|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 29, 2017 20:51:03 GMT -5
I've been listening to a great podcast recently where the guys who do the Fire & Water comic podcast go through the original 1985-86 Who's Who issues, page by page, mostly commenting on the art and goofing on the, well, goofier characters that got entries.
On the first episode they spent some time comparing it to The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and how DC's philosophy differed from Marvel's. They commented that the Handbook was written dryly, with a basic image of the characters, factual point-by-point histories, with detailed power descriptions that seemed to have gamer's in mind as much as comics readers.
When I first got into comics in the mid-80's, the Handbooks were some of my favorite possessions. I learned a lot about the Marvel Universe and I do admit that I viewed them as a companion to the classic Marvel RPG (FASERIP) that I was into heavily back then.
Comparing the two now, it does seem to me that Who's Who was directed at fans who would only be interested in the comics (as opposed to Marvel/DC fans who also played RPG's and were into stats) seeing as how there was more personality in the characters histories (even if the Handbooks gave you more text), humor and far less of an emphasis on power descriptions. I still think the Handbooks get too much criticism from Who's Who fans for being too detailed, seeing as how some of the Who's Who entries are ridiculously vague, but I think I've come around to DC's philosophy: it's clear that Who's Who (being written mainly by the likes of Len Wein and Marv Wolfman, longtime creators) was written more from the perspective creators who didn't want to be tied down to some "official" stat when they were trying to be creative.
I like both, but outside of the somewhat ridiculous numbers and limits that were found in the Handbooks (that creators pretty much ignored anyway) the more detailed power descriptions fueled my imagination as a kid. That said, the art in Who's Who was far more interesting and dynamic. Do you feel that one did its job better than the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 22:33:24 GMT -5
DC's Who's Who > Marvel's Handbooks.
I liked the layout, art & the concise descriptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by batusi on Sept 29, 2017 22:42:38 GMT -5
I bought some of these back in the day but never had a full set of either one. I honestly don't remember them enough to make a comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabongero on Sept 30, 2017 10:03:46 GMT -5
I almost forgot all about these two sets of series produced by DC and Marvel. I loved them both. I have the complete set of the second volume of Marvel's Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, and two thirds of DC's Who's Who. At a time when there was no internet to look up superheroes, supervillains, supporting characters, and obscure characters, these published issues were like encyclopedias to a comic book reader in the 1980's. The best part is that you get the fictional character biography of each entry, and also get their power levels with their power described in detail. So the comic book reader back then will appreciate the comic books and characters they loved, even much more so after reading their entry in each of the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 30, 2017 10:30:23 GMT -5
Having never read the DC Who's Who books, due to not being a DC fan nor ever caring about any of their characters, I can't compare the two series as to quality.
I do, however, own complete runs of all of the Marvel Handbooks, including all of the one-shots they've done over the past 15 years or so. When I was younger, before this thing called The Google existed, I devoured those handbooks, reading them over and over again, to learn everything I could about the characters, particularly the obscure villains.
I've had to replace some of them over time due to wear and tear (although most can be found in the $1 boxes), especially the old Books of the Dead, which were my favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 30, 2017 11:21:40 GMT -5
I've had to replace some of them over time due to wear and tear (although most can be found in the $1 boxes), especially the old Books of the Dead, which were my favorites. Books of the Dead, yes! (Though that seems like an oxymoron these days) It was those special issues of the Handbook that I enjoyed the best. I think it was #15 of the original run that was the all Tech manual where they detailed everything from Cap's motorcycle to Cyclop's visor to Iron Man's armor to Punisher's war van. That was so great. Both series did a phenomenal job in detailing characters, their histories and abilities. It was also readily handy for learning title and issues numbers for first appearances and such, in the days before the Interweb, this was a needed resource in knowing what back issues to look for on my next trip to comic stores. But for me, Who's Who is far superior. This was an incredible source to me who was new to DC and trying to learn what all I could about the characters. Factor in all the multiple Earths and their inhabitants and it becomes doubly important in learning the history of the DCU. Plus, the art layout and such looked more vibrant and exciting. With the Handbook, you got the stock image of the character along with actual comic panels highlighting either an event or ability of that character. The character art of Who's Who felt more natural and fun. But there was one series that was a godsend from DC Editorial:  To say this was an invaluable resource in learning the lore of the Legion would be an understatement. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 30, 2017 11:29:55 GMT -5
I agree with pretty much everything you saying was said in the podcast. Who's Who, for all its printing issues, had actual artwork as opposed to the staid drawing of the character in the Handbook. And reading the Handbook was a bit like spending a whole passel of time reading the Monster Manual...it starts out cool and gets pretty darn boring pretty darn soon. Not to mention the stats are arbitrary and subject to change at the whim of any given writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 12:22:14 GMT -5
Marvel Handbook is much better than DC's Who's Who and yet both of them are nicely done, but Marvel's layout is better than DC. I wished I kept them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 30, 2017 14:30:41 GMT -5
I bought all of the Marvel handbooks and some of the DC version because I was a zombie at the time. They have no soul for the most part, I prefer stories to tell me how strong someone is.
