Comic Book Resources

Well I quess it is to show a woman up there with the men isn't that what wonder woman is supposed to represent like a Hilary Clinton with Superpowers

The "Big Three" get highlighted because they're more deeply entwined into cultural mythos. People who know jack about comics would still recognize Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman on sight. Really, no one else in the DC Universe has that same universality. So the three of them become the center focus of DC Comics because most people out there expect that to be the case anyway.

Isn't the big three just DC's way of tying in to their licensing? Obviously Batman is number 1, then Superman, then Wonder Woman. I mean, if Aquaman had his own Hanes undie, you can bet he'd be in the big three.

Oh my no, Wonder Woman is nothing near a "Hilary Clinton with superpowers".

WW has as much depth, if not more, than Superman and Batman.

As far as the "big three" I always thought it was about the three of them being kind of the leaders among the superheros. I never thought it was because they were the most popular.

It's not even the Golden-Age-to-Silver-Age thing, I think... didn't Green Arrow and Aquaman make the transition in backup features? I agree about the licensing.

Plus it might be somewhat appealing for DC to have an actual plan for sorting out the mare's nest of characters they've accumulated over the decades. Start with these three, and go from there.

Why stop there? DC should number & codify all their heroes. It can be fun:

DC isn't destroying the JLI, they're banking on the box office draw of #s 9,371-9,382.

Rush City doesn't have a guest shot of Black Canary, #10billion is getting a bump from #82 (though we usually write the "2" small and pretend she's #8).

It would certainly make crossovers interesting. Merely a mathematical formula to see how the book should run. You take the Next (#999,999,999) and factor in Superman (#1) and split the the difference, making the book just as big a draw as #5 billion - the Flouronic Man.

In fairness, Marvel does have this phenomenon as well -- it's a hierarchy. You're looking at the top tier at DC all by itself, that's all. If you phrased it "top tier of the hierarchy" rather than "big three" then you could easily rattle off a Marvel equivalent, I think.

AS an internal, storytelling device it's occasionally interesting to play with the idea that there's an actual ranking; an A-list and a B-list and so on of superpeople, I guess you'd call it... but honestly the net effect of the recent stories using this idea is to make the Big Three out to be jerks.

I still kind of like the idea. I'd like to see the story someday of the superhero who longs to be on the A-list with Batman and Superman, only to find out that when his wish is granted suddenly he has to reckon with guys like Lex Luthor or the Joker instead of his usual lame-o's, and he runs screaming back to the safety of the D-list. Somebody probably already did that story somewhere and I just haven't seen it.

Marvel does have a "Big Three" as far as the Avengers go, and that's always been Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man. In terms of popularity or mainstream public knowledge, their "Big Three" might be Spider-Man, Hulk and Punisher/Daredevil/Wolverine (depending on what's out this week), but in the MU, I think it's pretty consistant that the Big Three on the Avengers are the Big Three overall. DC apparently thinks it makes sense to have the same characters be the biggest within the titles and out.

Marshall: I think that you hit it right on the nose. Everyone knows who Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are, including my girlfriend, who has never read comics and who has absolutely no desire to start reading them.

I think this cultural awareness of the "Big Three" is due in large part to what you mentioned, Brian: they are the only three superheroes to have been published continuously since the Golden Age. I also think, however, that this awareness is also due to the fact that all three characters have had successful mainstream TV series, a few in Superman's case.

I also agree Marshall has it right.

Based on popularity between both kids and adults I know, Marvel's big three is Spider-Man/Captain America/Wolverine.

Wolverine is the girl, if you've read Astonishing X-Men lately.

Hulk might also be able to swap out for Cap. It just depends on the popularity at the time. Iron Man to a lesser extent, but he hasn't had any mainstream exposure, so that's iffy.

However, I don't see how Punisher or DD could be in the top 3. Neither has mainstream appeal (apart from attornies and goth high school students who like the skull). Punisher's sales have really never been that great and despite having groundbreaking writers, very few of my attorney/law school friends know who he is (despite us even having a blind attorney in our office).

