you tout the psychological weaknesses of Marvel characters, and then pit that against the supposed physical overpowering of DC characters, just goes back to what I was saying before: you don't really think Supes sucks because he's overpowered. You don't like him because alone among comic book superheroes, he actually had a happy childhood, and he tries to save the world not out of some sense of regret, but because it's the moral thing to do, and no one else can.

As a side note, you should watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz3xqyrI2bM) if you think Superman is overpowered. That's not quite how it worked in the comics, but it's fairly close. If a hero is only as strong as his villains, then Supes is barely keeping up in the modern DC arms race.

Again, I'm going more off movie adaptations. I've not read many comics, certainly not recent ones.

Though I have been reading a few Batman comics since The Dark Knight came out.

Wouldn't know the difference between them.

meh. America's Best Comics kick both their asses. Tom Strong, Top 10 and Jack B. Quick for the win!

I said "i dunno" because I like polls.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with Superman is that he's often too perfect, and too all-powerful. He's too much plot device, and not enough character.

Batman is a good character, but he also has some pretty dodgy ethics. Of course, this adds interest, as Batman is always balancing on the edge of madness that his adversaries have fallen over. And he has the perfect adversary in the Joker. They're like two sides of the same coin. Batman channels his madness into creating order, and the Joker channels his into creating chaos.

The nice thing about X-men and Batman, though, is also that they have limits on their powers. Especially Batman. This makes for some interesting dynamics.

I always kinda liked the fact that Batman wasn't invincible or anything like that. His superpower is in being badass.

This is a gladiatorial nerd fight right up there with Star Trek Vs Star Wars.

If you want to decide which superheroes kick more ass, there's either HeroClicks or VS.

People always complain about Superman, but, I have to wonder, if Superman and Doctor Manhattan ended up in a 'battle' who would win?

People always complain about Superman, but, I have to wonder, if Superman and Doctor Manhattan ended up in a 'battle' who would win?

It would boil down to a popularity contest pretty much.

It would boil down to a popularity contest pretty much.Yeah, but Doctor Manhattan incinerates people just by pointing at them. He can do anything, literally. :p

C'mon people. This is just a taste of DC goodness:

Watchmen
V for Vendetta
Hellblazer
Lucifer
Sandman
A History of Violence
Stardust
Fables
Books of Magic
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
Arkham Asylum

C'mon people. This is just a taste of DC goodness:

Watchmen
V for Vendetta
Hellblazer
Lucifer
Sandman
A History of Violence
Stardust
Fables
Books of Magic
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
Arkham Asylum
I stopped liking that list after V. :(

I stopped liking that list after V. :(

In the spirit of Fass, I can only pity your lack of good taste. :wink:

In the spirit of Fass, I can only pity your lack of good taste. :wink:I'm too young for this shit*. :p

Anyways, it's probably because my interest in comic is very amateur in nature.


*Yeah, that's right, I said it.

C'mon people. This is just a taste of DC goodness:

Watchmen
V for Vendetta
Hellblazer
Lucifer
Sandman
A History of Violence
Stardust
Fables
Books of Magic
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
Arkham Asylum


Yes, but one must remember the true source of this amazingness: Alan Moore. And while he did this under the DC Banner, he now despises them and refuses to work with them, thus negating any bonus DC may have received.

Yes, but one must remember the true source of this amazingness: Alan Moore. And while he did this under the DC Banner, he now despises them and refuses to work with them, thus negating any bonus DC may have received.

Much as he's a brilliant author, Moore has over the years turned into the comic book equivalent of the old man yelling at those damned kids to get out of his yard.

Yes, but one must remember the true source of this amazingness: Alan Moore. And while he did this under the DC Banner, he now despises them and refuses to work with them, thus negating any bonus DC may have received.

Alan Moore is the source of much that is great about DC, but what about talent such as Neil Gaiman, Mike Carey, Grant Morrison, Brian Vaughan, Garth Ennis, John Ney Reiber, Jamie Delano, and Bill Willingham?

John Byrne's and Grant Morrison's X-Men.

Bendis and Alias.

Marvel.

Much as he's a brilliant author, Moore has over the years turned into the comic book equivalent of the old man yelling at those damned kids to get out of his yard.

There you go with your facts...

Independents!

Jeff Smith and Bone.

Terry Moore and Strangers in Paradise.

Wendy Pini and ElfQuest.

Dave Sim/Gerhard and Cerebus.

Sometimes neither of the big boys is best.

There you go with your facts...

Did I say it was solid fact? Oh, I'm sorry if opinions are capital crimes on NSG.

:rolleyes:

Did I say it was solid fact? Oh, I'm sorry if opinions are capital crimes on NSG.

:rolleyes:

Yeah. It's that or "LINK or it's NOT TRUE!!!"

I grew up on Marvel, but I love Vertigo. I'd have to say Marvel for the childhood memories.

