"Classic" VS "Modern" comics....

[Alex Dragon]

Hi all...Even though I've been posting on the CBR site for a few years I'm still new to the CLASSIC COMICS forums. I'm sure the sort of topic has been done to death many times already but hopefully I can make this time around a bit different.

I know I'm going to get a very biased answer here but still want to hear your thoughts on the "classic" stuff vs the current stuff of the last few years. Exactly how and why do you think the older stuff was better. Was it really better or is it more of a nostalgia thing. When you go back and read those books today are they still as good to you?

What comics era had the best art? What era had the best writing?

Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?

If you don't read today's current stuff what exactly drove you away?

Thanks.

[Shellhead]

Hi all...Even though I've been posting on the CBR site for a few years I'm still new to the CLASSIC COMICS forums. I'm sure the sort of topic has been done to death many times already but hopefully I can make this time around a bit different.

I know I'm going to get a very biased answer here but still want to hear your thoughts on the "classic" stuff vs the current stuff of the last few years. Exactly how and why do you think the older stuff was better. Was it really better or is it more of a nostalgia thing. When you go back and read those books today are they still as good to you?

What comics era had the best art? What era had the best writing?

Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?

If you don't read today's current stuff what exactly drove you away?

Thanks.

I personally find golden age and even early silver age comics to be an acquired taste that I haven't fully acquired. Standards were much lower when the main target audience was just kids. That goes for both artwork and story. Most '90s comics were no better in terms of quality.

Other than that, I don't feel that the comics of the '70s, '80s or now are significantly better or worse than each other in terms of writing or artwork, except maybe that some of the modern writing is the best ever in comics. There does seem to be a greater emphasis on writing than artwork right now, while the reverse was true in the '90s.

One of my favorite era of comics is late silver age Marvel. Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko created some amazing characters, but it wasn't until the late silver age that the Marvel Universe was fleshed out into such a fully-realized and immersive setting. Also, it wasn't until the late silver age that most comic book characters began to acquire actual personalities.

Then Jim Shooter took over and chased out a lot of the talent. They mostly went over to DC, which was enjoying its own renaissance in the wake of Crisis on Infinite Earths. That was when the Vertigo line got rolling, although it didn't have a product line identity at first, just edgy comics like Doom Patrol and Swamp Thing.

I also enjoyed quite a few independent comics in the '80s, like Elementals, Grimjack, and Mage. Sadly, most of those companies disappeared by the early '90s.

By the early '90s, DC and Marvel and especially Image began churning out excessive amounts of bad comics. Modern comics are better than '90s comics, but both DC and Marvel now have an obscene tendency to crank out huge crossover events that pressure fans to buying a lot of extra comics just to get the whole overblown story.

The only comics that I still buy on a regular basis are in my sig. Two of those comics have just one issue left for me to buy, while another has three issues to go. If I don't see new comics of equivalent value, then I will just spend my money on trades of older comics.

[Kan-Man]

I collected from about '72 (when I was 5) to about '83 or '84. There were two things that made me stop - volume and the inability to keep up (by the end, through a subscription service, I must have been buying close to 30 comics a month) and probably the biggest reason was I remember sitting on a couch reading a comic and thinking to myself, "that could never happen." In that moment, I had been taken out of the world I had spent a dozen years inhabiting.

What's interesting to note is I just missed Crisis and Watchmen and Dark Knight, so who knows if that would have rekindled my interest - probably not (I was in college by then), but who knows?

In terms of judging era vs era, that's hard for me to do. It's also impossible for me to look at a comic from 1977 through a 10 year olds eyes again, so it's hard separate nostalgia from a subjective opinion.

I've stated before - the appeal to me of this board is total nostalgia. While I was collecting, I only knew a couple of other collectors so I didn't have the opportunity to discuss creators, characters, issues, etc. And now I do. And what I've learned over time is how unique this forum's members are compared to other forums (that are devoted to my other interests) in regards to civility and decency.

No idea if I answered any of your questions or not - that all just sort of came out.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Older comics aren't necessarily better or worse than more recent comics, just different. Comics have to be evaluated in the context of their intended audience, and of the prevailing standards of quality at the time they were published.

So for example, a writer like Gardner Fox or Bob Haney isn't as sophsticated as Alan Moore or Grant Morrison, but Fox and Haney were writing for a different audience that demanded a different sort of writing. And their stuff is still very readable and enjoyable, if you understand the situation in which it was produced.

[JKCarrier]

There's good and bad in every era. I think the very best of the golden age -- Eisner's Spirit, Cole's Plastic Man, Binder & Beck's Captain Marvel -- holds up just fine against anything being published today. And surrounding those gems was an ocean of horrible crap. The same is true today.

I think what a lot of older fans are reacting to is not so much a lack of technical quality (though there's plenty of that going around), but the generally bleak, nihilistic attitude of modern superhero comics. The heroes lose as often as they win, and even the "victories" usually end up with them compromised or tainted in some way (see Identity Crisis, Civil War). There's no ray of hope or inspiring example, just a bunch of pathetic and despicable jerks who just happen to have superpowers. Moore's Watchmen was startling and innovative when it came out, but in the 20 years since it's become enshrined as The Way To Do Superheroes, and that formula has become as trite and worn out as the mode it replaced.

[rick]

I have to admit that I’m one of those nostalgia types who thinks that comics were better way back when.

Now don’t get me wrong, because there are all sorts of excellent comics being produced on a regular basis all the time from all sorts of sources. But I also can not help but think that the material being produced today, while in many cases excellent, just isn’t as good as some of the books from yesterday.

No offense to the creators of today, but I grew up with my comics created by the likes of Kirby, Lee, Kane, Adams, Wood, Steranko, Colan, Eisner, Infantino, Shelton, Broome, Sevrin, Ditko, Buscema, Kurtzman, Anderson, Romita, Perez and Crumb.

Just to name some of the obvious ones.

Plus for all the higher quality of paper being used, and the newer computer generated printing styles, modern comics simply do not look as sharp or as clan as old style classic comic printing using metal plates on a standard press.

I would place classic Mad, Zap or the National Lampoon against anything edgy being produced today.

I would put Lee & Romita Spider-Man, Miller’s Daredevil or Starlin’s Warlock, against any comic Marvel has produced in the last 20 years.

I will say that at least DC comics has done a decent job of keeping their books fresh and interesting. But even then, while I do truly love both Jonah Hex and Booster Gold, Batman, Superman, the Legion, Wonder Woman and the rest of the standard crew, leave me pretty cold in their normal monthly gigs.

[Alex Dragon]

Great responses. It's just the kind of stuff I was looking to hear. Honest, thought out, reasonable answers without the simplistic "The old stuff was better and today's stuff sucks!" so many people usually say.

The main reason I brought this subject up was because from time to time I try and read some of the older stories in an ESSENTIALS volume and to be honest I have a hard time getting through more than a couple of stories. That stuff seems so crude to me in terms of story and art. I know that it was aimed at a younger audience and during simpler times but I just can't understand how an adult from today doing a unbias comparison can say those stories are so much more superior to those of today. Yes, they have their charm. Yes, they weren't as "dark". Yes, they took longer to read and perhaps more things seem to happen in an issue. But to do as so many people do and just say or imply that all that stuff was better than all of today's stuff just makes me wonder if they actually mean it or are just going by memory.

When I go back and read that old stuff I can see a person easily giving up comics back then because they simply grew out of them. I often wonder what people who outgrew comics back then would think of today's stuff if they got a chance to see how they're being done now. Would they be turned off or want to start reading again?

There's no "right' or "wrong" in this discussion just I just want to hear any random thoughts you might have on the subject.