It's the old saw that DC deals with mythic superheroes, and Marvel deals with feet of clay heroes. In mythic stories, there's always the bigger and better.

Babe Ruth is always bigger than Hank Aaron, Hercules is always bigger than Jason, and Robert E Lee is always bigger than Grant. (for those who don't follow baseball, Aarong hit more homers than Ruth, Jason was Hercules' boss, and Lee surrendered to Grant)

Meanwhile, in the Marvel universe, Spiderman is sewing up his costume before May finds her needle gone, Daredevil is hunting down the guy he failed to convict, and Reed is ignoring his wife.

Glamorous actions all around.

DC has long operated on a "emphasize our big names to make our other titles/characters look better" basis. From adorning their books with "A Detective Comics Publication" or "Home of Superman Comics" to putting together a book called World's Finest starring "Your biggest National Stars: Superman, Batman and Robin!".* The current push of a big three is just an modern marketing variation of that, only they try to give it some odd in-title reason for existing ("Hey, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman think Red Tornado is pretty keen, he must be cool!"). I'm not really sure it works as well as they seem to think it does.

*As an aside, the notion of Dick Grayson going from the 3rd person in the big three (or at least the half in the big 2&1/2) to an offshoot side-character that has trouble winning a fight is seen as a form of progression is rather amusing.

Isn’t the big three just DC’s way of tying in to their licensing? Obviously Batman is number 1, then Superman, then Wonder Woman. I mean, if Aquaman had his own Hanes undie, you can bet he’d be in the big three.

I didn't think to look at it from an "outside comics" perspective. Thanks, Andrew!

I absolutely cringe everytime I hear the phrase "big three". I especially hate when people start using that whole "trinity" thing, too. It makes even less sense when DC drop wonder woman into the realms of bi-monthly, causing all sorts of continuity problems for other titles such as JLA (Donna Troy is Wonder Woman, yet Diana Prince is currently beating people up in JLA? Better dig out another Superboy punch..)

For some reason this reminds me of something I read in a class for my MLS degree (I took a lot of electives)- basically about how companies and organizations like to define their "Core Capabilities", i.e. the main things that they do well. One thing a companie's supposed to do if it's not doing well is go back and think "okay, what is it that we actually do here?" and refocus on the core capabilities. Maybe that thinking is being ported over to the creative end- "Okay, we publish Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman, that's what we're known for, let's focus on them."

They might be following Marvel's lead to some extent- since around 2000 or so Marvel has really put the focus on building up the image of its already-well-known icons (Spidey, the X-Men, etc.) and finding new ways to keep them at the forefront, so as to help movie deals and merchandise and so on. And to be fair, it has worked (to the extent that I really don't know the lower "tiers" of Marvel very well at all.)

That said, I do hate it when it creeps into the writing. Superheroes should, barring specific personal conflicts and grudges, be a fairly egalitarean bunch, otherwise the inherent "we're better than you!" elitism of the genre becomes too obvious for said elites to remain likeable.

This was one thing the JLU series got right- basically, if you were a hero, you were in. None of that "who do we let in our club" business.

Marvel DOES have a "Big Three"
Spider-Man
The Hulk
Captain America

These are characters that the common person knows, thanks to TV really.

x-men and spider-man are marvel's top characters, batman and supes are dc's.

the difference between the two companies is that dc's big three are basically it's only three to anyone that doesn't read comics. whereas cap, hulk, spidey, wolverine & co., the thing are all pretty recognisable by your average joe, people might even know their secret identities. but the flash and GL, they have about 12 identities...if you show random people a pic of the thing or a pic of the martian manhunter...y'know what i'm getting at.
if you even look at the previews all of dc's books seem to be batman spin-offs. it's weird.

Green Arrow and Aquaman also made the transition from
golden to silver age, but they were both cancelled on the
silver age, while the "big three" kept going (even though
Wonder Woman has been restarted a couple of times).

