Marvel and The 90's

[kad939]

I've been reading alot on Marvel and DC over the past few months, trying to get myself up to speed with what was going on over the past decades. In my reading, i've always found (in passing) the 90's is referenced as a bad decade for marvel. So, I have a few questions to better understand the decade.

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?

[CaptainAwesome]

I've been reading alot on Marvel and DC over the past few months, trying to get myself up to speed with what was going on over the past decades. In my reading, i've always found (in passing) the 90's is referenced as a bad decade for marvel. So, I have a few questions to better understand the decade.

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?
1)Bankruptcy

2)yes

3)Peter David's X-factor

4)No idea

[Capt USA]

it was the decade of art over storytelling, every character had shoulder pads, mullets was prominent, the introduction of decompression.

[Expletive Deleted]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?Dan Raviv's Comic Wars covers the corporate machinations in all their fascinatingly gory details.

Personally though, I blame the chromium.2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?It was a worse ratio than normal, but I'd hesitate to answer this definitively either way.3) What were the best moments of the 90's?By the late '90s, Marvel was putting out some pretty good books. Waid on CAP, Busiek on AVENGERS, the various Marvel Knights titles . . . I don't know if it makes up for the excesses of the early/mid-'90s, but the late '90s on into the early part of this decade was a damn good time to read Marvel comics.4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?Occasionally.

[marshal99]

90s isn't that bad , heck , Marvel is going back to the 90s for their Ghost Rider series with Saltares/Texeira - the same pairing that was such a big success in the 90s with Ghost Rider. Saltares later got fired by Marvel after listening to some bad advice from his IMAGE pals and Tex took over the art.

[Billy Parker]

The worst was some giant turd sandwhich named Ron Perelman who bought Marvel and tried to make some quick millions off of it. He didn't care or know anything about the artistry, only about the money he could make. He made some huge mistakes buying card and sticker companies with huge price tags thinking these products would sell because they were "collectible" and got Marvel into huge debt and nearly ruined it for everyone! Marvel had to file bankruptcy because of him.

He's done the same with other companies and had success. But not with Marvel! Now he's just some rich old billionaire turd!

[Keith_Martineau]

it was the decade of art over storytelling, every character had shoulder pads, mullets was prominent, the introduction of decompression.

Marvel in the 90's did not introduce decompression.

If anything, that was being introduced over at Wildstorm with the things Ellis was doing.

I'd also like to point out that "decompression" really started a LONG long time ago, and I'm going to site Akira is one of the first real examples of decompressed storytelling.

And for the last time decompression is NOT a bad thing. Bad writing is a bad thing, and decompression does not equal bad writing.

[StoneGold]

I'd also like to point out that "decompression" really started a LONG long time ago, and I'm going to site Akira is one of the first real examples of decompressed storytelling.


Stan Lee started decompression when he first started writing issues with "To Be Continued..." at the end.



Decompression is all relative.

[Capt USA]

never said that marvel introduced decompression, just that it was introduced in the 90's (I would say the first spiderman issue was the first one that I remembered it wasn't a bad story- kravens last hunt) and it really just became big during the 90's I guess you can say.

[Babylon23]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

There were a lot of bad spinoff titles, like Fantastic Force, Thor Corps, etc. The X-Men franchise really grew into an uncontrollable monster during the 90's. Heroes Reborn was pretty ordinary. The Spider-Clone Saga. Maximum Carnage. Avengers: The Crossing.

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

Pretty much. This was the era of the big crossover, the gimmick covers, and style over substance. Marvel flooded the market with a lot of subpar books.

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

Peter David's Hulk and X-Factor. The Heroes Return titles, especially Avengers, Thor and Cap. Alan Davis' and Warren Ellis' Excalibur. Kelly/Seagle's X-Men. Simonson's brief FF run. The Infinity Gauntlet. The last page of Thunderbolts #1.

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?

The first 3-issues were excellent, one of the best Magneto stories I've read. It was good during the Kelly/Seagle period as well.

[CURSD BLADE]

90s isn't that bad , heck , Marvel is going back to the 90s for their Ghost Rider series with Saltares/Texeira - the same pairing that was such a big success in the 90s with Ghost Rider. Saltares later got fired by Marvel after listening to some bad advice from his IMAGE pals and Tex took over the art.

What did Saltares do to get fired? I have just gotten into this man's work so I know little about him.

[CURSD BLADE]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

To tell you the truth, I grew up in this era, and being ages 3(1990) to 12 (1999), I couldn't judge story quality all that well. I loved it all. In retrospect, X-Force was the stereotypical 90's "extreme" book, with overly large muscles, huge guns, lots of shoulder pads, and blood.

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

Again, I ate up everything at the time, but yeah. For every solid title being published at the time, there were about three titles that were just being launched for the hell of it, because the speculator market scooped up everything. Did Morbius, Venom, Darkhawk, Nova, Night Thrasher, and Sleepwalker really need their own series? Did we truly need Three Punisher ongoing series?

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

If you dug around, there was some good stuff coming out of Marvel in the 90's. Peter David on Incredible Hulk, Captain Marvel and X-Factor. Karl Kesel/Cary Nord's run on Daredevil as well as Kevin Smith/Joe Quesada and David Mack's Daredevil runs. John Byrne's X-Men: The Hidden Years was old school fun, as was his run on Namor. The Thunderbolts was genious. Busiek/Ross' Marvels was classic! Waid/Garney on Captain America. Kelly/McGuinness' Deadpool was hilarious. DeZago/Wieringo brought the fun back to the Spidey line with Sensational Spider-Man. Waid/Kubert on Ka-Zar. Busiek/Perez on Avengers was the best the book had been since Englehart's run. Busiek also did the stellar Avengers: Forever maxi series with Pacheco. Early 90's Ghost Rider was guilty pleasure fun. Ellis on Excalibur. Kelly on X-Men. Hama/Wildman on G.I. Joe. Busiek/Ollife on Untold Tales of Spider-Man. Alan Davis' Clandestine. There was great stuff being published at Marvel, you just had to wade through 20 Spidey and X-Books to find them.

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?

The art was consistently amazing, from Jim Lee to Andy Kubert to Carlos Pacheco to Adam Kubert to Alan Davis, it was always a beautiful book. Unfortunately, the writing ranged from good (initial 3 issues by Claremont, Kelly's run) to overly dramatic 90's soap opera.

[Paul Kersey]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?


When the superstar artists left
Hologram, foil, embossed covers that raised the price of the comic but contained average art and story
The Spider-clone saga that lasted way too long and Peter hitting MJ
When Sue Storm aquired a bad girl look
when every character looked like cable


2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?
I think so, yes, because the 90s for Marvel started out so strong with there superstars heading the flagship titles then they ALL left so Marvel put out artists who imitated or had similar styles to Lee and co and it just wasn't the same. Also, everybody was getting there own series as previously mentioned who didn't deserve them. Image was the "cool" comic company and Marvel tried very hard to imitate them and their "extremeness."