[spoon_jenkins]

Plus for all the higher quality of paper being used, and the newer computer generated printing styles, modern comics simply do not look as sharp or as clan as old style classic comic printing using metal plates on a standard press.
This resonates with me. Part of that is the new technology probably causes artists to abandon things that make comic art look beautiful. You have shading through color in place of shading through black/inking. The "more advanced" technology isn't always the best. It reminds me of the earlier days of CGI of movie. Sometimes CGI has been less realistic looking than "lower tech" alternatives like puppetry or stop motion or animatronics. Art shouldn't uncritically embrace the notion that more recent technology produces a more beautiful piece of work.

Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?
Some of the classic comics I like best have longer story arcs. I think conditions were better in 1980s (my favorite era) for long story arcs than they are today. Back then, the unfolding of story arcs had a more organic feel. Granted, I don't read that many current comics, but it seems that the "writing for the trades" phenomenon stifles the ability to have story arcs develop more organically. Back then, I feel like there was more freedom to mix long storylines with shorter ones and single issue stories. And things weren't forced to fit in an arc. And outside material wasn't forced out. In many classic comics, a plotline could be in the forefront, then fade in the background for one or more issues, and then surge back to the forefront. The environment was friendlier to interweaving subplots that would pay off in the future rather than concentrating on the present arc alone.

[Slam_Bradley]

The main reason I brought this subject up was because from time to time I try and read some of the older stories in an ESSENTIALS volume and to be honest I have a hard time getting through more than a couple of stories. That stuff seems so crude to me in terms of story and art. I know that it was aimed at a younger audience and during simpler times but I just can't understand how an adult from today doing a unbias comparison can say those stories are so much more superior to those of today. Yes, they have their charm. Yes, they weren't as "dark". Yes, they took longer to read and perhaps more things seem to happen in an issue. But to do as so many people do and just say or imply that all that stuff was better than all of today's stuff just makes me wonder if they actually mean it or are just going by memory.


I generally read more old books than new. I don't think they're inherently superior, but I just tend to prefer them. But I'll be the first to admit that it can be taxing to try to read an entire Essentials or Showcase volume without a break. And I think the obvious reason is that those comics weren't meant to be read that way.

Take, as an example, Showcase Presents The Haunted Tank. The book covers almost five years of stories. They simply weren't meant to be consumed one after another. Comics were still aimed at younger, casual readers and were disposable entertainment. Nobody was expecting that 40-50 years later grown men would be reading the stories back to back and fan-wanking about continuity glitches and re-used storylines. Now this particular book rides the late edge of that default position as the "fan as writer/artist" came later to DC than to Marvel.

I find, that other than for the sheer glory of things such as Kubert or Heath or Kirby art, most older books read a whole lot better in chunks of a half dozen issues or so and then move on to something else to cleanse the palate and let the mind clear before going back. I read around a dozen of these big books at a time.

[dan bailey]

The only comics that I still buy on a regular basis are in my sig. Two of those comics have just one issue left for me to buy, while another has three issues to go. If I don't see new comics of equivalent value, then I will just spend my money on trades of older comics.

still buying: All-Star Superman, JSA, Y the Last Man, Jonah Hex, Astonishing X-Men, The Brave & The Bold

Just out of curiosity, Shellhead, which of those are being cancelled? I think I've head Y (which I've never read), but of the others, the only one I haven't been buying is Astonishing X-Men (I ecently excised All-Star Superman from my pull list for purely financial reasons -- it's a pleasant enough book, but I've never been able to grasp why so many found it downright exceptional).

[dan bailey]

And speaking of financial reasons (as I was doing just now), that's one consideration I'm unable to shake in approaching today's comics (however much that might make me an utter Philistine) -- bang for the buck, or rather the three bucks.

Whether it's "decompression" or "writing for the trade" (sort of the same thing, I guess, or at least inextricably intertwined concepts) or whatever, no matter how nice a comic today looks because of computer technology, high-quality paper, etc, the fact remains that too bloody often I've just shelled out 3 bucks or more for something that occupied maybe 5 minutes of my time ... sometimes less than that. Hell, I can't cite chapter & verse, but I swear that more than once I've read a current comic in the car while waiting for a traffic light to change during the drive home from the LCS.

For someone who has to watch his money much more closely than he'd like, that's insane.

It's more than I pay to rent a DVD (especially when Netflix is factored in) ... It's nearly half what I pay for a paperback book that occupies me for hours, it's around one-third of what I pay for a CD (since I tend to buy them used) that even if I only play it once probably clocks in at around an hour ... It's about the same (or actually rather more, when most subscription rates are considered) as a magazine that offers far more content.

Maybe I'm just a fast reader (OK, no "maybe" about it -- I am), & certainly I read faster than when I was reading Silver & Bronze Age comics off the spinner racks as a kid ... but even so, as a 48-year-old with limited finances I'm going to get a lot more -- quantitatively if not necessarily qualitatively (the latter consideration is very much tinged by nostalgia, in my particular case, which gives the old stuff an advantage that new ishes of course can't hope to match) -- out of a Silver Age comic as reprinted in an Essential or Showcase Presents or bought off eBay for probably less than this Wednesday's new offerings.

As I said, I know very well that makes me a Philistine, & art/entertainment/whatever can't & shouldn't be reduced to purely financial factors ... but it's also reality, at least in my case. I mean, let's face it -- comics cost about 25 times more than they did when I was a kid. In all honesty, with a mortgage, taxes, etc thrown into the mix, I'm not altogether sure I have 25 times more disposable income than I did back then. (Hmmm ... do movies & books & music cost 25 times more these days? Not unless paperbacks have gone up to $15, flicks to $25-plus & albums to $125, which last time I checked wasn't the case.)

I realize that's an incredibly simplistic viewpoint, but what the heck -- sometimes the bottom line just can't be ignored.

[spoon_jenkins]

And speaking of financial reasons (as I was doing just now), that's one consideration I'm unable to shake in approaching today's comics (however much that might make me an utter Philistine) -- bang for the buck, or rather the three bucks.

Whether it's "decompression" or "writing for the trade" (sort of the same thing, I guess, or at least inextricably intertwined concepts) or whatever, no matter how nice a comic today looks because of computer technology, high-quality paper, etc, the fact remains that too bloody often I've just shelled out 3 bucks or more for something that occupied maybe 5 minutes of my time ... sometimes less than that. Hell, I can't cite chapter & verse, but I swear that more than once I've read a current comic in the car while waiting for a traffic light to change during the drive home from the LCS.
Yeah, this is a big factor for me. So many current comics are such quick reads; I feel like I haven't gotten much entertainment out of them. Part of that is decompression. Also, I suspect that the attitude regarding pictures vs. words in comics is becoming imbalanced. Panel size is getting larger (without necessarily being more detailed) and dialogue is becoming sparser. At least that's my impression.

I can get lots of back issues online for about a buck or less online. And I've bought many Essentials off ebay under $10 (unfortunately it's getting harder to find Essentials so cheaply there).

[Reptisaurus!]

The main reason I brought this subject up was because from time to time I try and read some of the older stories in an ESSENTIALS volume and to be honest I have a hard time getting through more than a couple of stories. That stuff seems so crude to me in terms of story and art.


Different storytelling styles, probably. I view comics as a medium as moving from "Illustrated Pulp Novels" to "Movies on Paper." The pacing and structure are completely different.


Other than that, I don't feel that the comics of the '70s, '80s or now are significantly better or worse than each other in terms of writing or artwork, except maybe that some of the modern writing is the best ever in comics. There does seem to be a greater emphasis on writing than artwork right now, while the reverse was true in the '90s.


Hmm.

Couple points.

I think that the best of the independently produced, creator owned material is better -often signifiacntly so - than 99.8% of all mainstreamy comics. And we only started having LOTS of really good IPCOM in the eighties.

Which isn't me dissing on the underground head shop books of the seventies so much. But the point of most of 'em wasn't so much literary quality - Of course, some of them achieved literary quality, but that seems like an accident to me.