Their status owes to the fact that they make LOTS of
money on licensing (movies, cartons, toys, underoos, you
name it). The only Marvel franchises who do the same are
Spider-Man and maybe the X-Men.

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

I agree with Greg - its a hierarchy thing, and its a hierarchy of popularity (not necessarily power). Marvel doesn't have a "Big Three" - it has a "Big Two" - Spider-man and Wolverine. DC only has a "Big Three" because they were basically forced to keep Wonder Woman in print through the Silver Age and had a female superhero in print when the feminism movement was looking for examples of symbols of powerful women in the culture. That boosted Wonder Woman's popularity to the point where she could be considered top tier.

I agree that "Big Three" refers to the fact that these three are cultural icons. People who don't care about comic books know who they are. It doesn't even have anything to do with sales. They are legendary characters in the same way Tarzan, The Lone Ranger or Flash Gordon are, even Mickey Mouse. It's beyond popularity at this point even without a comic book people would know who they are because they have entered into history. None of those other characters have hit movies or best selling comic books but you can be sure that everyone knows who they are. To me that's waht the "Big Three" Thing is about.

I'd have to say that Marvel's big three are Wolverine, Spider-Man and The Hulk, but I don't think we'll be seeing them sitting around a table looking at resumes.

And I'd bet if you took a survey of non-fans, Robin would be recognized more often than Wonder Woman.

Listen, it's silly to suggest Wonder Woman isn't an icon and hugely popular oustide of comics. Thanks to TV, Robin is too — from that perspective, DC probably has a "Big Four" of superheroes. But it's absurd to suggest she's less-well-known than Robin. (I'll bet any money that far more Americans can ID Lynda Carter over Burt Ward or Adam West.) Within the comics world, her book probably sells less than Robin's, but if we want to get to the root of the "Trinity" thing, we've got to look at other influences (as many posters here have already suggested). Because the Big Three thing is largely about legendary characters in our broader American culture, those of you who are arguing to diminish Wonder Woman's status are really splitting hairs.

As far as comics go, keep in mind: Back in her early days, when comics themselves were a MUCH larger business, her titles ("Sensation Comics" and "Wonder Woman") were HUGE sellers. I do believe that combined monthly sales reached seven digits in the '40s. And she always had something else going for her that I don't think you can find in any other female character since (except, arguably, Black Canary): her own identity. She's not a distaff knock-off (like Supergirl, Batwoman, Batgirl, Spider-Woman, Spider-Girl, She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, etc. Even X-23!). Her unique status carries a significant currency in our pop culture (as it should). I can't think of any other female hero with a solo title for whom that's true.

Furthermore, going along with what some others have pointed out as DC redefining its company strategy (or "reinforcing their brand" or whatever they call it in corporate-speak), DC is preparing for a future which includes a(n alleged) return to glory for Wonder Woman, as evidenced not just by the upcoming All-Star title but by a little film to be made by Joss Whedon. They're counting on a blockbuster. (They'd better get cranking because Marvel has been kicking DC's ass with successful film adaptations.) I wouldn't be surprised, once she's established on the big screen, if we end up seeing a "Trinity" film (depending on the stars' contracts). It's a logical precursor (from their point of view) to building up their icons and perhaps even leading into a live-action "Justice League" movie.

Of course, all of this is a different discussion from the issue of why there's a "Big Three" within the DC Universe itself. That's a different thread, really. Although I'd argue (regardless of who should be on what list) that it's only natural that some heroes would be considered A-list, B-list, C-list, by the media and the public of the DCU if not by the heroes themselves. (The more crass elements of celebrity within the hero community seem to have been repudiated by Booster's story in "52.")

p.s. I think the inclusion of Spider-Man and Wolverine in the New Avengers a couple years back was Marvel admitting that those two are the most popular characters they have. As with the somewhat peculiar logic of DC promoting a Big Three within its own universe, some fans objected to the logic of Spidey and Wolverine wanting to join the Avengers. But sales in our world will always trump the internal workings of a fictional world.