I did enjoy the book of the dead which is mostly obsolete , I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 30, 2017 15:47:04 GMT -5
The Marvel Handbooks came after my time as a regular Marvel reader, but from what I've seen they took what could have been a cool, fun idea and spoiled it with some depressingly bland, really pedestrian artwork and especially by trying to quantify the various powers on a scale. I think it helped create or at least promote a regrettable attitude in large sections of the readership who became obsessed with these often arbitrary "power rankings" - who's stronger or smarter or whatever than whom, etc, etc.
Haven't seen the DC ones - were they along much the same lines?
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 30, 2017 16:11:35 GMT -5
Apparently everyone is familiar with Marvel's encyclopedia-style OHOTMU  I was in high school when it came out and really liked it, though, like an encyclopedia, it can be kind of dry. At the time I wished DC's Who's Who was more detailed, as it gave more of an overview. Now, I prefer DC's Who's Who. It's lighter reading and doesn't paint itself into a corner with specific stats. DC commissioned new artwork for the entries and it was great seeing different interpretations and sometimes the original artist revisiting a character they haven't worked on in years.  They're both well done, but different, just like DC & Marvel are similar but different, but I prefer Who's Who. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 16:22:12 GMT -5
Sorry, Hondo ... Marvel is much better because of the use of Bold Lettering that makes it more professional while the DC version is a bit jammed and makes it a little bit harder to read.
Real Name: Peter Parker
Occupation: Freelance Photographer, adventurer
This format is what I've prefer the most.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 16:31:56 GMT -5
In my recent cull of books, none of the various versions of the Marvel handbooks survived the culling, but I did keep the Who's Who issues for now. Mostly because the artwork in them was top notch, not just something whipped up quickly by whomever was available in the production room (Brodsky's Ban or Romita's Raiders whichever it was at the time these were made). I know one of the dudes from the old Avengers Mailing List that Crimebuster and I were a part of way back when was a major contributor to the research and writing team that produced the All New Marvel Handbook circa 2006 and the series of one-shots tied to it (the Avengers Roll Call, FF Special, Mystic Arcana Handbook, Book of the Dead-Marvel Vampires, etc.), but nothing he ever said regarding the book gave me any interest or enthusiasm for it. For me the difference was that when I read Who's Who I felt like I was reading a piece of history with readable prose that was presented in narrative fashion, but when I read the Marvel Handbook, I felt like I was reading recycled material from the TSR Marvel Game, which I had and had already read, along with the second rate art I got in the game from game illustrators not sequential comic book artists. If I wanted the same sense of history in narrative form for Marvel that I got from Who's Who, I had to go read something like Marvel Saga. What I preferred to either of them though were things like the Fantaco Chronicles and the Indexes...     which not only gave me more info and a sense of history, but provided me with an insight into specific issues I wanted to track down and read. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 30, 2017 17:23:55 GMT -5
I still have the Avengers Chronicles. It was well made.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Sept 30, 2017 17:28:05 GMT -5
I much preferred Marvel's "encyclopedic" style. Far from being bored, I pored over every detail and they made me want to read the original stories. I liked how they included scenes from the original comics to display abilities (and for the Books of the Dead, the panels showing their demise, if available, were included. (I think a couple that happened off panel were drawn specially for the book.)) I also felt the art was much better in the Marvel books. They did have a lot of the best talents at the time.
|
|