And the course the corollary is true as well. The worst of the IPCOM is quite a bit worse than even the worst of the Factory/Mainstream-y books.

That said - I don't see much difference in quality between books from the fifties and today.

From the fifties and sixties you have the EC "bullpen," probably the greatest group of comic artists ever established under one company umbrella, a bunch of spectacular children's comics (Uncle Scrooge, Little Lulu, Sugar and Spike) much better than anything published for kids in the seventies and eighties - everything up 'till Bone, probably. A consistent - and consistently great- output of material from dude's who are still regarded with awe. Your Simon and Kirby (Boy's Ranch) your Alex Toth (Zorro, Hot Wheels) your Steve Ditko (
Doctor Strange, Gorgo) your Joe Kubert (Sgt. Rock, Enemy Ace!, Tor) - Harvey Kurtzman, Gil Kane, John Buscema - And more obscure dudes doin' great stuff like Joe Maneely (Black Knight, bunch of Marvel stuff), Nick Cardy, (Teen Titans) Gray Morrow, (Creepy and Eerie) Matt Baker (Rhymes With Lust) ...

Even the second tier (quality-wise) stuff had some real and obvious strengths that today's comics have lost. The DC superhero books of the sixties might not have had much in the way of characterization, (but not NONE, either) but each and every one of 'em had a creative and interesting story hook, that was logically and fairly applied throughout the rest of the story.

From the seventies forward the approach seemed to be less "What would makd for a cool story" but "The Avengers haven't fought Ultron in a while. I should haul him out of mothballs and retell the same Ultron story I told the last 17 times." Much less attention payed to story concepts.

The forties seemed to have more horrible work than the decades that followed. But, well, Jack Cole's Plastic Man is OBVIOUSLY the best superhero comic ever, too. :)

[Reptisaurus!]

So what am I tryin' to say here?

It seems like there's a lot of back-and-forth.

In the early seventies you have some major advances in the medium - Very personal, very smart, very boundary breaking work from Gerber, Starlin, and Engelhart ferinstance.

But you also have the begiinnings of the almost myopic focus on superheroes, which means you lose a bunch of spectacularly good children's and western comics.

In the mid-to-late nineties you have "widescreen" comics from Ellis and Morrison and Millar, but lose the quieter, character driven stories from earlier writers.

Just seems like every decade in American comics has it's strengths and it's weakeneses.

[Shellhead]

Just out of curiosity, Shellhead, which of those are being cancelled? I think I've head Y (which I've never read), but of the others, the only one I haven't been buying is Astonishing X-Men (I ecently excised All-Star Superman from my pull list for purely financial reasons -- it's a pleasant enough book, but I've never been able to grasp why so many found it downright exceptional).

maybe cancelled is too strong a word, but:

Y the Last Man was only intended to be a 60-issue series, and issue #59 is already out.

Astonishing X-Men may continue as a title, but I will dropping it after the next issue (#24) comes out, because that's when Whedon and Cassaday will be done with the title.

All-Star Superman is supposed to continue after issue #12, but not necessarily with Morrison and Quitely. There is a discussion about the current done-in-one issue #9, where sharp-eyed readers are spotting all kinds of neat details. For example, in the brief fight scene, the panels seem to be jolted in the direction of the force being used. And what happened to the moon is astounding.

The rest of my regular titles are safe for the forseeable future, though I won't be surprised if it gets the axe... sales are low but steady.

[shaxper]

Personally, though there's much to like about modern comics (very visually busy, rich colors, humor that is less adolescent, and a strong sense of voice in the writing), I think the industry has become a bit too loosely controlled - churning out five part story arcs that never go anywhere, continuities that are violated more often than they are adhered to, and frequent abrupt creative team changes that keep us from ever getting to truly "know" a character.

I guess what I like most about classic comics is that there's a little more consistancy. True, continuity wasn't even a word back then, but when you had more tightly controlled editorial offices and writers who stayed on a book for several years at a time, things stayed a bit more consistant and made a little more sense. Also, these days, we sell comics with "major" events, big cross-overs, and the reptutations of writers that sign the big contracts before they type a single word. Back then, a strong cover and a solid story were required in order for anyone to make money from a book (with a few key exceptions -- Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc). Better quality control, I suppose. There's some excellent stuff being published today, but too many people are being paid too much money to produce absolute crap that sells in the tens of thousands just because it's well-hyped. This bothers me tremendously.

All of those generalizations being made, let me answer another part of your question. I think each decade has it's own distinct appeal. Thus, I find each equally appealing in different ways. Sometimes I prefer one; sometimes another.

Early Golden Age -- The stories and art are distinctly primitive, which is often more frustrating than endearing, but the simplicity of these story lines occasionally has the power to charm me. It's nice to see Superman solve the problem of reckless driving in the span of a single issue. The grim and primal rage of these heroes can often be fun, too. They don't hold back in the pre-Comics Code days. It's empowering to watch them kick the living sh*t out of the bad guy because he wronged innocents. Occasionally, they'll even kill the bastard.

Atom Age -- Weird sci-fi to the max. How many times did Batman and Robin fight off alien invasions in a ten year span? The raw imagination of these kind of stories is simply unsurpassed. Regular criminals were nothing compared to radioactive monsters, visitors from space, alternate realities, and time travel.

Silver Age -- I read these when I feel the need to feel a clear sense of right and wrong in a disturbingly gray world. The silver age heroes were almost always unequivocally right, deliving clear and undisputed justice to villains who were unequivocally wrong. Sure, this made for boring characterization and overly conventional plots, but I think that sense of right and wrong made up for it. True, Marvel's Silver Age was a bit more progressive in blurring the lines, but even then the heroes were true and pure, even while the villains they fought and the society they belonged to poised rich ethical dillemas.

Bronze Age -- Often my favorite age in that it brings maturity and complexity to its heroes' personas without losing any sense of their being heroes. Spider-Man could fail to save his girlfriend from the Green Goblin, Green Lantern could discover that slum lords were a greater evil than Sinestro, and The X-Men could learn that even the greatest amongst them could fall, but that actually made them stronger as they were forced to search deeper for the amazing strength it took to continue fighting the good fight. On top of all this, the bronze age features some strong development in many non-superhero genres, most notably horror and sci-fi in my opinion.

Edit: In hindsight, I realize I've gone off on a bit of a tangent and never answered your question about "best art." Personally, I think there's stunning art in every age of comics. These days, we have Jim Lees and George Perezs. I could never compare them to Jim Aparo or Neal Adams, nor would I compare either of those to Jack Kirby. Though I know less about artists from the Atom Age and Golden Age, the cover art from DC comics of the early 1940s are often amongst my absolute favorites. Those old covers just make the characters larger than life, particularly Superman, Batman, and World's Finest.

[Chris N]

I would put Lee & Romita Spider-Man, Miller’s Daredevil or Starlin’s Warlock, against any comic Marvel has produced in the last 20 years.

I would as well, though these were all made before I was born (more or less; I think I celebrated my first birthday as Elektra died)

[rick]

I would as well, though these were all made before I was born (more or less; I think I celebrated my first birthday as Elektra died)


Damm you know how to hurt a guy.

Now get the Hell off of my lawn. :D

[Reptisaurus!]

Oh yeah, missed these too.


What comics era had the best art? What era had the best writing?


On the one hand - The further back you go, the more great artists you get.

On the other hand - An artist with a twenty year career is simply more impressive than an artist with a four year career.

Much of what makes artists great in my mind is longevity. So not a really fair fight, IMO.

And there are certainly artists working today that are as good at what they do as anyone who's ever worked in the field - Frazier Irving, Michael Avon Oeming and J.H. Williams III, to pick a couple mainstreamier folks.

Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?


Complete in one. Although I buy virtually all my current comics in trade, so it doesn't matter much to me.

If you don't read today's current stuff what exactly drove you away?