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

Ghost Rider by Mackie & Texeria
The Collectors Item Trio (Spidey, X-Men, X-Force)
Spectacular Spider-man w/ Harry Osborn as the Green Goblin
Joe Maduria picking up drawing chores on Uncanny X-Men
easily Marvels by Busiek & Ross


4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?
I started reading X-Men around the time of the Muir Island Saga (Uncanny 275) so I didn't have that much prior knowledge of the series but to me X-Men 1-3 was when the X-Men reached their peak. Great art, story and all my favorite X-Men characters in 3 issues. The Omega Red storyline was also fun. When Ghost Rider guest starred I stopped reading it.

To me, once Jim Lee left, I thought, what was the point of an adjectiveless X-Men without Lee?

[cable guy]

It's all a matter of opinion.

I loved the nineties.

Many other people did as well, as sales indicate.

[SleepWalker]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

Spidey's "Clone Saga"

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

In my opinion, no, because I was enjoying a lot of books in the 90's.

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

- Age of Apocalypse and Scott Lobdell on the X-titles.
- Busiek's Untold Tales of Spider-Man.
- The best second rate characters ever: Sleepwalker, Darkhawk, New Warriors.
- Ghost Rider
- Generation X

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?

Yes. Fabian Nicieza's run was fantastic.

[Lord S]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel? Onslaught...the character was cool...but how he was used, and the uber-fellation of the X-franchise was in real poor taste. Too bad they won't bring him back, though...if used properly, he could be a great Marvel villain. The whole 'Apocalypse: Twelve' saga was terrible as well.

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good? I'd say yeah.

3) What were the best moments of the 90's? 'Infinity Gauntlet', 'Operation: Galactic Storm', 'UXM: Trial of Gambit', 'Wolverine: Not Dead Yet', and the 'New Eternals: Apocalypse Now' were all great series/issues.

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good? Sometimes.

[JulianPerez]

The nineties were possibly the worst decade in the entire history of comic books.

The eighties were, at Marvel, for the most part intriguing (as opposed to DC, where writer/artists made the entire DC Universe ugly and unrecognizeable): POWER PACK, the science fiction grounding of the underappreciated NEW UNIVERSE, Roger Stern's AVENGERS, and so forth.

But there were a few diamonds in the rough for Marvel in the 1990s, and both of them were associated with the writers Kurt Busiek and Christopher Priest. Kurt Busiek's THUNDERBOLTS and AVENGERS (the greatest run since Steve Englehart) and Christopher Priest wrote the Black Panther as smart, savvy and just plain cool: the flying sub, the teenage karate chicks, the electro-daggers...it was all a joy to read in an otherwise worthless decade.

[cable guy]

I would agree that the 'gathering of the twelve' was awful.

It was a story that was building for years it seemed, and then was just such a joke.

[milly3cat]

My understanding is that the year's 1990,91,92,93,94,95,96 were the best the company ever had.
But artist's left and the drawing got bad and people left, I was one of them. Not sure what happened behind the scene's, for it was a big change of fate.

[Shellhead]

My understanding is that the year's 1990,91,92,93,94,95,96 were the best the company ever had.
But artist's left and the drawing got bad and people left, I was one of them. Not sure what happened behind the scene's, for it was a big change of fate.

What is the basis for your understanding? I found 1990, 1991, and 1992 at Marvel to be so atrocious that I just stopped buying Marvel completely. And DC, too. Sometime around 1999, I picked up a random issue of the Avengers and noticed that Busiek and Perez were doing a great job. Gradually, I started buying comics again, from both DC and Marvel, and even went back to see what I missed in the 90's that might have been good. Not much. Priest's Black Panther was great. Peter David's Hulk was great. Busiek/Perez Avengers was some of the best ever. Thunderbolts was okay. And that's it.

Otherwise, Marvel in the 90's looks to me like crap. Teen Tony, Cap with man-boobs, Liefeld artwork, and long, bad mutant crossovers. Massive overexposure for Wolverine, Punisher, Venom and Carnage. Lots of bad writing. Stupid chrome covers. The Crossing. Onslaught. Hawkeye dressing like Plantman. Too many guns, utility belts, claws and trenchcoats to be counted. The Clone Saga, featuring Peter Parker beating his pregnant wife.

[Nevets F]

I LOVED comics in the 90's. I was a huge fan of TONS of books that most people would never touch.

Anybody remember Blackwulf? LOVED it.

Free Spirit and Jack Flag in Cap? LOVED them.

Terror, Inc, Silver Sable and the Wildpack, New Warriors and their various spinoffs, all the Midnight Sons stuff, loved it all.

*sigh* good times.

[drinkblatzbeer]

The Infinity Gauntlet.

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?

The first 3-issues were excellent, one of the best Magneto stories I've read.

i can get with these two books...

i'll also add the demattis/buscema spectacular run...
uncanny x-men 281
operation galactic storm
the silver surfer stuff 34-59

that's all i can think of right off hand...

[Expletive Deleted]

Anybody remember Blackwulf? LOVED it. Ha! I thought I was the only one. These days I can recognize its flaws, but at the time I was totally gobsmacked that such a fantastic title could get cancelled.Free Spirit and Jack Flag in Cap? LOVED them.. . . you're dead to me, now.

[DDM]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

bankruptcy

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

Yes.

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

Chris Claremont's final issues of Uncanny X-Men #246-278 & X-Men #1-3 (second series)

Peter David's X-Factor #70-89 & Incredible Hulk

Jim Starlin's Infinity Gauntlet #1-6

Ghost Rider #1-25 (volume 2)

The New Warriors #1-50

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?



Yes, under Chris Claremont with X-Men #1-3.

[kad939]

Ok, now things are starting to make sense to me.

I stopped buying comics after I purchased X-Men (vol. 2) #1, #2, and #3. So I come back and start wondering how it got so bad. Now I know.

Bankruptcy, flashy-pointless covers, and insane crossvers don't help much either I suppose.

[TimmyTony]

Marvel in the 90's did not introduce decompression.

If anything, that was being introduced over at Wildstorm with the things Ellis was doing.

I'd also like to point out that "decompression" really started a LONG long time ago, and I'm going to site Akira is one of the first real examples of decompressed storytelling.

And for the last time decompression is NOT a bad thing. Bad writing is a bad thing, and decompression does not equal bad writing.


Perfectly put.
I agree wholeheartedly.

[Crash-Man]

The 90s was a funny decade for me.

I've always loved comics, and I've read them for as long as I can remember, but I only joined a club and started buying regularly in late 1994. My first comic was the Amazing Spider-Man that started the Clone Saga. The rest, thankfully, is history.

Starting then had a good aspect though. Because of the generally low quality of work then and my lower expectations, finally getting my hands on stuff like Watchmen, Astro City, Kingdom Come, Marvels etc was fantastic. And when comics like Jenkins' Spectacular, Priest's Panther, Supreme Power, Y the Last Man and the various Ultimate titles started delivering superior storytelling every month...well I can simply say I'm happier about comics now than I ever have been.


Anyway, the Clone Saga was the low point of the 90s for me.

Age of Apocalypse was probably my favorite 90s Crossover.

The bad outweighted the good as the decade began, but things got better at the very end of the 90s.

