I know we all hate quoting the post immediately above and all, but it's such a pain to target multiple points otherwise. It's not like I'm just block quoting here:
What about Hub City and The Question? I've been reading DC's 80s incarnation of The Question and it's darker and Hub City is a much more terrible place to live than Gotham has ever been made out to be. Not to mention that Vic Sage never cared that much about his "superhero" and regular identity. He just saw it as he could do whatever he wanted as The Question. The fact that Vic Sage is now dead is also pretty much irrelevant since we're just talking about the "universes" here and not current output.
Well, a big part of that is that The Question is NOT a DC created character. He was originally created for Charlton comics. Another funny coincidence? He was created by Steve Ditko, co-creator of Spider-Man and an artist long associated with helping create and shape the Marvel Universe. Also, I never said that idolism was always the case with DC. In fact, I outright stated that there are exceptions. That doesn't detract from the fact that DC's "grim and gritty" characters are very deep exceptions outside the Batman niche (Especially now that Sage was killed and they've made Renee Montoya, a Gotham character, the new Question).
Green Arrow in all of his best material, is a flawed character. He's a former happy-go-lucky billionaire vigilante who has lost everything in his life (and his literal life, coincidentally) but still continues his mission as Green Arrow. Not to mention he has troubled relationships with pretty much all of his children or surrogate children.
Green Arrow is another one of those exceptions mentioned, although he wasn't always written that way. For the vast majority of his existence, he was a happy-go-lucky billionaire. He was essentially Batman minus the baggage. His newer persona didn't really crop up until the eighties, when DC was experimenting with a lot of darker themes (With exception to the drug drama they had with his sidekick).
Something to consider about Marvel, however, is that I think almost all of the major Marvel characters were made initially to have the obvious flaws and blurred line between their secret and superhero identities as being already built into the character. The most obvious example of Marvel's general creation policy I think is The Hulk. Most of the character is built into the concept of a guy who turns into a superstrong raging monster when he gets angry. I think The Hulk is an overly simplistic character in design. And though Spider-Man and Iron Man and whatnot are more complex (and, in my opinion, just better as characters than The Hulk) I think the characters personalities were outlined long ago. Which isn't a bad thing, it's just something I've noticed.
I fail to see your point there. Part of my point is that DC and Marvel have ALWAYS fallen under their perspective ideals. Stan Lee has outright stated that, when creating many of his characters, he specifically went out of the way to make them as relateable as possible, with inherent character flaws. That's how Marvel's worked since it hit the superhero age.
DC on the other hand, almost all of its characters are much older. So much older that at the time of their creation the purpose of a superhero was much different (coincidentally, who is also from this era but Captain America? The most DC-ish character Marvel has). This is not to say that DC as a company has been resigned to not change their characters at all. However, with such old characters who have such strong legacies, they don't always meet with huge success.
This is why I said neither is good or bad inherently, just differently styled. DC hit its notoriety in a more cheery and propaganda filled era. When the original incarnations of all of DC's superheroes came out, you had a much more naive, but happy society. In this era, people wanted something to strive to. That's the kind of superhero that was demanded. Marvel's big boost came at a time where folks had been dealing with propaganda for years (Including their own Captain America) and society was beginning to become more jaded. Lee, Kirby and Ditko created characters people could relate to, which was becoming more the feel of the age. Even the reboots of GL and the Flash weren't connecting, because they were still idealistic types who really could do no wrong. DC's experimented with some of this, but it's never taken off quite so well as Marvel.
One big thing on that is that whenever they create something in more the realistic and flawed mold, it completely grates against the legacy characters. Guys like Kyle Rayner or Ollie Queen tend to just look out of place against the likes of Superman and Wonder Woman. When Lee started working with the Marvel Universe, Captain America, the only real perfect Marvel hero, was completely off the table. You didn't have to hold them up to any standard, they were just people with powers. Then, by the time they got around to reintroducing Captain America, it was a completely different age. Suddenly, he was flawed in that he was a man completely out of his element (This is driven home a lot better in The Ultimates).