I don't read as many monthly titles as, say, Shellhead. :) But I buy a *lot* of irregularly scheduled titles and a lot of graphic novels. So I'm still here.

[Simon Garth]

Great responses. It's just the kind of stuff I was looking to hear. Honest, thought out, reasonable answers without the simplistic "The old stuff was better and today's stuff sucks!" so many people usually say.

The main reason I brought this subject up was because from time to time I try and read some of the older stories in an ESSENTIALS volume and to be honest I have a hard time getting through more than a couple of stories. That stuff seems so crude to me in terms of story and art. I know that it was aimed at a younger audience and during simpler times but I just can't understand how an adult from today doing a unbias comparison can say those stories are so much more superior to those of today. Yes, they have their charm. Yes, they weren't as "dark". Yes, they took longer to read and perhaps more things seem to happen in an issue. But to do as so many people do and just say or imply that all that stuff was better than all of today's stuff just makes me wonder if they actually mean it or are just going by memory.


Completely agree with you - I've picked up a few Essentials and found them unreadable, to be honest. Partly from the horrendously over the top writing, but an awful lot because the B&W format really lays bare how awful a lot of the art was from the 60s & 70s, and I'm really struggling to get past that - hell, I didn't like Kirby or Trimpe or Sal Buscema in the 70s, why would I want to look at their art now?

I have great fondness for some of the better stuff from the 70s & 80s, and I'm not sure anything can beat the anticipation and visceral thrill of waiting each week for the latest installment of the 60s reprints (in the UK weekly comics), or each month for the Claremont/Byrne X-Men or Miller Daredevil to arrive, back then, but I don't really want to read any of that stuff now (for example, I find Claremont to be absolutely unreadable) - I would far rather read Powers or Planetary or even Bendis' Avengers than go back and re-read the old stuff, even though I loved those stories so much at the time.

I think this is partly because my tastes have changed, but partly it's because my tolerance for poor work has greatly diminished. In the 70s I would buy & read anything I could get my hands on*, because the distribution was so patchy in the UK. In the 80s, I was more selective, but also had more money, and a better supply, so would buy regularly, and would buy back-issues to fill in the gaps. Even then, I would draw the line at stuff that I didn't think was very good, unless I had a long run of it, and would believe it might get better... :rolleyes: Now, if it's not something that grabs me, it might get a couple of issues then it's history - and I don't have that "well, it might get better soon, so I'll keep buying/reading it" mentality that I used to have; consequently, I'm not willing to put up with a lot of the old comics which were, in all honesty, not very good. For example, I've been a long-term Avengers and Legion reader, but (even when I was collecting both) I would admit that an awful lot of those runs were, at best, average and often downright awful.

(* yes, anything - I had runs of Vampire Tales & Dracula Lives, for example, despite having no interest whatsoever in the horror genre. I even bought comics written by Gerry Conway, though that really was pushing my tolerance)

[Alex Dragon]

Completely agree with you - I've picked up a few Essentials and found them unreadable, to be honest. Partly from the horrendously over the top writing, but an awful lot because the B&W format really lays bare how awful a lot of the art was from the 60s & 70s, and I'm really struggling to get past that - hell, I didn't like Kirby or Trimpe or Sal Buscema in the 70s, why would I want to look at their art now?

I don't want it to come off as a slam against the comics of that era because some that stuff was better than others and keep in mind that I'm generalizing for the most part but...Yeah, that over the top dialogue is kinda tough for my to get through.

While I understand that's just how they wrote back then and I acknowledge it was aimed at a younger audience, I can't get over how over the top it was. I guess after years of reading today's stuff it just seems so weird. People today talk about how they don't get their money's worth because you can read through a book so fast but it seems to me that back then so much of the dialogue is just needlessly explaining what's going on in the panels. Then there's all the forced dialogue that seemed to only exist to throw in a footnote to get you to buy another Marvel comic. Out of the blue someone will have a radom thought that will have a footnote with it to tell you about a another comic on sale then.

The books were packed with more story but lots of time it just seemed like there was a bit too much being thrown out without a good explaination behind it in order to keep the story moving. Lots of stuff happened "off camera" and then you'll have strange dialogue explaining it in the middle of the action.

More panels....In order to fit all that story in a book you'd have more panels on a page. Because more panels mean smaller panels it seems that almost everything is close ups or medium shots without much backgrounds in most panels. Plus you had all that dialogue and captions crammed into the panels which made them seem even smaller.
While people complain about today's storytelling (or lack of it) I don't where the storytelling of the classic stuff was so superior. More panels but they seem just as disjointed as the stuff today but back then the dialogue explained what was going on much more than today. Take the dialogue and captions away and much of that stuff is hard to follow.

That's just a few thoughts I have when I read the older stuff theses days. Like I said all of it wasn't quite as bad as I just described but I do find it to be quite a jarring to read that older stuff these days. It sounds like a slam against the "classic" stuff but it isn't because those stories influenced today's creators and stories and have my respect. The older stuff has it's share of good traits too.

[Shellhead]

I guess what I like most about classic comics is that there's a little more consistancy. True, continuity wasn't even a word back then, but when you had more tightly controlled editorial offices and writers who stayed on a book for several years at a time, things stayed a bit more consistant and made a little more sense. Also, these days, we sell comics with "major" events, big cross-overs, and the reptutations of writers that sign the big contracts before they type a single word. Back then, a strong cover and a solid story were required in order for anyone to make money from a book (with a few key exceptions -- Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc). Better quality control, I suppose. There's some excellent stuff being published today, but too many people are being paid too much money to produce absolute crap that sells in the tens of thousands just because it's well-hyped. This bothers me tremendously.

Bronze Age -- Often my favorite age in that it brings maturity and complexity to its heroes' personas without losing any sense of their being heroes. Spider-Man could fail to save his girlfriend from the Green Goblin, Green Lantern could discover that slum lords were a greater evil than Sinestro, and The X-Men could learn that even the greatest amongst them could fall, but that actually made them stronger as they were forced to search deeper for the amazing strength it took to continue fighting the good fight. On top of all this, the bronze age features some strong development in many non-superhero genres, most notably horror and sci-fi in my opinion.


I honestly don't know what DC and Marvel editors do these days besides check spelling and grammar. There was a time when they enforced strong consistency in continuity and, more importantly, characterization. For example, Super-Villain Team-Up was a short-lived series from Marvel in the mid-'70s. It lasted about 17 issues plus 1 or 2 giant-size issues. Despite having at least a half dozen writers during that timespan, there was an overall story arc that worked, and everybody was written consistently, including several guest stars.

What you call the bronze age is what I was referring to as the late silver age. It's my favorite era, too. There is a pretty clear distinction of when the silver age started, but I've never seen the end of the silver age clearly defined, at least not to my satisfaction. I don't dispute your usage of the bronze age term, I just wanted to chime in and say me too.

[MDG]

There is a pretty clear distinction of when the silver age started, but I've never seen the end of the silver age clearly defined, at least not to my satisfaction.
For me, one of the Silver/Bronze Age lines is between House of Mystery #173 (last Robby Reed) and #174 (first Orlando-edited issue, Adams cover). Also a great example of how an editor used to really drive the direction of a book.

MDG

[zilch]

Decompression does it for me.

I look at an issue of, say, a marvel comic and nothing happens. No beginning, middle and end. The confusing morass that is the Wildstorm Universe turns me off to that line of books completely (the only WS book i read is Planetary, which seems to set itself apart from the other books). Artistic styles that are overrendered over colored.

Bitch, bitch, bitch... now wheel me into the breezeway...

[Reptisaurus!]

Decompression does it for me.

I look at an issue of, say, a marvel comic and nothing happens. No beginning, middle and end. The confusing morass that is the Wildstorm Universe turns me off to that line of books completely (the only WS book i read is Planetary, which seems to set itself apart from the other books). Artistic styles that are overrendered over colored.