X-Men...meh.

[90'sCartoonMan]

The Clone Saga, featuring Peter Parker beating his pregnant wife.

Eh, it wasn't so much a beating as it was him jerking away from her which threw her back with his super strength.

Since I started reading comics in 1992 when I was 12, I'm sort of quick to defend the 90's. Although I do see how things like, say, Maximum Carnage were unncessary and I grew out of my "Oooh, shiny cover!" phase.

I'm also harsh on the stuff that happens to my beloved characters now, such as Avengers Disassembled, but now that you guys mention it, the 90's messed with characters. Franklin Richards got old, Tony Stark got young. And the endless spin-offs and X-Books. Eek. Heroes Reborn wasn't needed.

As for adjectiveless X-Men, it wasn't all that consistent, so it's hard to say.

I still think Bill Jemas' Marvel was the worst period for Marvel Comics since I've been reading.

[karik]

Since I was gone from comics during this period, I have a few questions:

1. Can anyone show an article or summarize the financial problems that Marvel had? Is it due to bad business decisions, to sagging sales in the books due to declining quality, or what?

2. Is the speculation market pretty much gone from comics?

I remember back in the late 80s when I was collecting as a kid, I was carrying comics around in my backpack, in cardboard boxes, in empty 3-ring binders and such. I had some of the die-cut or foil covers and I kept those neat, but most of my comics from that era are in poor shape. My guess is that nowadays, almost all comics purchased are bagged and boarded and put away, but there are still variant covers and such. Will today's comics ever be worth what those of yesteryear are?

3. How is the financial health of the industry now? How are book sales compared to the low years in the mid 90s?

4. Did the same things happen at other publishers? I remember reading the death of superman publicity stunt at the time, and thinking it was dumb. And I know Image's lineup looks nothing like it did back then, and Valiant is completely gone (Liked the Harbinger books... too bad)

[Expletive Deleted]

1. Can anyone show an article or summarize the financial problems that Marvel had? Is it due to bad business decisions, to sagging sales in the books due to declining quality, or what?As I mentioned above, Dan Raviv's Comic Wars: How Two Tycoons Battled Over The Marvel Comics Empire . . . And Both Lost is the best source for this info.

Long story short, the speculator bubble burst so sales plummeted, Marvel dangerously overexpanded in other markets, and two billionnaires fought over ownership of the company behind the scenes.2. Is the speculation market pretty much gone from comics?Not at all. It's still there. It's just much reduced from its '90s peak.3. How is the financial health of the industry now? How are book sales compared to the low years in the mid 90s?It's better than it was, but it's still nowhere near any of its peaks. The bestselling books now are in the 100k-200k copy range.4. Did the same things happen at other publishers?Everyone got hurt by the market crash. DC is owned by Time Warner, so they made it through. A lot of smaller publishers folded. But none of them had quite as bizarrely catastrophic a decade as Marvel.

[Citizen V]

I've been reading alot on Marvel and DC over the past few months, trying to get myself up to speed with what was going on over the past decades. In my reading, i've always found (in passing) the 90's is referenced as a bad decade for marvel. So, I have a few questions to better understand the decade.

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?

1-Twards the end of the 90`s,some actually began to notice the decline with Marvel.One of the last events of the 90`s,the X-Men`s The Twelve,was done.Some said it could have been alot better than what the final product was,i think this was the first fan dislike of Marvel`s events.

2-I would have to say barely.One of the saddest moments for me was when the First volume of the Fantastic Four went in 1996.Also the animated series,like Fantastic Four,Silver Surfer and Incredible Hulk only had mild success.Only Spider-Man and X-Men were hits,this might by why more fans go to the Spider or the X these days.Because they saw the classic 90`s shows,but imagine if the other shows were also successfull..might this decline have been avoided?

3-More exposure,tv was giving Marvel more notice than ever before.About nearly half of the current fans first came in through the mid to late 90`s.

4-There was no doubt that the X-Men in the 90`s was perhaps the best,but if my opnion the true X-Men gold came from 1990 to 1995,just before Age Of Apocalypse.There was Bishop,new Claremont Stories,Asteroid M,Generation X,and alot more.Compaired to today,the 90`s X-Men are supreme.

[Mark Wallace]

[QUOTE=kad939]I've been reading alot on Marvel and DC over the past few months, trying to get myself up to speed with what was going on over the past decades. In my reading, i've always found (in passing) the 90's is referenced as a bad decade for marvel. So, I have a few questions to better understand the decade.
QUOTE]

I've been collecting for over 40 years, and I've gotta tell ya, it goes back a lot further than the nineties.

What basically happened with Marvel is that one guy (Lee), who knew how to write fun stories, teamed up with several guys who could turn his outlines into great comics (Kirby, Ditko, etc), and Marvel became THE comic company
(and remember I'm talking as someone who was there and watched it happen, rather than a retrospective "analyst" with no personal experience).

In the years that followed Lee & Co's departure from creating the comics, fanboys like Thomas took over, and Nothing New was created -- fanboys just re-hash old stuff, and screw around with what's already there, rather than do anything creative (i.e. rather than act like writers/artists).

So Marvel fell into the sht1 in the mid-late 60s, not the 90s -- and it stayed there almost totally (there are a few exceptional and genuinely creative Marvel comics from the period, but seen as a percentage, they're non-existent) until the late 90s, when a decision was made, somewhere, that fanboys weren't to run the show, any more -- and that genuine artists should be creating Marvel comics.


And I'm absolutely amazed at how many people have put "the Infinity Glove" as one of the highlights (especially as I just yesterday finished soundly trashing it in my "Wal's History" series). It was Awful!

The only "Infinity" story that was worth the paper was Abyss, which was beautifully crafted.

My suggestion: Make the most of how Marvel is now. It has never been better -- and it won't last.


MW

[Shellhead]

[QUOTE=kad939]I've been reading alot on Marvel and DC over the past few months, trying to get myself up to speed with what was going on over the past decades. In my reading, i've always found (in passing) the 90's is referenced as a bad decade for marvel. So, I have a few questions to better understand the decade.
QUOTE]

I've been collecting for over 40 years, and I've gotta tell ya, it goes back a lot further than the nineties.

What basically happened with Marvel is that one guy (Lee), who knew how to write fun stories, teamed up with several guys who could turn his outlines into great comics (Kirby, Ditko, etc), and Marvel became THE comic company
(and remember I'm talking as someone who was there and watched it happen, rather than a retrospective "analyst" with no personal experience).

In the years that followed Lee & Co's departure from creating the comics, fanboys like Thomas took over, and Nothing New was created -- fanboys just re-hash old stuff, and screw around with what's already there, rather than do anything creative (i.e. rather than act like writers/artists).

So Marvel fell into the sht1 in the mid-late 60s, not the 90s -- and it stayed there almost totally (there are a few exceptional and genuinely creative Marvel comics from the period, but seen as a percentage, they're non-existent) until the late 90s, when a decision was made, somewhere, that fanboys weren't to run the show, any more -- and that genuine artists should be creating Marvel comics.