Batman is the biggest success story. And even though he's arguably the most capable hero in the DC universe, he's also the most flawed. Power and capability to meet with success has nothing to do with character flaws. Being hugely powerful can also be a source of drama in itself (All-Star Superman is I think a very successful incarnation of Superman while also being a version of the character more powerful than the current in-continuity version.) Green Arrow has been a big success, the character in the past decade or so has been unidentifiable when looking at the original version of the character.
Batman's always been at his most successful when he's off doing his own thing. As I implied before, he's kind of at odds with the rest of the DC Universe and the only time he really works well mixed in with them is when he's working against the metahumans (Such as Tower of Babel or Kingdom Come). I won't comment on All Star, as I never touched it (I hated All Star Batman, I don't like Grant Morrison or Frank Quitely, and I've never cared for Superman). Green Arrow, though, has NEVER been a "big success." In his early years, he was just another Batman archetype without the angst, then he was only able to support a title when paired with another mid-tier character at the time (Green Lantern), then he was completely removed from the DC universe for his most popular period in the eighties, then he was killed off and resurrected and relegated to supporting character (Even in his own title most of the time). To this day, he can't really support his own title without being part of something bigger.
Green Lantern is one of the biggest failures. Obsessions seems to be a little bit hung up on it. I understand to a certain extent but I also don't think that the silver-age version of Hal Jordan (which is essentially what Green Lantern has returned to) is a version of the character that's inherently terrible.
He's not terrible, but he's not entirely relateable either. I'm less concerned with the character himself than the way they've handled him overall. There was a period of about ten years where DC seemed to have their heads jammed firmly up their asses on what to do with him (The Parallax/Spectre period) and now they've seemingly just given up on trying to do anything new with him and just returned him to his classic persona. To be entirely fair, though, I have to give Geoff Johns credit. He manages to take a title with a lead I find inherently boring and make it one of the best titles DC puts out.
I would say more about The Flash and Wonder Woman but in truth I'm not as familiar with them. Aquaman, however, is an identifiable DC hero who has been just as flawed and successfully changed as characters like Green Arrow or Batman.
Depends on the incarnation and the era with Flash. Wonder Woman's generally been consistently Superman with a rack and a slightly more interesting personality. She's still pretty uninteresting, but they've developed an understandable and enjoyable character flaw of her misunderstanding the world due to her Amazon heritage (Though DC tends to constantly flip-flop on their portrayal of it). The Flash...well, it depends on the version. One thing he's always had going for him is a vague everyman feel (Whether you go with Allen, West or the other Allen, they just worked it different ways). Both long running (No pun intended) Flashes are among the very few superheroes where a spouse has worked and Wally West is really the only legacy character DC seemed to get right and stick with (Though if they keep Barry Allen around after Final Crisis, I will shit a brick). Aquaman, well, he's something of a clusterfuck. You might want to note that despite all the changes made to him in the early nineties, it was all essentially wiped away and then he was killed off anyway. Beyond that, most of his identifiability has always been as the butt of a joke.
Basically, I don't subscribe to the idea that Marvel is inherently more dramatic than DC just because their characters have obvious failings. And I also don't believe for a second that the Marvel heroes on the whole are considerably more flawed than DC's.
More dramatic? No. Drama is subjective. More relateable? Also subjective, but considering the characters' extremes, it's kind of hard to argue that DC's flagship characters (An idealistic boyscout, a billionaire whose parents were gunned down and a Amazon) are more relateable than Marvel's...which actually leads me to another point I don't think I've ever considered:
Marvel doesn't HAVE a flagship set of heroes. For the last decade, Marvel's been experimenting with shifting the focus to different characters and revitalizing them. It's kind of hard to pick out who's the big guns anymore.
Anyway, on the latter part. I don't understand how you can argue that Marvel's heroes aren't more humanistically flawed than DC's. Either you've never read much Marvel or you've got a funny definition of character flaws.