Bitch, bitch, bitch... now wheel me into the breezeway...

Yeah, most current Marvel books are all-but-unreadable in single issue form.

[Polar Bear]

One reason I'm mostly filling in Silver Age gaps & 1920's/1930's comic strips at this point in my collecting life is best explained by Tom DeFalco, of all people.

He said (and I hope I'm not misquoting) that he enjoyed older comics because today's comics were so dark and depressing. "If I want to get depressed," he said, "I can just turn on the news for free."

I can't say it any better than that.

Plus, I really do like a lot of older artists better than today's. Yes, comics before the 90's lacked today's Cassadays and Lands, but in exchange we had an entire 60-year history unbroken by Jim Lee/Rob Leifeld imitators. :D

[websbestcomics]

One of the biggest problems in the 90's and beyond is the lack of plain, sequential storytelling format. 5 panels, 3 rows, read top to bottom, left to right; that's how it should be done. The 90's influx of talent was largely comprised (IMO) of those who just didn't understand the storytelling format, favoring the design aspect of a page rather than it's actual functionality as a sequence of events.

I've been reading the Marvel/DC stuff chronlogically for about 2 years now, and I'm in the middle of 1978. It's pretty amazing how continuity flows, simply and without any need to understand history or buy a multitude of titles.

[Gilda Dent]

I'm mostly buying older comics and reprints now. I've given up almost entirely on the Big Two.

I spend most of my comics dollar these days on Silver Age reprints, both the high quality hardcovers and the Essentials. I'm tempted by the newest EC reprints, but I already have their entire collection of Horror, SF, Fantasy, and War in the softcover reprints, and though they look gorgeous, I can't see justifying replacing comics I already have.

eBay is also wonderful for picking up long full runs of 70s and 80s era stuff for cheap.

I spend most of my comic book time with Silver Age material from the big two, whatever long runs from the 70s and 80s I can get cheap and wasn't around for the first time, and for modern

I also spend a lot of time with newspaper comics reprints from various eras--story lines in adventure strips sometimes ran for months, lasting hundreds of strips. It could be argued that Gasoline Alley is one ninety-year-long story told in real time in serial format (stupid Drawn and Quarterly, only doing one book a year).

I'm not sure what exactly qualifies as classic, but I'm definitely not a fan of the direction most current era books are going in, so I suppose you can put me into the classics camp.

As to the number of issues to a story, this is tough for me. I like it when a story can find it's own length organically, but that really isn't feasible for monthly periodicals. EC's horror and SF stories, at a tight little eight pages each usually have all the time they need. With superhero books, I prefer single issue "feature length" stories to the multiple shorter stories of the early Silver Age and the Golden Age. I also very much like the method used to excellent effect in Amazing Spider-Man for its first decade. It was probably used before, but if so, I'm not familiar with it. There was a complete A story in most issues, the villain of the month, which got its own full arc. At the same time, there was the serial going on in the background, developing supporting characters and situations that could later become A stories. If you wanted to follow it as a soap opera, you could, or if you wanted to pick up an individual issue to see Spidey fight Doc Ock again, that would work as well.

It's a way of presenting a story that still can work very well. Look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer or The West Wing--most episodes have a self-contained story and serve to further the serial aspects of the show.

I really ought to rework this post. It's a big stream-of-consciousness mish-mash.

In short, I currently prefer older comics mostly because I don't have to follow an entire universe to enjoy the stories contained in them.

[Shellhead]

I
As to the number of issues to a story, this is tough for me. I like it when a story can find it's own length organically, but that really isn't feasible for monthly periodicals. EC's horror and SF stories, at a tight little eight pages each usually have all the time they need. With superhero books, I prefer single issue "feature length" stories to the multiple shorter stories of the early Silver Age and the Golden Age. I also very much like the method used to excellent effect in Amazing Spider-Man for its first decade. It was probably used before, but if so, I'm not familiar with it. There was a complete A story in most issues, the villain of the month, which got its own full arc. At the same time, there was the serial going on in the background, developing supporting characters and situations that could later become A stories. If you wanted to follow it as a soap opera, you could, or if you wanted to pick up an individual issue to see Spidey fight Doc Ock again, that would work as well.


When a writer is on a given title for an extended run, they should have the freedom to tell the story in whatever number of pages necessary, within reason. If the story is short enough, tell it in one issue while advancing or at least setting up other plotlines. If the story is long enough, tell it over a number of issues, maybe even a year, but only if the story really needs that length. But forcing every story to fit in one issue bothers me, almost as much as decompressing every story to fit in a trade.

[Shellhead]

Yeah, most current Marvel books are all-but-unreadable in single issue form.

That's a major problem for me. After I buy Astonishing X-Men #24, I don't plan on buying anymore new Marvel comics, at all. It will probably take a new editor-in-chief to get me to try Marvel again, or else very strong recommendations from posters I trust here at CBR. I saw some really nice artwork in the online previews for Captain Marvel #1, but when I flipped through the issue at the comic store last week, it didn't look like much happened. So I'm not going to buy it.

[Gilda Dent]

When a writer is on a given title for an extended run, they should have the freedom to tell the story in whatever number of pages necessary, within reason. If the story is short enough, tell it in one issue while advancing or at least setting up other plotlines. If the story is long enough, tell it over a number of issues, maybe even a year, but only if the story really needs that length. But forcing every story to fit in one issue bothers me, almost as much as decompressing every story to fit in a trade.

Oh, I'd never want writers to be forced to fit every story into one issue.

I was just saying that that's a format I enjoy, each issue being a self-contained story.

[Kirk G]

Oh, I'd never want writers to be forced to fit every story into one issue.

I was just saying that that's a format I enjoy, each issue being a self-contained story.

Gee, Stan and Jack never really had much of a problem fitting a complex story into just one issue before....
But I think with the rise of pin-up boyz from Image, the concept of de-com-pres-sed story telling with bad art-work real-ly took hold at M-a-r-v-e-

continues next issue....

[Alex Dragon]

That's a major problem for me. After I buy Astonishing X-Men #24, I don't plan on buying anymore new Marvel comics, at all. It will probably take a new editor-in-chief to get me to try Marvel again, or else very strong recommendations from posters I trust here at CBR. I saw some really nice artwork in the online previews for Captain Marvel #1, but when I flipped through the issue at the comic store last week, it didn't look like much happened. So I'm not going to buy it.

I understand your annoyance over not getting enough story per issue but I wonder what your thoughts are on reading the trade paperbacks.

[Sir Tim Drake]

One of the biggest problems in the 90's and beyond is the lack of plain, sequential storytelling format. 5 panels, 3 rows, read top to bottom, left to right; that's how it should be done. The 90's influx of talent was largely comprised (IMO) of those who just didn't understand the storytelling format, favoring the design aspect of a page rather than it's actual functionality as a sequence of events.

I don't buy that. I disagree that there's a single way in which storytelling "should" be done. The fact that Liefeld and McFarlane weren't the best storytellers does not prove that their style of storytelling is inherently worse. There are all kinds of otherwise impossible effects that can be created by varying the page layout.

[Shellhead]

I understand your annoyance over not getting enough story per issue but I wonder what your thoughts are on reading the trade paperbacks.

I enjoy reading longer story arcs in trades, except when I detect that the story was decompressed to fill out that trade. Why can't a trade have a 3-part story, a done-in-one story and maybe a 2-part story? Or even a five-part story plus a done-in-one? Or even shorter or longer trades to accomodate natural breaks in the run?

[Gilda Dent]

I don't buy that. I disagree that there's a single way in which storytelling "should" be done. The fact that Liefeld and McFarlane weren't the best storytellers does not prove that their style of storytelling is inherently worse. There are all kinds of otherwise impossible effects that can be created by varying the page layout.