I heard that DC created Aids.

My personal view is that Marvel has the better characters and better universe unfortunately DC has the better writers (with the exception of the Ultimate line-up). As a result I often find myself reading more DC than Marvel, which is a shame because I want Marvel to be good, I really do.

Edit: this is mostly in reference to writing over the past few years when I have just found Marvel unreadable for the most part

Marvel by far,DC universe blows big time!

Which one is better overall. DC or Marvel. I say DC by a mile.

Bonelli pwns them.

I prefer Marvel but only because I am a huge X-Men nerd lol

Yes, but one must remember the true source of this amazingness: Alan Moore. And while he did this under the DC Banner, he now despises them and refuses to work with them, thus negating any bonus DC may have received.
Much as he's a brilliant author, Moore has over the years turned into the comic book equivalent of the old man yelling at those damned kids to get out of his yard.
Neither of these things changes the fact that the work he did under DC remains awesome.

Sometimes neither of the big boys is best.
This isn't a choice about what is best, this is about "better." Quit running into the middle of an argument about chocolate and vanilla just to yell "Strawberry!"

I like Marvel more. Although Batman rocks!

Marvel for sure, more eh...'realistic' characters:p

The Avengers has to be the biggest reason Marvel owns DC. All DC has is the shitty Justice League. I do have to admit DC's Lobo is cooler than his Marvel face off Wolverine.

Me Iam not sure really I grew up reading 2000 AD and Commando

Heh total fan boys the lot of ya!

Bonelli pwns them.
Ha!An italian!Listen amico whatever good there is in Bonelli's comics it's from american ideas although Dampyr is awesome (both as a character and a comic)!

I like both. And I have preferred one over the other at different times. Ill say DC right now, but only because of what Marvel has done to spider-man and my dislike for Joe Quesada.

Ha!An italian!Listen amico whatever good there is in Bonelli's comics it's from american ideas although Dampyr is awesome (both as a character and a comic)!

Ok for Tex not being too original (the most classical western still around in comics), but:

Zagor is an original approach to the western - I cannot remember US equivalents, maybe more in the argentinian comic school
Julia, Ken Parker and Martin Mystére are quite original (no equivalent in US comics)
Nathan Never is quite an indigenous product, although it draws heavily from sci-fi authors from all over the world (and since about 80% of the sci-fi production comes from USA and UK...)
Dylan Dog, well, that's not extremely original

Also, Bonelli's graphical style has nothing to do with US comics.

Also, the OP said nothing about originality: if so, I'd think that someone should explain how Thor and Loki should be considered "original american products", don't you think so?

Decepticons, attack!

Marvel it will be.

C'mon people. This is just a taste of DC goodness:

Watchmen
V for Vendetta
Hellblazer
Lucifer
Sandman
A History of Violence
Stardust
Fables
Books of Magic
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
Arkham Asylum


These are all DC? Wow. I was originally going to go for Marvel, with the line "Take out batman from DC and what have you left?". Now I know. This may be the first ever case of someone being owned prior to posting.

This isn't a choice about what is best, this is about "better." Quit running into the middle of an argument about chocolate and vanilla just to yell "Strawberry!"

Independents (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14229021&postcount=41)!

I always kinda liked the fact that Batman wasn't invincible or anything like that. His superpower is in being badass.

Well, they take his crazy-preparedness to absurd levels sometimes. He once fought a guy who's specific power is being able to go back short periods in time, which has the effect of letting him test out each and every possible way to win a fight. Using his abilities, he managed to fight Batman to a draw.


C'mon people. This is just a taste of DC goodness:

Watchmen
V for Vendetta
Hellblazer
Lucifer
Sandman
A History of Violence
Stardust
Fables
Books of Magic
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
Arkham Asylum


Add in The Man of Steel.

independents (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14229021&postcount=41)!
NEVAH! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14229207&postcount=51)

DC, because of the Vertigo (http://www.dccomics.com/vertigo/) line. No contest.

This^^, for the same reason.

Did I say it was solid fact? Oh, I'm sorry if opinions are capital crimes on NSG.

:rolleyes:

Yeah. It's that or "LINK or it's NOT TRUE!!!"

Good heavens! It was a simple joke about your valid observations completely discrediting my statements.

:rolleyes:

Well, they take his crazy-preparedness to absurd levels sometimes. He once fought a guy who's specific power is being able to go back short periods in time, which has the effect of letting him test out each and every possible way to win a fight. Using his abilities, he managed to fight Batman to a draw.

While I'm not familiar with this example, did this guy have any other skills or abillities? Does it matter how many times he reherses the fight if Batman's just got 10 times more strength and 50 times more training than he ever will?

Batman....that is all.

Good heavens! It was a simple joke about your valid observations completely discrediting my statements.

