Both were launched in the Silver Age, both were the premiere super-team of their respective universes. Which one is your favorite? Which series did you like reading better? Which one reads better today?
Views: 272
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
Let's see ... the Silver Age Avengers had, early on, Jack Kirby on the art, then Dick Ayers, then John Buscema; the early Justice League had Mike Sekowsky and Dick Dillin. Advantage: Avengers
I could stop right there; I tend to favor art first, story second, and the best I could ever say about Mike Sekowsky and Dick Dillin were that they were two of DC's reliable, but unspectacular, workhorses.
As for story, the Avengers had Stan Lee, then Roy Thomas, Gerry Conway, Steve Englehart, Jim Shooter, David Michelinie; the JLA had Gardner Fox, and after that, Len Wein, Mike Friedrich, Dennis O'Neil, Steve Englehart. Advantage: Neither.
That said, each of those lists has one heavyweight (Stan Lee, Gardner Fox) and a bunch of lesser, although formidable, talents.
As for characters, the JLA is (except for the Detroit era, which doesn't count for this exercise) DC's Big Guns. And the Avengers ... um, well, sometimes they are and most times they aren't. On the days when Captain America, Thor and Iron Man (back before "Civil War" turned him into a villain) were in the lineup, I dare say there wasn't anybody out there the Avengers couldn't handle. Without at least two of those guys around, any JLA lineup (except for the Detroit era, which doesn't count for this exercise), on paper, could take them and barely break a sweat ... but somehow, they could rise to the challenge and find a way to win when it seemed impossible. As I mentioned on the soon-to-be-gone site, when you look at these sets of characters, the Justice League are the best guys, but the Avengers are the right ones. Advantage: Justice League.
Favorite? Avengers. The Justice League stories could be awfully formulaic, and Marvel does "cosmic" better than DC. Plus, as noted above, the Avengers had John Buscema. On his worst day, he could make Sekowsky and Dillin look like they were drawing for coloring books.
Which did I like reading better? Justice League. It's DC's Big Guns! You can't beat that with a stick!
Which one reads better today? Justice League. Roy Thomas's purple prose is awfully hard to take these days.
This is a tough one. Even though I enjoyed occasional issues of both, I was never a huge fan of either one. JLA loses points because of the Mike Sekowsky art which I never cared for. Had those stories been drawn by Curt Swan or Murphy Anderson it would be a much different matter. On the plus side, the annual JLA/JSA crossovers were something to look forward to and I always liked the JLA's large roster which allowed for different heroes to be used in each story, you weren't always seeing the same line up issue after issue.
The Avengers didn't really grab my interest until John Buscema took over. His run was the only time I followed the series regularly. It was during this time Roy Thomas began playing with the line up a bit which made for more interesting reading and gave the series a bit more of a JLA feel.
Sooo - I'm going to hedge a bit and say in head to head competition the JLA comes out on top from 1963 -66, with the Avengers moving ahead in 1967.
As someone who pretty much always favors DC over Marvel this was an easy one for me to pick. It was the Avengers. I didn't become a real big Justice League fan until the Giffen/DeMatteis run. I only really enjoyed the Justice League stories of that time when they were interacting with the JSA or Adam Strange or something like that.I appreciate the older stories more now, but I still like that first run of the Avengers more.
Avengers by a long shot, and I base that on issues 170-220 or so. If I had been on board for the early stuff, my estimation of the title might be even higher.
The main reason was that, as a kid, the Avengers seemed more capable of being put into real jeopardy. When you've got all-powerful gods like Superman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, etc. etc. on your team who's really going to challenge them? Sure, the Avengers had Thor occasionally, but there were also periods (Cap's Kooky Quartet) where I probably could've taken them out:
Cap: "I've got a shield!"
Hawkeye: "I've got a bow!"
Yeah? Well I've got a gun. Looks like you're down to a duo.
I've re-read the first 100 or so issue of Avengers fare more frequently than I've re-read the first 100 or so of JLA and am likely to continue to do so in the future. I've re-read the first 100 JLAs more frequently than the first 100 FFs, though. Yeah, that kind of surprises me, too, but it's true.
Avengers. I enjoy re-reading those stories more than the Justice League ones. Fox was hampered in many ways in terms of what he could do with the characters, whereas Lee and later Thomas weren't so much, and I think the stories were just better.