Absolutely, free form panel construction can make things more interesting, and creators shouldn't be restricted to grid style layouts. I agree on that much.

At the same time, being able to tell a story using a strict strip format can force the creators to flex some other creative muscles, to concentrate on story elements as opposed to an over reliance on striking visuals and should be one tool that every comics creator has in his or her tool box.

[benday-dot]

Well, I suppose I must be put in the Classics camp. Like Sir Tim said... not inherently better or worse, merely different. And there's the rub for me: that difference.

Let me say I do keep a foot in both schools, old and new. I currently read the Brubaker trio of Captain America, Iron Fist and Daredevil, and from DC, All-Star Supes. And that's it for the current books, though I expect to add Bat Lash in December, a book that really does seem as well to have a foot well planted in both camps.

And yet I gotta go with the oldies... Reptisaurus I think echoed my sentiments best.

For all the virtues of contemporary books... technically excellent in terms of both art and production values, and a writerly sophistication to match... for all of that I find they for the most part they fail to meet their seniors in terms of sheer inventiveness.

Sure comics are drawn today with a sometimes very impressive degree of skill, but my jaw rarely drops or my breath seldom is taken away.

Rick gave a good list. Kirby, Toth, Kubert... their drawerly skills were so self evident on the page, and they were not subsumed in hyper saturated colour or expensive production works. It appeared more organic and fresh and always stood stark. The connection between artist and viewer just seemed to suffer from fewer degrees of separation back in yo olde days.

And what of the writing? Well, I agree with Repti... it was more inventive back when. If the stories came across as more wild and unlikely and juvenile--and more often and not they were-- well I count that, if one takes Slam's advice and doesn't overdo the exposure at once, as a real asset, a genuine virtue of the old school.

Comics today just seem too self conscious and far too afraid to let loose like they did in the old days. Too afraid to offend the slaves of fannish continuity and the wet blankets of realism. Maybe todays comics, rather than trying to imitiate an already imitative realistic-reaching effects-driven super-hero movie, and so disappearing into a morass of okay-that-was-that, and is that all there is? ... Maybe they could benefit from a bit of the outlandish, the flaws of an real original. The Silver Age had its tarnish, but in terms of the creative its lustre exceeds the modern sheen.

New comics just seem to try too hard. The super-hero, mainstream I'm talking about here... (there are great auteur driven works out there... Ware, Clowes are two of my faves.) It just seems kind of futile, with the possible exception of a mighty force like Alan Moore who really did seem to do original things with the super-hero genre not so long ago, to make the custume types all that profound, all that realistic.

The decent stories aside, once the fun and old school style inventiveness is filtered out of a modern comic book it seems like they are suddenly trying to compete with Ian McKewan, Ian Rankin, Michael Ondatje, Richard Ford or whoever you pick. It just doesn't work for me. So much emphasis has been placed on the "new graphic novel." And I fully believe comics are an advanced literature of their own, but I really need the "comic" back in the comic book.

[websbestcomics]

I don't buy that. I disagree that there's a single way in which storytelling "should" be done. The fact that Liefeld and McFarlane weren't the best storytellers does not prove that their style of storytelling is inherently worse. There are all kinds of otherwise impossible effects that can be created by varying the page layout.

I didn't mean to sound like there was no flexibility in how a panels can be arranged. I was just making a point that many artists from the 90's and beyond lost sight of the whole sequential concept in favor of a 'cool' page layout. The art must always serve the story. You're right, there are many ways to draw a comic without having to adhere to one panel format.

[JKCarrier]

Gee, Stan and Jack never really had much of a problem fitting a complex story into just one issue before....

They also weren't afraid to let a story extend over several issues if necessary -- Galactus Trilogy, anyone? And once you get into the Bronze Age, arcs of 3, 6, even 12 issues start becoming more common (Englehart's "Celestial Madonna", Gerber's "Headmen", MacGregor's "Panther's Rage", etc.). The difference is, those would be 12 jam-packed issues, and each one would actually progress the story noticeably. These days it seems like you get a very simple story, padded out with lots of big "cinematic" panels. They make great posters, but lousy storytelling. There was a recent issue of Astonishing X-Men that devoted an entire 2-page spread to a single shot of Wolverine and Armor arriving on the scene on a high-tech hover bike. I like Astonishing in general, but that's just obnoxious.

[Reptisaurus!]

The art must always serve the story.

Completely disagree.

[Simon Garth]

Completely disagree.

I'm intrigued - if the art isn't conveying the story, what is it for?

Are you reading "serving" in the sense of subservient, ie artist is there to do exactly what the writer says? I don't get that sense from the original comment, I think s/he is just saying that the art needs to deliver the story, rather than be a series of pretty pictures that don't convey the story.

[Reptisaurus!]

I'm intrigued - if the art isn't conveying the story, what is it for?


The art. :)

I think comic-as-art-object is as valid an entity as comic-as-medium-for-storytelling.

[dan bailey]

I dunno. I guess books that amount to collections of pinups have their place.

I'm partial to stories, though.

[Simon Garth]

The art. :)

I think comic-as-art-object is as valid an entity as comic-as-medium-for-storytelling.

Hmm. I think I will agree to disagree - if the art isn't conveying the story, it's not a comic book, IMHO, it's a poster book. A valid art form, certainly, but not one I'm terribly interested in.

[Aaron C]

I'm going to go with classics as well.

While a large chunk of my collection is under 15 years old, I'm a huge silver/bronze age Marvel fan (haven't read much DC).

I think the main reason for me is that after reading an older issue I often come away with real sense of satisfaction/completion, rather than today it's often just bleh.

It's like watching an episode of a soap opera. There's a clear beginning, middle and end (even on the 2 - 3 parters), whereas today I read a single issue and nothing may have happened at all.

While the language may be rather low brow, there is always something happening - there is action, conflict, romance, reflection, humour all often in one issue. There's a real freshness about it all. While modern comics have arguably superior writing, it tends to just be language rather than plotting, and even then alot of it tends to be for shock value only.

Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy current comics - however other than ASM, they're all fixed length mini-series or Vertigo titles.

[Jolly Mon]

Hmm. I think I will agree to disagree - if the art isn't conveying the story, it's not a comic book, IMHO, it's a poster book. A valid art form, certainly, but not one I'm terribly interested in.

I agree with the difference between comics and poster books. It seems though, a lot of what are very nearly poster books are masquerading as comic books. And that's where a lot of the complaining is coming from, people expecting one and getting the other.

[Alan2099]

I've lost intrest in current comics.

Let me just ramble about a few things I hate about them now.

No introductions to characters. In the past, you'd get maybe a pannel ro two or some thought or word balloons explaining that "yes, this is Dr. Octopus, evil criminal genious who had metal arms horribly fused to his body in an accident." Now, he just shows up, no explaining or anything. That can work for the BIG name characters, but if it's a crossover, or a villian that hasn't been seen in a while, you're just left wondering "who?" (Maybe Doc Ock wasn't the best example.)

"realistic Dialog" that takes up too much space and isn't very realistic anyway.
It's not?
No. it's not.
You don't like
Realistic dialog? No. i don't.
Why not?
I just don't?
Oh, one of those things
Yeah.

Horrible story pacing.
The story isn't even "to be continued" at the end of an issue anymore, it's "stick around and something might eventually happen. Maybe."

When things do happen they're HUGE EVENTS THAT TAKE UP HALF A YEARS WORTH OF ISSUES AND A NUMBER OF MINI-SERIES!!!!!! and when they're over, it's a few issues to recover from them, then it's THE NEXT HUGE EVENT THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING FOREVER AGAIN!!!! WE MEAN IT THIS TIME!!!!

Non-heroic heroes. Sure, I always liked Marvels everyman approach to superheroes, but I preferred that these everymen at least had a sense of morals and din't constantly stab each other in the back

In short, nothing typicaly happens anymore except cynical big events that change everything.