I dunno why y'all keep listing Wolverine as part of Marvel's equivalent of the "Big Three." Most people outside the comics world didn't know who Wolverine was until the first X-men movie.

I'd go with Spider-Man and the Hulk, but otherwise, meh. Captain America doesn't have that much cachet with the kiddies.

What amazes me is how many people over 50 will recognize the symbol on my Shazam! t-shirt.

I'm with you B Cole. I admit that Wolverine is certainly the most popular Marvel hero, but I think he's far from universally recognized outside of comics.

My girlfriend has absolutely no interest in comics. Aside from Maus, I can't be sure she's even read one. So I figured she would be the perfect test subject to see what kind of recognition superheros have to someone who couldn't care less. I sent her a list of the most famous, and asked her three questions, 1)Have you hear of them at all? 2)Would you recognize them on sight? 3)Do you know anything about their powers (what they are, how they got them)?

The only four she answered yes to all three for were Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and The Hulk. She could recognize WW, Aquaman, and Robin on sight, but knew nothing of their powers/origin. All the others were name recognition at best (she'd heard of The X-Men, but not Wolverine individually).

So, by those standards, both companies only have a "Big Two". I know this is far from a legitimate sample size, but I think it shows that Cap and Wolvey aren't quite as iconic as we might think.

I may have missed someone else saying this, but I think the (non-DCU) significance of the "Big Three" is not so much that they were published continuously from the Golden to the Silver Age as that they were the historical archetypes for comic book heroes to come after. Superman was the first costumed super-hero; Batman (almost) the first costumed non-powered hero (the Crimson Avenger never really caught on) and the archetype for the dark, scary hero within comics (the archetype was borrowed from the pulps); and Wonder Woman, well, the first female super-hero. Note that these are not just archetypes for DC Comics, but for comics as a whole. The only archetype Marvel has of that vintage and status is Captain America, the archetypal patriotic hero. It's only much later that Marvel set a new standard with Spider-Man, the archetypal everyman super-hero.

I expect some historical quibbles with what I've written, but whether or not so-and-so really was the "first" (Wikipedia says Nelvana of the Northern Lights - remember her? - was the first comic book superheroine), my point is that these are the Ur-heroes who set models for much that came after. As with everyone else's theory of the Big Three, Wonder Woman is the weak link in the argument. I think it's worth noting that she's the only one of the Big Three whose creation seems to have been inspired more by an intellectual conceit - girls need hero-models too - than by her creator's wish-fulfillment fantasies (which is not to say that some of those famous early Wonder Woman tropes - bondage, anybody? - may not reflect William Moulton Marston's fantasies).

Batman wasn't the first costumed non-powered hero (you've got the Phantom, the Shadow, et. al.), but he was DC's first, and established a precedent for non-powered heroes in the "superhero" genre, possibly.

Your girlfriend may not know who Wolverine is, but with two long-running cartoons behind him, Wolverine is known and loved by scores of children, even those who have never read a comic. That's why it's him on the kids' backpacks and notebooks and not, say, Iron Man - because he's recognized and recognizable, even if he lacks the iconic status of the others in his weight class.

I'd also posit that people are aware of Captain America and able to recognize him even without ANY knowledge of the character. The fact that "Captain America" has been used in lots of outside sources as a term (both positive and derogatory) for patriots, and the fact that he literally dresses in a flag. People can put two and two together, because even if "that guy in the blue suit with the stripes on his stomach" wasn't named Captain America, he damn well should be. People would probably call him that anyway. But while any random sampling of people on the street would turn up folks who know Clark Kent, Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne, would anyone know Steve Rogers?

One (more) thing that Marvel does right that DC doesn't is that they draw a strong line between their "real world" big characters and their "in-world" big characters. Out here in real life, we know that Marvel's big chararacters are Spidey and Wolverine. But if you asked people that live in the MU, they'd say Captain America and Iron Man.