And I'm absolutely amazed at how many people have put "the Infinity Glove" as one of the highlights (especially as I just yesterday finished soundly trashing it in my "Wal's History" series). It was Awful!

The only "Infinity" story that was worth the paper was Abyss, which was beautifully crafted.

My suggestion: Make the most of how Marvel is now. It has never been better -- and it won't last.


MW

I agree with you that the Infinity Gauntlet was over-rated, even though I liked most of Starlin's earlier work. But I disagree strongly with the assertion that Marvel created Nothing New in the 70's or later. Btw, I started collecting comics in 1970, so I remember the 70's pretty clearly, and I also went back and read the Marvel 60's material, through back issues and reprints. I find it difficult to believe that you were still reading Marvel comics in the 70's.

Here's a list of some decent Marvel creations in the 70's

Luke Cage, Hero for Hire
The Guardians of the Galaxy
Shang-Chi, Master of Kung-Fu
Iron Fist
Blade
Punisher
Wolverine
Thanos
Deathlok (arguably the first cyberpunk character)
Killraven
Nova

Most of these characters were fairly successful, and none of them were based directly on anything that Stan Lee ever wrote.

Some existing characters were taken in exciting new directions in the 70's and early 80's:

The New X-Men, especially with the Dark Phoenix Epic

Black Panther faced up to his responsiblities as King of Wakanda, in Panther's Rage.

The throwaway character Him became the messiah of Counter-Earth as Adam Warlock, and then Starlin took him to even greater heights in his battle with his own dark side, the Magus.

Daredevil transcended his roots as a Spider-man knock-off, to become one of the most mature and focused heroes in the Marvel stable.

The Defenders challenged the very concept of the superhero team.

And to be blunt about it, Stan didn't always deliver on the potential of his own creations. For example, if you tell me that Stan wrote the best X-Men stories ever, you will need to pardon my unrestrained laughter. His Daredevil was generally inconsequential, his Avengers were corny, and his Hulk was only a minor variation on Mr. Hyde. Most of Stan Lee's creations had great potential, but outside of Fantastic Four and Spider-man, his execution of these ideas was just adequate, and it took the work of later creators to really deliver on the initial promise.

Mark, you and I should take this discussion over to the Classic Comics subforum here at CBR. You will find some other fans there who are strong supporters of the Silver Age, as well as some well-informed fans with various other viewpoints. The majority of the people reading our posts in this thread probably started reading Marvel in the mid 80s or later.

[Capt USA]

I've been collecting for over 40 years, and I've gotta tell ya, it goes back a lot further than the nineties.

What basically happened with Marvel is that one guy (Lee), who knew how to write fun stories, teamed up with several guys who could turn his outlines into great comics (Kirby, Ditko, etc), and Marvel became THE comic company
(and remember I'm talking as someone who was there and watched it happen, rather than a retrospective "analyst" with no personal experience).

In the years that followed Lee & Co's departure from creating the comics, fanboys like Thomas took over, and Nothing New was created -- fanboys just re-hash old stuff, and screw around with what's already there, rather than do anything creative (i.e. rather than act like writers/artists).

So Marvel fell into the sht1 in the mid-late 60s, not the 90s -- and it stayed there almost totally (there are a few exceptional and genuinely creative Marvel comics from the period, but seen as a percentage, they're non-existent) until the late 90s, when a decision was made, somewhere, that fanboys weren't to run the show, any more -- and that genuine artists should be creating Marvel comics.


And I'm absolutely amazed at how many people have put "the Infinity Glove" as one of the highlights (especially as I just yesterday finished soundly trashing it in my "Wal's History" series). It was Awful!

The only "Infinity" story that was worth the paper was Abyss, which was beautifully crafted.

My suggestion: Make the most of how Marvel is now. It has never been better -- and it won't last.


MW

perfect example of why I don't listen to old timers, according to them their time period was always the best of the best, not saying that stan lee and others didn't create great stories, just knocking the concept that the late 60's through 90's didn't create anything good. Heck claremont x-men alone completly and utterly refutes that totally bogus claim. I still don't see how you can think the stuff coming out today is so superior to the stuff that Shooter, Gruenwald and dozens of others did in the 70's and 80's. (90's I'll agree with, there was something funny in the water in that decade)

I'm sorry but Gruenwalds Squadron Supreme, blows out many of the stuff done before and after it, Claremonts x-men, and as mentioned dozens of other stuff introduced after the mid 60's has been very good.

sure there has been misses, but it wasn't like stan lee and company didn't have misses either.

[scratchie]

Also, as I pointed out on the Classic Comics board, Roy Thomas, et al, weren't any more "fanboys" than Kevin Smith, J Michael S<mumble>ski and Jonathan Lethem.

[josh straightedge]

The worst of the 90's to me was all the variant/cromium/whatever covers that numerous books were putting out. Then you got the billion spinoff books for everyone(which is still like that in the X-Camp...) and to top all of it off, you had books that people were pumping out like crazy to eventually never even finish(lot of Image books like that...) and really, it hurt the market. They tried to turn comic fans into collectors who only cared about the market price on a variant.

However Marvel had a lot of great books during this time. Avengers with Busiek/Perez really highlights the 90's for me. Thunderbolts. The later issues of the original DD run were good too(with the Cary Nord art.)

[Expletive Deleted]

Also, as I pointed out on the Classic Comics board, Roy Thomas, et al, weren't any more "fanboys" than Kevin Smith, J Michael S<mumble>ski and Jonathan Lethem.For most writers of the post-Stan era, I'll agree wholeheartedly.

But Roy? Today's fan-writers can't hold a candle to him. They'll play in the MU sandbox, but they won't do things like integrate Kirby's Eternals into continuity or attempt to make everything from the Timely era fit neatly into the MU's timeline. Much less what he did with DC's Golden Age characters before and after Crisis. If he didn't coin the term "retcon," he certainly popularized it.

I mean, he had a letter in FANTASTIC FOUR #5 praising Stan's use of continuity!

[scratchie]

Daredevil transcended his roots as a Spider-man knock-off, to become one of the most mature and focused heroes in the Marvel stable.For that matter, you could argue that Miller's work on Daredevil laid the foundation (for better or for worse) for the "dark & gritty" style of comics that have dominated the last twenty years, as well as being extremely influential in terms of the visual design of comic pages.

[scratchie]

For most writers of the post-Stan era, I'll agree wholeheartedly.I was simply pointing out that many of the "genuine artists" who are writing comics today are clearly fanboys, as they've been successful in other media and have chosen to work in comics because they want to.

[Mark Wallace]

[QUOTE=Capt USA]perfect example of why I don't listen to old timers, according to them their time period was always the best of the best,


The Hell you say!
Early Marvel comics were as simplistic as Hell, and only had a few diamonds.

What they did have, though, was a vision to improve comics and comic standards.

Compare Lee & Kirby's FF and Thor, or Lee & Ditko's Spidey, to the comics of ten years earlier, and you'll see a massive difference.

The problem was that when Thomasina took over, he was a big fan of earlier comics (the so-called "golden age" -- but I call it the "mud age"), so if you compare the same Lee & pal comics to Marvel comics of ten yearslater, you'll see the same huge difference, but backward!