:rolleyes:

See that smiley? Yeah, that's what you need in your joke posts. Either that, or realize that I was merely agreeing. Regardless, lighten up.

Batman....that is all.

If you like Batman, at any rate. He's meh, to me.

Jeff Smith, Terry Moore, Wendy Pini, Brian M. Bendis, John Byrne, Grant Morrison -- who cares about the companies. The art and the writing matter most.

While I'm not familiar with this example, did this guy have any other skills or abillities? Does it matter how many times he reherses the fight if Batman's just got 10 times more strength and 50 times more training than he ever will?

Looked at the reference again; it's from the lesser TV show rather than the comics proper, so it's not canon within the comics. But the guy had the ability to replay a fight a million times to refine his technique, and he still couldn't beat Batman. Aside from the general kung-fu and/or heightened endurance typically given to a villain though, I don't know that he had any other special abilities.

These are all DC? Wow. I was originally going to go for Marvel, with the line "Take out batman from DC and what have you left?". Now I know. This may be the first ever case of someone being owned prior to posting.

Nah, there've been a ton of pre-post ownings before, most people just don't have the gumption to then make a post pointing it out. Kudos! (Interestingly, earlier today I saw a news article about the exact same thing; a day after a competition a pro-golfer noticed that he broke a minor but crucial rule and, even though nobody, including himself, noticed it at the time, he notified the officials and got himself disqualified.)

Looked at the reference again; it's from the lesser TV show rather than the comics proper, so it's not canon within the comics. But the guy had the ability to replay a fight a million times to refine his technique, and he still couldn't beat Batman. Aside from the general kung-fu and/or heightened endurance typically given to a villain though, I don't know that he had any other special abilities.

Where did I mention the comics? And how does it matter? Unless this portrayl of Batman is radically different, he will be tough and extraordinarily well trained.

One of... how many characters?

As opposed to:

Tony Stark: Drunk, struck by what damage his company did (in early comics).

Peter Parker: Holds himself responsible for his uncle's death, and has a shitty social life.

Mutants (several hundred UNIQUE characters): Considered "freaks" by the rest of the in-universe society. Some have superiority complexes (Magneto), some feel that society is right (Beast), and a boatload of others.

Way too many to list (or remember) ATM.

And then,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av6fWfmugds


Peter parker=a character originally designed as an everday person that has been turned into an angsty fool by hollwood and his comic creators which wouldn't be so bad except that teenage angst takes the driver's seat replacing any kind of development.
Xmen=The most overdone series Marvel has to offer complete with such deep and entertaining characters as toad and cyclops. Basically its just an unsophisticated good guy vs. bad guy comic complete with big explosions and randomly powered individuals. tony stark, is the one solid case you can say has any depth the other one being captain america. Both are symbols of ideas instead of just random indivduals given abilities.

While I'm not familiar with this example, did this guy have any other skills or abillities? Does it matter how many times he reherses the fight if Batman's just got 10 times more strength and 50 times more training than he ever will?

given enough time, anything can happen.

The sandman comics=the end. DC wins with Neil gaiman's genius at the forefront.

Much as he's a brilliant author, Moore has over the years turned into the comic book equivalent of the old man yelling at those damned kids to get out of his yard.
It's true he's getting grumpier in his old age, but he's still writing brilliant. League of extraordinary Gentlemen is among his best. And the rest of his ABC line were excellent.

And he's got good reason for being grumpy, considering how screwed over he's been by DC and the movie industry.

DC.

Let's see:
Batman is a badass who fights the most awesome villains ever.
Is there any straight guy or lesbian that doesn't want to bone Wonder Woman?
Aquaman sucks so much, he's awesome. What's his power? Besides breathing underwater and talking to fish, it's being your everyday loser. How can you not relate to him? Have you never felt like a loser? Have you never felt dwarfed by people who are so much better at stuff that you?

Peter parker=a character originally designed as an everday person that has been turned into an angsty fool by hollwood and his comic creators which wouldn't be so bad except that teenage angst takes the driver's seat replacing any kind of development.
Xmen=The most overdone series Marvel has to offer complete with such deep and entertaining characters as toad and cyclops. Basically its just an unsophisticated good guy vs. bad guy comic complete with big explosions and randomly powered individuals. tony stark, is the one solid case you can say has any depth the other one being captain america. Both are symbols of ideas instead of just random indivduals given abilities.

Typed by someone who has clearly not read many X-Men comic books, and certainly not the Grant Morrison line.

Typed by someone who has clearly not read many X-Men comic books, and certainly not the Grant Morrison line.

would you compare the xmen comic books, in terms of depth, to one of the greatest graphic novels of all time, The watchmen? How about Hellblazer or V for vendetta? ON the surface at least, xmen seems to follow the same formula of giving random powers to random individuals and then making them so shallow that its not who they are, its what their abilities are. And for the record, Wolverine's past has been retconned so much that even that has lost interest for me.