[Kirk G]

I've lost intrest in current comics.

Let me just ramble about a few things I hate about them now.

No introductions to characters. In the past, you'd get maybe a pannel ro two or some thought or word balloons explaining that "yes, this is Dr. Octopus, evil criminal genious who had metal arms horribly fused to his body in an accident." Now, he just shows up, no explaining or anything. That can work for the BIG name characters, but if it's a crossover, or a villian that hasn't been seen in a while, you're just left wondering "who?" (Maybe Doc Ock wasn't the best example.)

"realistic Dialog" that takes up too much space and isn't very realistic anyway.
It's not?
No. it's not.
You don't like
Realistic dialog? No. i don't.
Why not?
I just don't?
Oh, one of those things
Yeah.

Horrible story pacing.
The story isn't even "to be continued" at the end of an issue anymore, it's "stick around and something might eventually happen. Maybe."

When things do happen they're HUGE EVENTS THAT TAKE UP HALF A YEARS WORTH OF ISSUES AND A NUMBER OF MINI-SERIES!!!!!! and when they're over, it's a few issues to recover from them, then it's THE NEXT HUGE EVENT THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING FOREVER AGAIN!!!! WE MEAN IT THIS TIME!!!!

Non-heroic heroes. Sure, I always liked Marvels everyman approach to superheroes, but I preferred that these everymen at least had a sense of morals and din't constantly stab each other in the back

In short, nothing typicaly happens anymore except cynical big events that change everything.

Well stated.
However, occassionally, the realistic dialog, the banter back and forth between characters that know each other well, or are poking fun at each other, can work alright. Used sparingly. An example might be the continuing conversation between Luke and his wife in the privacy of their room. But, if the sequencing isn't right, or the flow of the conversation between pannels isn't right, it doesn't work.

[Kirk G]

They also weren't afraid to let a story extend over several issues if necessary -- Galactus Trilogy, anyone? And once you get into the Bronze Age, arcs of 3, 6, even 12 issues start becoming more common (Englehart's "Celestial Madonna", Gerber's "Headmen", MacGregor's "Panther's Rage", etc.). The difference is, those would be 12 jam-packed issues, and each one would actually progress the story noticeably. These days it seems like you get a very simple story, padded out with lots of big "cinematic" panels. They make great posters, but lousy storytelling. There was a recent issue of Astonishing X-Men that devoted an entire 2-page spread to a single shot of Wolverine and Armor arriving on the scene on a high-tech hover bike. I like Astonishing in general, but that's just obnoxious.

AGREED.:)

However, the time period that you cite (Galactus trilogy), was a clear attempt company wide to try a new type of storytelling, cause they were getting feedback that they had more college readers, and then later, they got feedback that if someone missed an issue, they were screwed, out in the cold. This was during the period before any used comic shops or a method to acquire back issues.:(

The stories were still paced for individual issues, but sometimes they were slid, so that the start of an adventure was in one issue, and the transition to another would be in the middle of the next issue or two issues later. And the effect was used to distraction in the annoying Byrne relaunch of Spider-Man: Year One.:rolleyes:

[Alan2099]

However, occassionally, the realistic dialog, the banter back and forth between characters that know each other well, or are poking fun at each other, can work alright. Used sparingly. An example might be the continuing conversation between Luke and his wife in the privacy of their room. But, if the sequencing isn't right, or the flow of the conversation between pannels isn't right, it doesn't work.
It can be used well, but 99% of the time it's not.


The stories were still paced for individual issues, but sometimes they were slid, so that the start of an adventure was in one issue, and the transition to another would be in the middle of the next issue or two issues later. And the effect was used to distraction in the annoying Byrne relaunch of Spider-Man: Year One.
Oh, so that's what he was trying to do.

[Alex Dragon]

A question for all who favor the "classic" era...

So why do you think comics changed from what they were to what they are today? Was it because the audience wanted change and the creators gave it to them....Or did the creators change and the audience was along for the ride?

Did the audience change? Do you think the readers of the past 10 years want or would like the same things as readers of 30 years ago?

[Alan2099]

There are a number of factors that are to blame for the changes.

Right now, there are a lot of people that refuse to admit they're reading "kids' comics" and a lot of writers on the same page. Both of them demand ANYTHING that would prove that things aren't written for a children's audiance. The problem with that is most of the time people mistake "mature" with pointless angst and blood.

Also, lots of writers today want to be the next big thing. They write huge events and hope that they'll become the up-and-coming star.

Also, with the dwindling readership, I feel there's a huge push to shock people and get them talking, a "you can't quit NOW" effect. It's also alot easier to write shock than to craft a well thought out storyline.

The 90s briought us the superstar artist and there was a huge push to show more art. Something that the industry hasn't quite recovered from.

[benday-dot]

There are a number of factors that are to blame for the changes.

Right now, there are a lot of people that refuse to admit they're reading "kids' comics" and a lot of writers on the same page. Both of them demand ANYTHING that would prove that things aren't written for a children's audiance. The problem with that is most of the time people mistake "mature" with pointless angst and blood.

I think this is true Alan. And I very much think that the naivete that characterised the comics of yesteryear, together with the foibles that naivete entailed, can only be considered a virtue. As much as I think the ponderousness and and faux realism of the contemporary era is too often to be counted fault.

[benday-dot]

The art. :)

I think comic-as-art-object is as valid an entity as comic-as-medium-for-storytelling.

For sure. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. Obviously Lichenstein proves the former. As does, say a given panel of Ditko that survives its context upon abstraction. Looked upon its own it loses none of its power. It can stand as much for an examplar of an idea of angst as can a painting of Edvard Munch. And as a piece in a larger plot it thoroughly commends the story it was created to tell.

[sheets]

I didn't mean to sound like there was no flexibility in how a panels can be arranged. I was just making a point that many artists from the 90's and beyond lost sight of the whole sequential concept in favor of a 'cool' page layout.

It's a matter of knowing the rules in order to know how to break them. Many of the artists today never bothered to learn the basics.

[MWGallaher]

So why do you think comics changed from what they were to what they are today? Was it because the audience wanted change and the creators gave it to them....Or did the creators change and the audience was along for the ride?

I think the creators were behind the change in certain technical conventions. I can recall a couple of instances in the 80s when creators made a public point of avoiding specific comic book conventions:
Mike Grell raised a fuss in Comics Buyers Guide after a sound effect was added to an issue of his James Bond miniseries. Grell insisted that he does not use "sound effects". I hadn't noticed it up 'til then, but sure enough, his work at the time didn't have 'em. In that case, Grell's rejection wasn't influential, and with the advent of computer lettering, sound effects intensified, rather than diminished.
Mike W. Barr noted publicly that he was no longer using text boxes, except for occasional transitions ("The next day...") or scene-setting ("Gotham City."). Again, that had sneaked up on me, despite the fact that I was a regular reader of his works at the time. I believe his contention was that avoiding text made the comic more "cinematic". Although I wouldn't necessarily attribute the near elimination of text boxes in modern comics to Barr, specifically, I think that other writers began to share his attitude, and tried to make their comics more "cinematic" by conveying information primarily in dialogue and visuals.
I don't believe that comics readers started complaining en masse about text boxes, thought balloons, or sound effects. They didn't request that individual characters get distinct fonts. I think writers and editors initiated those kinds of things and pretty soon everyone else joined in.
In the case of thought balloons and narrative text, valuable story-telling tools were lost, and so they merged into modern comics' ubiquitous first-person narrations (I remember when Roy Thomas thought he was being innovative by insisting that "Werewolf By Night" be captioned in first-person!). And readers won't be responsible when that goes out of style. Some day, writers are going to begin doing it differently, and the new techniques will slowly, subtlely catch on, and then the fans will begin deriding those old first-person narratives as being "goofy" and "juvenile"--after all, exactly who is Batman supposed to be telling this all to?