When Lee & Co. left the running of Marvel to the fanboys, all we got were fanboy stories -- precious little innovation, and lots of "COOL!!!" garbage that made no sense whatsoever.

The best time comics have ever seen is right now, because there are real writers producing real work with real creativity.

I'm no "silver age" booster; I just want to buy good comics that are worth keeping, but most of my money (and everyone else's) ended up being spent on dreck from the late 60s to the late 90s, because that's what most comics were.


Sure, I agree with Shellhead (Sorry, Shell, but I read down one more, before replying), that Shang-Chi, Iron Fist, and Killraven were great comics (mostly, until they were taken over by other "creators"), but if you look at your list of highlights, you'll see that all the genuinely good ones (are you serious about Luke Cage? His early series wasn't worth the paper!) are related to the same two or three creative staff, who, except for Pervy Byrne, weren't given a lot of space within Marvel, and never got the high-profile titles.

I'm glad you included the incredible Panther's Rage on your list, but I'd get rid of Cage, MotU, Blade, Punisher, and Nova.

Stan Lee was good for hype, mainly, but he also delivered product. He changed comics from what they were pre-Marvel into something that people wanted to collect (before that, comics were largely throwaway items). He led Marvel in the production of multi-issue, culturally relevant stories, which people wanted to keep -- and every issue had something new!

Nowadays, i.e. post 1998, we've gone one better, because Marvel has people who are just as creative, but who have actually learned how to write!

(That comment's probably crossed me off Stan's Christmas list).


Oh, and any more "old-timer" cracks, and I'll start booking meetings in the car park!

<*grump*>

[Mark Wallace]

"Fanboy" is not the description of a fan of anything; it's a way of thinking that prevents you from making any sense whatsoever.

[JulianPerez]

Pervy Byrne

Greatest. Nickname. EVER.

[roundman]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?

For me, it was the rise of Joe Mad and the Manga craze. Maybe the whole Onslaught / Heroes Reborn story arc. Another thing is the early '90s Punisher saturation, followed by the mid '90s Punisher collapse, and culminating with Punisher's resurrection as a undead demon fighter. The Spider Clone saga.

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?

No way. There were plenty of great '90s moments. I don't really understand the '90s hatred.

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

Definately the Infinity Guantlet storyline... firmly established Thanos as the biggest badass in all of Marvel. Marvels was also great.

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?

It was great in the beginning... started going downhill after Magneto ripped out Wolvie's adamantium.

[roundman]

And I'm absolutely amazed at how many people have put "the Infinity Glove" as one of the highlights (especially as I just yesterday finished soundly trashing it in my "Wal's History" series). It was Awful!
MW

I'd love to read your take on this. "Infinity Gauntlet" was the storyline that got me into comics in the first place. The only "Infinity" storyline that I thought was sub-par was "the Infinity Crusade"

[Hombre]

The problem was that when Thomasina took over, he was a big fan of earlier comics (the so-called "golden age" -- but I call it the "mud age"), so if you compare the same Lee & pal comics to Marvel comics of ten yearslater, you'll see the same huge difference, but backward!

When Lee & Co. left the running of Marvel to the fanboys, all we got were fanboy stories -- precious little innovation, and lots of "COOL!!!" garbage that made no sense whatsoever.

Nowadays, i.e. post 1998, we've gone one better, because Marvel has people who are just as creative, but who have actually learned how to write!



Roy Thomas, who created the Vision, brought the Black Panther into the Avengers and defined the dramatic and epic nature of the Avengers Mythos until Brian Bendis and his amusing gags, laid the groundwork for Claremont's X-Men run and introduced such characters as Banshee and Havok, built upon Stan Lee's social awareness introducing an emotional and sociological naturalism that helped expand the scope of these comics paving the way for such tales as Panther's Rage or the Secret Empire, has given us a legacy of garbage and deserves the derogatory appellation of "Thomasina"?

Steve Englehart, Chris Claremont, Jim Shooter, Ann Nocenti and Walter Simonson, for example, wrote shallowly cool stories that made no sense whatsoever, whereas in 1998... what happened in 1998, who are the creators that breathed artistic life into characters others had created but previously used only for the purpose of making a quick buck at the expense of an undiscriminating readership?

[Mark Wallace]

I'd love to read your take on this. "Infinity Gauntlet" was the storyline that got me into comics in the first place. The only "Infinity" storyline that I thought was sub-par was "the Infinity Crusade"

I think Infinity War was the worst. I got sick to death of seeing everyone (even Galactus, Thanos, and Death's all-seeing well thingy) speak in the same awful "clicky" English.

"Crusade" was the only one I held out any hope for, because Starlin normally approaches philosophical and religious subjects with a bit more thought -- so I was not at all pleased that, instead of seeing "forceful discussions" between super-dupers who were conflicted between their beliefs and loyalty to their buddies, it was all put down to some "mysterious" mind control.

If you've got CDisplay, I go into greater detail about it here (that should read "I moan like a complaining old fart about it here", but I typoed):
http://mwallace.net/history/issues/WHoM-03.cbz

Thankfully, Starlin was back on track (or back on his medication) by the time he did Infinity Abyss, which was damned good stuff.

[Mark Wallace]

Greatest. Nickname. EVER.

Don't tell his mother. It'd break her heart.

[Mark Wallace]

Roy Thomas, who created the Vision, brought the Black Panther into the Avengers and defined the dramatic and epic nature of the Avengers Mythos
Lost me already.
I think it's reasonably safe to assume that you and I have completely different tastes, and will likely never agree.

That doesn't mean we can't have some fun fighting it out, though.

The vision wasn't a creation, he was a rehash; I don't see having a character join a super-duper team as a great achievement for a writer; and among the last words I would use for the Avengers title, until recent years, are "dramatic" and "epic".

until Brian Bendis and his amusing gags, laid the groundwork for Claremont's X-Men run and introduced such characters as Banshee and Havok, built upon Stan Lee's social awareness introducing an emotional and sociological naturalism that helped expand the scope of these comics paving the way for such tales as Panther's Rage or the Secret Empire, has given us a legacy of garbage and deserves the derogatory appellation of "Thomasina"?

What does "laid the groundwork" mean?
Giant-sized X-Men 1 came straight out of the blue, and out of Claremont's imagination. There was no run-up to it, and Thomasina wasn't involved in creating it at all. It bore almost no relation whatsoever to the earlier run of the series; it just used a few of the characters (and far better than they had been used before)

You've mentioned the Vision, Banshee, and Havok so far, as Thomas creations.
Where are they?
What's so great about them?
Why does no writer want to take them on as solo characters?
Besides, I'm pretty sure that Havok was an Adams' baby.

Steve Englehart, Chris Claremont, Jim Shooter, Ann Nocenti and Walter Simonson, for example, wrote shallowly cool stories that made no sense whatsoever,

No-one, ever, in the history of comics, ever wrote more shallowly (sans "cool" than Engelhart. He's a fanboy "linker". All he ever does is link things together -- always for no good reason, always poorly researched, and always in dreadful English.
I could pound on for hours about my disgust and disdain for the guy, so I normally just say nothing.