Meanwhile, we know Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, and the people who live in the DCU know them too, even if it doesn't make sense in the world of the comics. Pretend you're telling a Silver Age-style story in which Batman and Alan Scott have both written books and are both having signings in Gotham City on the same day. If you wanted to be true to the world of the characters, then GL's line should be ten times longer than Bruce's, because DC denizens would be looking up to these oldtimers more than the new guys.

Basically, it's fine for DC to publish books about the Big Three, but they shouldn't tell stories about the Big Three.

"Batman wasn’t the first costumed non-powered hero (you’ve got the Phantom, the Shadow, et. al.), but he was DC’s first, and established a precedent for non-powered heroes in the “superhero” genre, possibly."

Except for the Crimson Avenger.

Other than that you're spot on, but if I don't retentively nitpick stuff like that I lose my comic nerd-fu and start getting all distracted and start reading books and having a life and stuff.

Because the big three are the superhero archetypes from which all other superhero characters are based: the boyscout wholesome do-gooder; the dark, brooding avenger; the strong, amazon woman in a man's world. All other superheroes are derivations or combinations of the three. And DC recognizes that, therefore captilizes on it.

I'd just like to add that there's another difference between DC and Marvel that hasn't been brought up. While DC's "Big Three" are very recognizable in the general public as individual heroes, Marvel's *teams* - The Fantastic Four, The Avengers, The X-Men - may be more well-known that it's actual individual heroes (aside from Spider-Man). Just a thought.

Anyhoo...

Honestly, I figured it was just DC wanting to capitalize on the popularity of the "Trinity" comic by working the "trinity" concept (awkwardly) into continuity. Sort of the same way the super-idealized "mythic" take on the Justice League from the Morrison era really spun out of the "pantheon of gods" approach to the DCU heroes that Kingdom Come used.

Good points everyone, especially yo who said that in the DC Universe the JSA would have been more popular than a newly minted Batman simply because they've been in the game longer.

I think it's rad that people keep saying that Marvel definitely has a Big Three but can't agree on who those three are. That might be evidence that Marvel doesn't actually have a Big Three, but only some characters of varying recognizability to particular generations. I think most people would recognize Spider-Man and the rest kind of depends on your generation. People who lived the '70s will definitely recognize the Hulk - as he had a television series and large green guys aren't that forgettable. Kids who grew up on cartoons of X-Men will know Wolverine. My wife had never even heard of Wolverine or the X-Men until the movies.

For the record, I think the problem at DC isn't that they have a Big Three, it's the relatively recent decision to make everyone aware within the DC universe that there's a Big Three. "Oh, well, let's let Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman decide who'll be in the Justice League." "Why?" "They're the Big Three." "Oh, OK."

And this extends downwards, too. "Sorry, Blue Beetle. We're going to ignore your evidence of a clear and present danger to the human race because you're one of the Tiny Two Hundred Seventy." "Oh, well, fair enough. I guess I'll go get shot in the face, then." It's like under the Big Three (no, not Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman, Rucka/Johns/Winick), the super-heroes are all well aware of how popular they are among the fans, and behave accordingly.

A lot of people know "Captain America" from Easy Rider. The words making up his name aren't all that unique, so someone could hear the name and imagine a super-patriot. I would be surprised if most of these people who are aware of "Captain America" know that the superhero version has a shield. "Iron Man" has similar issues with recognition.

Basic facts about the superguys should be known amongst the populace if the comic superguys are considered "known." That's only a handful of characters--Superman, Batman, Hulk, Spider-Man--and they are known because of TV and movies.

Hello folks!
I think the inclusion of Spider-Man and Wolverine in the New Avengers a couple years back was Marvel admitting that those two are the most popular characters they have. As with the somewhat peculiar logic of DC promoting a Big Three within its own universe, some fans objected to the logic of Spidey and Wolverine wanting to join the Avengers.
Thanks and have a good day!!!