To be honest, the highs of the FF (Lee & Kirby, John Byrne, Walt Simonson, Mark Waid, Dwayne McDuffie...hopefully Hickman) push it beyond the JLA or the Avengers for me. That said, the Jim Shooter Avengers era with Thor, Iron Man, Cap, and Wasp and then Hawkeye and She-Hulk made me a comic subscriber for the first time in my early teens.
No comparison. The Avengers, hands down. Marvel comics in the early 1960's were a breath of fresh air compared to the staid, stuffy DC titles, which were left-overs from an earlier era. The writers and artist may have been of a high caliber, but they were still firmly rooted in the 1940's and 1950's, whereas Marvel's young guns were progressive, modern, and fun.
I didn't actually start enjoying the Justice League until the early 1970's, and, even then, they were still less laid back than the Marvel titles. So, for me, the Avengers win, without doubt. I'll always fork out for one of those hardcover Marvel Masterworks before one of the DC Archives. The only exception is the Legion of Super-Heroes, which was always my favourite DC title, and their Archives hardcovers were among the first that I did a clean sweep of.
Replies
I could stop right there; I tend to favor art first, story second, and the best I could ever say about Mike Sekowsky and Dick Dillin were that they were two of DC's reliable, but unspectacular, workhorses.
As for story, the Avengers had Stan Lee, then Roy Thomas, Gerry Conway, Steve Englehart, Jim Shooter, David Michelinie; the JLA had Gardner Fox, and after that, Len Wein, Mike Friedrich, Dennis O'Neil, Steve Englehart. Advantage: Neither.
That said, each of those lists has one heavyweight (Stan Lee, Gardner Fox) and a bunch of lesser, although formidable, talents.
As for characters, the JLA is (except for the Detroit era, which doesn't count for this exercise) DC's Big Guns. And the Avengers ... um, well, sometimes they are and most times they aren't. On the days when Captain America, Thor and Iron Man (back before "Civil War" turned him into a villain) were in the lineup, I dare say there wasn't anybody out there the Avengers couldn't handle. Without at least two of those guys around, any JLA lineup (except for the Detroit era, which doesn't count for this exercise), on paper, could take them and barely break a sweat ... but somehow, they could rise to the challenge and find a way to win when it seemed impossible. As I mentioned on the soon-to-be-gone site, when you look at these sets of characters, the Justice League are the best guys, but the Avengers are the right ones. Advantage: Justice League.
Favorite? Avengers. The Justice League stories could be awfully formulaic, and Marvel does "cosmic" better than DC. Plus, as noted above, the Avengers had John Buscema. On his worst day, he could make Sekowsky and Dillin look like they were drawing for coloring books.
Which did I like reading better? Justice League. It's DC's Big Guns! You can't beat that with a stick!
Which one reads better today? Justice League. Roy Thomas's purple prose is awfully hard to take these days.
The Avengers didn't really grab my interest until John Buscema took over. His run was the only time I followed the series regularly. It was during this time Roy Thomas began playing with the line up a bit which made for more interesting reading and gave the series a bit more of a JLA feel.
Sooo - I'm going to hedge a bit and say in head to head competition the JLA comes out on top from 1963 -66, with the Avengers moving ahead in 1967.
Did the Avengers have the Flash on their team? No. Did they ever team up with the Legion? No.
Case closed -- for me, at least.
The main reason was that, as a kid, the Avengers seemed more capable of being put into real jeopardy. When you've got all-powerful gods like Superman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, etc. etc. on your team who's really going to challenge them? Sure, the Avengers had Thor occasionally, but there were also periods (Cap's Kooky Quartet) where I probably could've taken them out:
Cap: "I've got a shield!"
Hawkeye: "I've got a bow!"
Yeah? Well I've got a gun. Looks like you're down to a duo.
I've re-read the first 100 or so issue of Avengers fare more frequently than I've re-read the first 100 or so of JLA and am likely to continue to do so in the future. I've re-read the first 100 JLAs more frequently than the first 100 FFs, though. Yeah, that kind of surprises me, too, but it's true.
I didn't actually start enjoying the Justice League until the early 1970's, and, even then, they were still less laid back than the Marvel titles. So, for me, the Avengers win, without doubt. I'll always fork out for one of those hardcover Marvel Masterworks before one of the DC Archives. The only exception is the Legion of Super-Heroes, which was always my favourite DC title, and their Archives hardcovers were among the first that I did a clean sweep of.
I think I read about three or four JLA issues, so definitely Avengers.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next