The others youi mention produced what, 800 comics between them?
Out of how many that Marvel published? Is it even one percent?

whereas in 1998... what happened in 1998, who are the creators that breathed artistic life into characters others had created but previously used only for the purpose of making a quick buck at the expense of an undiscriminating readership?

The hiring policy changed. They started taking on writers who had proven ability, rather than enthusiasm alone.

And who said the readership is undiscriminating? All the readers I know are very discriminating, but if your choice is between crap, crap, crap, crap, and crap, what do you choose?

Anyone who collects only comics that were worth collecting for their intrinsic (not financial) values has precious little of Marvel's back catalogue in his dusty boxes. But most readers don't go far beyond "the big two". I wouldn't call them undiscriminating; I'd call it unlucky.

[Hombre]

Lost me already.
I think it's reasonably safe to assume that you and I have completely different tastes, and will likely never agree.


That is true and something I'm rather proud of.


Giant-sized X-Men 1 came straight out of the blue, and out of Claremont's imagination.

Or rather, that of Len Wein and Dave Cockrum.
Len Wein, a writer and editor at Marvel in the 1970s, wrote long runs on the Incredible Hulk, Thor, the Fantastic Four and the Amazing Spider-Man.


The hiring policy changed. They started taking on writers who had proven ability, rather than enthusiasm alone.


I'd like to see you qualify your statements by mentioning just who started "making sense" at Marvel Comics in recent years, as opposed to those that left their mark from the late 60s to the early 90s, namely, Stan Lee himself with John Romita Sr., Roy Thomas, Gerry Conway, Gary Friedrich, Len Wein, Steve Gerber, Steve Englehart - whose sprawling runs on Captain America, Avengers and Avengers West Coast you despise, while at the same time celebrating more recent creators whom they obviously inspired, Bill Mantlo, Don McGregor, who started a daring, lyrical masterpiece with his Panther Vs. the Klan, which he might not even have undertaken in a Marvel comic had Thomas not introduced similar themes in the late 60s with the Sons of the Serpent, Chris Claremont, who continued the story Roy Thomas had started and expanded upon it utilizing some of the same characters and locales, Frank Miller, Walt Simonson, whose transcendent Thor run remains one the greatest artistic achievements of all super hero fiction, Ann Nocenti or Jim Shooter, whose irreverent Avengers run, in case you hadn't noticed, has been a strong influence on Busiek, who you seem to believe made the Avengers "epic" singlehandedly.

And we get to 1998. That was indeed a momentous time, with the start of Priest's Black Panther, a brilliant masterpiece that deserves to stand alongside the foregoing authors' greatest work. But whose author, for some reason, has no place in your idyllic picture of today's Marvel as "the best it's ever been".

[jimmyboy]

Since I was gone from comics during this period, I have a few questions:

I too was AWOL during most of the Nineties, at least concerning Marvel, and for me most of the Marvel Nineties are still a complete mystery. I have MUCH catching up to do! :eek:

I remember back in the late 80s when I was collecting as a kid, I was carrying comics around in my backpack, in cardboard boxes, in empty 3-ring binders and such. I had some of the die-cut or foil covers and I kept those neat, but most of my comics from that era are in poor shape. My guess is that nowadays, almost all comics purchased are bagged and boarded and put away, but there are still variant covers and such. Will today's comics ever be worth what those of yesteryear are?

I was really getting into comics in the Eighties, and I remember some of my fellow comic readers going nuts trying to find the least-damaged cover for the latest issue of this or that, and getting upset over how people (like me) bent the covers while sorting through all the comics on the racks, without first taking them off the racks to sort through them.

I remember reading the death of superman publicity stunt at the time, and thinking it was dumb. And I know Image's lineup looks nothing like it did back then, and Valiant is completely gone (Liked the Harbinger books... too bad)
It was this storyline which got me back into comics. I really like it, except for how he died, which I still think was lame. They could have done that part much differently, I think.

[Mark Wallace]

I don’t see that there’s any need to be quite so aggressive, Hombre.

A large part of the function of fora such as this is for people to discuss opposing views – it would die a death, if everyone did nothing but agree with each other (I think… – so do I! – Me too – And me! – Woo-hoo!); but such discussion doesn’t have to take place with battle-axes in hand.

Your main complaint seems to be that I do not go through each and every tiny detail of the entire history of every title produced by Marvel comics in every posting I make, if I wish to disagree with you (the Sons of the Serpent were a Lee/Heck creation, by the way, and I very much doubt that Mcgregor was "inspired" by them).

My postings are already long enough to put the average person to sleep (avec nightmares), so I don’t see that as being too good an idea.

One thing that is unarguable, though, is whether something is well or badly written. This is quantifiable and measurable. I’ve been writing for over 25 years, and I Do Not Like finding that I’ve paid for badly written work.

I think that should be understandable. I don’t know what you do for a living, but I’m sure that you are not happy when you see someone doing the same job, but badly – and I certainly think you would not be all smiles if you had to pay that person, out of your own pocket.

My favourite analogy is that of the plumber, who comes into your house and installs a toilet that leaks all over the place. Any normal person would call him all the names under the Sun.

Why, then, should that same normal person be happy to accept incompetent work from someone who is paid to write? The only perceivable difference is that you can see (and/or smell) that the plumber has done a bad job, but not everyone has the experience to see whether or not a writer has performed adequately.

If you want fine detail, no problem. I’ve had to look at other people’s work, in the past, to decide whether or not it is ready for publication (ah, the joys of euphemism!), so I’ll be perfectly happy to perform the same analysis on a comic of your choosing – a full decomposition, proofing, story/storytelling analysis, and parse (I’m really quick at this kind of thing, so it’s no bother). You seem to like Engelhart and Thomas, so pick one of theirs.

And I’ll do it in good humour and non-aggressively, too. I’d appreciate your returning that favour.

Does that put my money close enough to my mouth for you?

[Wizard of Oz Cowardly Lion mode] C’mon! Put ‘em up! [/Wizard of Oz Cowardly Lion mode]

Hmm. This forum doesn’t seem to support that tag. Maybe we should have a word with them.

[DDM]

Another good 90's book is The Avengers #1-55 1997 relaunch with Kurt Busiek & George Perez; the book basically returned to its roots. The sad part is The Avengers got relaunched again, for the fourth time, into New Avengers (basically the New Avengers are acting more like the Champions or Defenders--not Avengers), taking them farthest from their very core identity as Avengers. Hopefully, Marvel will come to its senses soon about returning the Avengers back into the Avengers.

[cable guy]

The Avengers were great back then.

Ahh, the 90's. The good ol' days.

[Hombre]

One thing that is unarguable, though, is whether something is well or badly written. This is quantifiable and measurable.



I took issue with your blanket statements about decades of artistic legacy, and I don't condone your derision and name calling of authors whose work I love and respect.

No please, tell me more about how I speak fondly of the comics of Steve Englehart, Bill Mantlo or Gerry Conway because they are so cool, rather than recognizing that underappreciated folks like Bendis, Millar or Straczyinski have at last given depth and substance to the medium and are the greatest thing since cotton gin.