Is it wrong I'm looking forward to:

This (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LRuxQd1cXsQ)

Both.

Although, I have to lean more toward D.C., because they haven't sunk to the depths Marvel has in terms of shitty writing and horrible plot "twists". (Yes, I'm looking at you, J. Michael Straczynski.) Examples: "Sins Past" and "One More Day."

DC, because of the Vertigo (http://www.dccomics.com/vertigo/) line. No contest.

This, this this and more this.

And because of Green Arrow....

Marvel has better comics.

A lot of them already do. Spiderman anyone?

Wait, what? Last time I read a Spiderman comic (which has been quite a few years ago, yes), he was still a wisecracking webslinger. When did things go wrong?

Wait, what? Last time I read a Spiderman comic (which has been quite a few years ago, yes), he was still a wisecracking webslinger. When did things go wrong?

Spiderman 3, when they turned him into a whiny emo.

I haven't honestly read enough comic books to be a very good judge, although I've seen a great many adaptations, but from what I've read, I have to give the edge to DC, simply for Gaiman's sake. I do love me some good X-Men, though. :)

would you compare the xmen comic books, in terms of depth, to one of the greatest graphic novels of all time, The watchmen? How about Hellblazer or V for vendetta? ON the surface at least, xmen seems to follow the same formula of giving random powers to random individuals and then making them so shallow that its not who they are, its what their abilities are. And for the record, Wolverine's past has been retconned so much that even that has lost interest for me.

Yes I would. ALL of the X-Men comics? Of course not. Byrne's and Morrison's, yes.

I know you're clearly a Watchmen fanboy, and I think that's a great book, but they're two different milieus, and different authors. When the X-Men are treated with care by the writers, that book can easily rank among the very best. Now, I wouldn't give you a #10 ring-lock washer for the John Romita Jr. X-Men, as an example of mutant schlock.

Spiderman 3, when they turned him into a whiny emo.

Oh, you were talking about the movies.

Yes I would. ALL of the X-Men comics? Of course not. Byrne's and Morrison's, yes.

I know you're clearly a Watchmen fanboy, and I think that's a great book, but they're two different milieus, and different authors. When the X-Men are treated with care by the writers, that book can easily rank among the very best. Now, I wouldn't give you a #10 ring-lock washer for the John Romita Jr. X-Men, as an example of mutant schlock.

please, yeah right. The watchmen set the standard for pretty much every modern comic in existance including xmen, yes i am a watchman fanboy just as you are an xmen fanboy. Just about every dark gritty, comic book storyline you see can find its origins in the watcmen.
What standards have the xmen set? V for vendetta popularized anarchy in our modern culture, while i didn't mention it the sandman comics are probably the greatest exploration of existentialist philosophy in the comic book world. Even Hellblazer, while not exactly the most popular comic, managed to bring magic back into comics at a time when it was ridiculed and made fun of.

Oh, you were talking about the movies.

Well when aunt may died it could be argued he turned fairly emo, though they managed to change all that.

What standards have the xmen set?

Just to pick one off the top of my head, "black people can be superheroes too" was a fairly big jump forward in the comic book industry.

please, yeah right. The watchmen set the standard for pretty much every modern comic in existance including xmen, yes i am a watchman fanboy just as you are an xmen fanboy. Just about every dark gritty, comic book storyline you see can find its origins in the watcmen.

That's just it -- I'm not an X-Men fanboy. I like the writers (Morrison) and artists (Byrne) that I like, and the rest can pretty much suck it.

What standards have the xmen set? V for vendetta popularized anarchy in our modern culture, while i didn't mention it the sandman comics are probably the greatest exploration of existentialist philosophy in the comic book world. Even Hellblazer, while not exactly the most popular comic, managed to bring magic back into comics at a time when it was ridiculed and made fun of.

There's so much inaccuracy in this paragraph that I have to wonder if the shooting instructor for Dick Cheney taught English at your school. Perhaps magic and anarchy weren't in the comics YOU were reading, but they were in Cerebus and ElfQuest and other books I know pretty well and still enjoy re-reading today.

As for X-Men setting standards, aside from the color barrier, as mentioned earlier, there were female characters with depth and motivation beyond just being women, plus the entire notion of equality as represented by the conflict over mutants' rights, which itself spawned George R.R. Martin's successful Wild Cards mosaic novel series in the mid-80s.

To be honest, I'm not really all that into comics. I just read what I like. I thought Vendetta was pretty good, and Watchmen better. But they, like Spawn, weren't my favorite genre. I thought 300 was trash, and poorly drawn at that. Sin City was good. Bone, by Jeff Smith, was better. But I like that Walt Kelly sensibility.

I'm not here to say you're wrong. I'm just here to provide some balance to the deification of Miller. He's excellent, but he's not the only guy out there.