Your statements once again indicate that you don't want to share an opionion. You seem to believe you can quantify and measure the artistic, philosophical and emotional resonance of Marvel comics from an historical perspective and thus come an objective claim that the vast majority of the ones that were made before a certain time are garbage.

Well then, pardon me for asking you to be a little more specific and make it clear just what it is that you are saying.

You may go ahead and impart your wisdom as much as you like, but don't do it on my account. I'm not interested in your analyses and I would not be appreciative of your great literary and critical skills.

[JulianPerez]

Another good 90's book is The Avengers #1-55 1997 relaunch with Kurt Busiek & George Perez; the book basically returned to its roots. The sad part is The Avengers got relaunched again, for the fourth time, into New Avengers (basically the New Avengers are acting more like the Champions or Defenders--not Avengers), taking them farthest from their very core identity as Avengers. Hopefully, Marvel will come to its senses soon about returning the Avengers back into the Avengers.

Don't forget the second portion of the run, where it was taken over by the incredible Alan Davis. Some may call it heresy, but Alan Davis was always at least to me, the better of the two artists. He can make every single person distinctive in physical appearance, giving them different faces and bodies.

What can possibly be said about the Busiek AVENGERS run?

His long-term, resolved plots felt so very real, intense, and emotional? The Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch meeting only took place in a single issue, but what a meeting it was! "You're my sister...and I always will love you." Awww!

Kurt treated every character with the greatness that they deserved; it was as if every single one was his favorite. Captain America TALKING to the Juggernaut's captors and defeating them that way - shades of Roger Stern and how Captain America defeated the now all-powerful Super-Adaptoid with a speech! When someone dropped Thor and Hercules off in a helicopter, they said "everyone says that those guys are touched in the head, saying they are gods...but seeing them up close...I can believe it!"

Kurt was good at subtlety; Warbird's alcoholism was an incredible plot detail revealed over time. The best part about Busiek's work is that you can reread it several times and see a different thing every time.

In little ways, Kurt got the personalities of all the Avengers. Witness Simon Williams and his stammering uncertainty, or She-Hulk throwing her robes off and saying "C'mon guys, it's barbarian times, and it's a bar brawl!"

I never would have thought that anybody could have even approached the Englehart greatness on AVENGERS. But Busiek's run has come pretty darn close.

[Hombre]

Another good 90's book is The Avengers #1-55 1997 relaunch with Kurt Busiek & George Perez; the book basically returned to its roots.

The Fantastic Four are another example. Fantastic Four #337, the start of Walt Simonson's run as both penciler and writer had a cover date of February 1990. By the end of the decade, Chris Claremont and Sal Larocca were at the helm with a compelling and gorgeous run. In the mid nineties, De Falco and Ryan put together a very charming and readable book, albeit not a cool one.

[Dizzy D]

1) What was the worst of the 90's for marvel?
Bankruptcy, lack of diversion.

2) Did the bad far outweigh the good?
No, there were a lot of good things in the 90s.

3) What were the best moments of the 90's?

There was a lot of good stuff out in the 90s:

Epic brought out some great translations like Airtight Garage, Akira and Blueberry. And some great original horror like Clive Barker's Hellraiser series.

Regular Marvel had, apart from several great series already mentioned:
Frank Miller and John Romita Jr. Daredevil: Man Without Fear miniseries.
Joe Kelly's Deadpool
Doom 2099 by J.F. Moore
Warren Ellis on Hellstorm, Druid and Excalibur.
Excalibur by Alan Davis

4) Was adjectiveless X-Men ever any good?
Up and down in quality most of the time.

[icctrombone]

The nineties had bad points and good points.

The Good :

The aformentioned F.F. run by defalco and ryan . I loved the continuing saga started when Lyja was revealed as a spy for the skrulls.

The Bad :

That era totally ruined the Avengers for me . That's my favorite book of all time and they made them first into X-men clones ,( Jackets ?) and then ended the first volume with the terrible Tony Stark is an agent for Kang revelation.

[Hombre]

That's my favorite book of all time and they made them first into X-men clones ,( Jackets ?)

I loved that period, because I felt Harras made these characters exceptionally three-dimensional. The Vision was a compelling character again since Byrne's original disassembling, the Black Knight became a charismatic leader and unlikely focus for the story along with the likes of Crystal and Sersi and Hercules acquired an unsuspected depth, becoming an interesting and serious character perhaps for the first time since Gerry Conway's and John Buscema's Thor.

The language at times was a bit forced and corny, and the narrative had indeed been influenced by Chris Claremont and Roy Thomas, but the substance was there, in my opinion and for my tastes, as well as the effort to move the story forward in a way that was original, but at the same time consistent with the gravitas and soul searching that had made the Avengers stand out in times past.

I liked the jackets. I still don't see why Harras' jackets sucked but Morrison's were a sign of maturity and distinction.

[Expletive Deleted]

I liked the jackets. I still don't see why Harras' jackets sucked but Morrison's were a sign of maturity and distinction.Because the Avengers aren't the X-Men. For one thing, the X-Men actually have a history of wearing school uniforms, where the Avengers have always had individual costumes. For another, it felt like a cheap attempt to gritty up what had always been a fairly bright, primary color franchise.

I liked some aspects of Harras's run, too. But the jackets didn't work. I don't hate them, but they didn't work.

[JulianPerez]

I took issue with your blanket statements about decades of artistic legacy, and I don't condone your derision and name calling of authors whose work I love and respect.

What he said.

Except about "Pervy Byrne." It's funny because it's true.

And even his parents can probably guess Johnny Redbeard's a total perv - I mean LOOK at him. He looks like the creepiest serial killer ever.

And speaking of Byrne...

The aformentioned F.F. run by defalco and ryan . I loved the continuing saga started when Lyja was revealed as a spy for the skrulls.

What a great story this was! It explained why Alicia had behaved so out of character since Byrne, where she ended her doomed, beautiful relationship with the Thing, who was monstrous but LOVE made her see Ben the way he really was...to go after the hunky Johnny. And also, why she started dressing so sluttily (besides the fact that horndog Pervy Byrne was drawing her).

This was one of the first band-aids placed on the damage Byrne did to the Marvel Universe. Earlier ones included Steve Englehart's FF run, where Johnny acquired maturity, dignity and restraint after Byrne inexplicably made Johnny a teenager again, and later on, Busiek's AVENGERS FOREVER, an astonishing miniseries that made the Vision and the Human Torch one again, albeit in a roundabout way.

[Capt USA]

I'm still at a loss how todays marvel is better than the 80's marvel or 70's marvel.

lets see current avengers vs caps kooky quartet? or even the run where vision takes over the world? no contest 70-90's blows todays avengers out of the water.

heck take priest black panther run vs hudlin and once again no contest.

Yes todays captain america is as good as any of the great runs of cap in the day, so that is one I'll give you.

nobody seriously thinks todays x-men compare to claremonts run do they? I mean the x-men is such a mess right now it will be probably another decade before they do anything good. You really think todays Iron man compares to Iron man of the 70's and 80's? You are nuts if you think getting 1 issue every 3 months is comparable. And c'mon the fantastic four? Spider man?? these are titles that for a large majority of them are stagnant or utter jokes. The only good marvel titles are titles that have no connection to marvel history or if they do they have a writer that absolutely loves the history of marvel (fabian) but any title that has a significant backlog(other than cap) is borderline garbage.

[Capt USA]

Don't forget the second portion of the run, where it was taken over by the incredible Alan Davis. Some may call it heresy, but Alan Davis was always at least to me, the better of the two artists. He can make every single person distinctive in physical appearance, giving them different faces and bodies.

What can possibly be said about the Busiek AVENGERS run?

His long-term, resolved plots felt so very real, intense, and emotional? The Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch meeting only took place in a single issue, but what a meeting it was! "You're my sister...and I always will love you." Awww!

Kurt treated every character with the greatness that they deserved; it was as if every single one was his favorite. Captain America TALKING to the Juggernaut's captors and defeating them that way - shades of Roger Stern and how Captain America defeated the now all-powerful Super-Adaptoid with a speech! When someone dropped Thor and Hercules off in a helicopter, they said "everyone says that those guys are touched in the head, saying they are gods...but seeing them up close...I can believe it!"

Kurt was good at subtlety; Warbird's alcoholism was an incredible plot detail revealed over time. The best part about Busiek's work is that you can reread it several times and see a different thing every time.

In little ways, Kurt got the personalities of all the Avengers. Witness Simon Williams and his stammering uncertainty, or She-Hulk throwing her robes off and saying "C'mon guys, it's barbarian times, and it's a bar brawl!"

I never would have thought that anybody could have even approached the Englehart greatness on AVENGERS. But Busiek's run has come pretty darn close.

I agree with a lot of that, except the warbird part. I hate alchoholism stories, they are treated as garbage most of the time, and warbird wasn't exposed over time, in the first issue stark suspected (of course almost all former alchoholics suspect anyone of being one, it's the cult of aa, it's how they recruit new members :) )

warbird from her first re-appearance in avengers was going to be an alky and it was apparent. It was, in my opinion a simplistic, naive approach to the situation on par with an afternoon school special " let's show the worse, and fastest way to make a person an alky" UGGH, I was cringing my teeth everytime I saw warbird show up in the comic. "until she admitted her problem and got cured"

[Shellhead]

I liked the jackets. I still don't see why Harras' jackets sucked but Morrison's were a sign of maturity and distinction.

Aside from the differences between individual heroes adding a uniform jacket, as opposed to the X-Men going back to school uniforms? How about the completely ridiculous sight of the Black Knight wearing a brown leather bomber jacket over a black tunic and also over his chainmail shirt? It's hot enough running around fighting in chainmail, but putting on leather on top of it is just asking for heat stroke. And why would an experienced swordsman like Dane risk going into combat with so many layers encumbering his sword arm?

[Hombre]

Aside from the differences between individual heroes adding a uniform jacket, as opposed to the X-Men going back to school uniforms? How about the completely ridiculous sight of the Black Knight wearing a brown leather bomber jacket over a black tunic and also over his chainmail shirt?

Expletive and Shellhead, your point regarding the school theme for the X-Men is well taken. I'm not familiar with Morrison's comics, I just thought there might have been a similarity. My opinion is that they looked fine for the core group of "secondary" Avengers Harras was focusing on, Crystal, Sersi, Hercules and the Black Knight. But it's just a personal point of view.

As for the run in general, I think IccTrombone has a valid point in saying that the Avengers descended into chaos for a while there in the 90s. Again, this a personal indication, and perhaps colored by the fact that I was in my 20s when that stuff came out, and it impressed me at the time, but... my advice for anyone who, like me, is especially fond of the Avengers, is to seek out the following:

Avengers Vol. 1 #334-379 and the 1994 Vision miniseries, which takes place after #375, at the same time as 378-379. Then the Vision took a leave of absence, taking Epting and Palmer with him, and Harras appeared to completely lose his bearings.

As others must have noted, an obvious good nineties pick is the Incredible Hulk up to #425, I'm not a big fan of Peter David, but the quality of these comics is undeniable. The 80s had closed with Jeff Purves as penciler, which made for my favorite segment of David's run, and the great "Countdown" arc.
I also thought there were some good Hulk stories towards the end of the decade, with the likes of Joe Casey, John Byrne, Gerry Ordway, Ron Garney and Sal Buscema, but that's just me.

[Mark Wallace]

I took issue with your blanket statements about decades of artistic legacy, and I don't condone your derision and name calling of authors whose work I love and respect.
"Blanket statements" are kind of how opinions work -- and when I'm talking about a lot of years' worth of comics, you can't expect me to talk about each one individually, so don't be too surprised at generalisations.

No please, tell me more about how I speak fondly of the comics of Steve Englehart, Bill Mantlo or Gerry Conway because they are so cool, rather than recognizing that underappreciated folks like Bendis, Millar or Straczyinski have at last given depth and substance to the medium and are the greatest thing since cotton gin.

Your statements once again indicate that you don't want to share an opionion. You seem to believe you can quantify and measure the artistic, philosophical and emotional resonance of Marvel comics from an historical perspective and thus come an objective claim that the vast majority of the ones that were made before a certain time are garbage.
The quality of the writing is as measurable as the quality of the artwork in a comic. I don't see how you can artgue against that.

The early sixties was a great time for comics, because Marvel brought the media back to life (and brought back super-dupers, which had all but died out).
A High Percentage of Marvel's output, at that time, was good comics.
A high percentage of Marvel's output Now is good comics.
The percentage of good comics in the time between then and now was a lot lower.


Well then, pardon me for asking you to be a little more specific and make it clear just what it is that you are saying.
I'm still generalising, out of the necessity that is still there, and I'm still stating my own, personal opinion, which is still what it was, despite your harsh responses.

And I still don't see why you have such a big problem with that.

Hell's bells, if I want a browbeating, there's any number of women I could call on, who will be perfectly happy to put me to task for my past sins (all imagined sins, of course; everyone knows I'm an angel).

[NathanielEssex]

Generally speaking, I like Marvel's 80's comics more than I do the output today.
I don't like Wolverine, and he seems to be in everything now, as he was in the 90's. I also don't like Bendis' style, or JMS', or Millar's (only when it comes to 616 comics, Ultimates rocks). My favorite periods are the late 90's (Busiek and Perez Avengers is one in particular that was good) and the 80's.

[Shellhead]

As others must have noted, an obvious good nineties pick is the Incredible Hulk up to #425, I'm not a big fan of Peter David, but the quality of these comics is undeniable. The 80s had closed with Jeff Purves as penciler, which made for my favorite segment of David's run, and the great "Countdown" arc.


Good call on Peter David's Hulk. Before I gave up on comics in the 90's, I was down to one Marvel and one DC, and Hulk was my last Marvel comic. I actually quit Hulk before David left, because I didn't like the change in direction in the story after the fall of the Pantheon, and I also wasn't enthusiastic about the art anymore.