[scratchie]

The art. :)

I think comic-as-art-object is as valid an entity as comic-as-medium-for-storytelling.Hear, hear. Agree 100%.

[MDG]

The art. :)

I think comic-as-art-object is as valid an entity as comic-as-medium-for-storytelling.
I'm not following you. Comics is storytelling. The art (lowercase a) in a comic can achieve the status of Art (upper case A), but a piece of Art can't achieve Comics unless it tells a story.

Original art may be great to look at and hang on a wall (and here I'm talking about an original book page or strip, done for publication), but it was conceived and created to tell a story.

A picture of Batman--whether a convention sketch or a detailed painting--may be Art, but it ain't comics.

My opinion.

MDG

[scratchie]

I'm not following you. Comics is storytelling. The art (lowercase a) in a comic can achieve the status of Art (upper case A), but a piece of Art can't achieve Comics unless it tells a story.Sure, but it doesn't have to tell a story well to be a comic. And if your primary interest (in that comic, not necessarily in all comics) is the art, you can still enjoy it even if it doesn't "serve the story", just as you can enjoy a story even if it doesn't lend itself particularly well to visual representation. In either case, the work in question is still a "comic" even if either element of the word/pictures formula isn't as "comic-booky" as it could be.

[Cei-U!]

There's already so much in this thread that I agree with, plus a few things I disagree with that I'd be cutting-and-pasting all day if I tried to address them. So at the risk of repeating what others have said, I'm going to simply answer as best I can Alex's original post.

Hi all...Even though I've been posting on the CBR site for a few years I'm still new to the CLASSIC COMICS forums. I'm sure the sort of topic has been done to death many times already but hopefully I can make this time around a bit different.

I know I'm going to get a very biased answer here but still want to hear your thoughts on the "classic" stuff vs the current stuff of the last few years. Exactly how and why do you think the older stuff was better. Was it really better or is it more of a nostalgia thing.

I enoy the older comics more but it's not a question of better, just different. My tastes are definitely old-school, but then I prefer older movies and music to most of their contemporary counterparts. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with today's super-hero comics. It simply means they don't appeal to my particular tastes.

When you go back and read those books today are they still as good to you?

That's an interesting question. Thanks to the Essentials and Showcases, I'm rediscovering comics I haven't read in 20, 30, 40 years as well as many I've never read. I've found that I have a greater appreciation of '70s comics than I did in the '70s, while the Silver Age stuff, especially DC's, doesn't hold up as well. They're slowly creeping into the same territory as the Golden Age stuff: fun and entertaining as hell but I definitely have to put my brain on hold to appreciate them.

What comics era had the best art?

Comic art consists of two main elements: draftsmanship and storytelling. The majority of comics of any and every era are deficient in one, the other or both. In general, though, I'd say that the mid-'70s-mid-'80s saw a peak in both. Silver Age and contemporary comics alike tend (in different ways) to value draftsmanship over storytelling.

Let me add, however, that I share others' disdain for today's vision-straining overcoloring and SFX. I prefer the purity of black ink on white paper.

What era had the best writing?

Again, overall, I'd say the '70s/'80s. I really dislike the turn super-hero comics took two decades ago into cynical anti-heroism, endless (and, unforgivably, boring) continuity wankery and nauseating pandering to a 13-year-old's idea of mature content: sex, gore, profanity and angst.

Nerts, I gotta go. I'll post the rest of my response tonight.

Cei-U!
I summon the bus schedule!

[adam_warlock_2099]

Hi all...Even though I've been posting on the CBR site for a few years I'm still new to the CLASSIC COMICS forums. I'm sure the sort of topic has been done to death many times already but hopefully I can make this time around a bit different.

I know I'm going to get a very biased answer here but still want to hear your thoughts on the "classic" stuff vs the current stuff of the last few years. Exactly how and why do you think the older stuff was better. Was it really better or is it more of a nostalgia thing. When you go back and read those books today are they still as good to you?

What comics era had the best art? What era had the best writing?

Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?

If you don't read today's current stuff what exactly drove you away?

Thanks.

The lack of everything that made the Silver Age, and on into the Bronze Age . . . fiction and fantasy.

I thought that Bane breaking Batman's back was great. I also liked the battle with the KGBeast in Ten Nights of the Beast, and of course the Killing Joke (and I hate to use all Batman, but that is what I started reading with). But I don't want CONSTANT realism. Comics are not non-fiction, they're fiction.

All the realism in the world isn't going to change that. No amount of explaining the physics of how Spider-Man got his powers, is going to change that at the present time, even that happening through genetics is fiction. And don't get me wrong about USM, I love it. It is the only new comic I buy. But when you haven't had a great story like Annihilation in years, because we are favoring storylines that "fit" into the realism of life more, your gonna loose my interest.

I like cosmic stories and things that defy all logic. I don't care if they can't be explained . . . it's fiction! Rape, death, and depressing lives in our heroes/villains isn't what I read comics for. I can see people doing that to each other on the news and in life.

So in short when comics lost the "fantasy", they lost me.

[dupersuper]

While I do find comics a little too dark now, I find trying to get through comics written from th 30's- early 70's is a real chore. I don't want to just skip the captions, but they're so unneccesary...just endlessly describing the pictures right in front of you. Definitely a newer medium, definitely written for kids. Oddly, being cheifly a Superman fan, during the late 80's and 90's-when I started seriously collecting, and when the comics started getting darker, then had the vapid art-before-story phase every one hates- I was really enjoying the triangle era Supes books, which didn't follow those trends.

[stelok]

What comics era had the best art? What era had the best writing?

Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?

If you don't read today's current stuff what exactly drove you away?

Thanks.

1960's had the best writing. 2000's had the best artwork.

I sometimes enjoy comics with longer story arcs of today.

There are a lot of good interesting things about the modern comics like inter-company crossovers which you don't see happening during the classic era. JLA/Avengers is an awesome book. In addition to the modern comics comes the three-dimensional characterization of superheroes and super villains that only existed in Stan Lee's comics and in Dennis O'Neil/Neal Adams' Green Lantern/Green Arrow comics until the age of modern comics. Marvel's Civil War and DC's Identity Crisis had portrayed the world of superheoes in the grey area more than in the simplistic view of black-and-white area. In the Classic comics, The fight between good and evil were portrayed simply as black and white.

[benday-dot]

Mike W. Barr noted publicly that he was no longer using text boxes, except for occasional transitions ("The next day...") or scene-setting ("Gotham City."). Again, that had sneaked up on me, despite the fact that I was a regular reader of his works at the time. I believe his contention was that avoiding text made the comic more "cinematic". Although I wouldn't necessarily attribute the near elimination of text boxes in modern comics to Barr, specifically, I think that other writers began to share his attitude, and tried to make their comics more "cinematic" by conveying information primarily in dialogue and visuals.

That's interesting. I recall reading a Gary Groth interview with Gil Kane in conjunction with a reprinting of the latter's pioneering graphic novel His Name is Savage.
Kane in some respects argued the opposite of Barr.

Savage is a work that is light on dialogue, but heavy on other forms of prose, mainly captions and textboxes. Kane, using his prose almost on top off an artistic effort that layed out plot and panel in such a manor as to remove as much as possible the sense of time lapse that is normally the condition of the white between the grid, was attempting to be very filmic or cinematic in his storytelling. He cited the EC style of Feldstein and Kurtzman as his particular inspirations in what to do with prose in the graphic narrative structure. Kane believed text was essential to prevent the comic from becoming no more than "elaborate pantomine." Another take on the idea.

[devildinosaur]

I know I'm going to get a very biased answer here but still want to hear your thoughts on the "classic" stuff vs the current stuff of the last few years. Exactly how and why do you think the older stuff was better. Was it really better or is it more of a nostalgia thing.

It's funny, but for me it doesn't really boil down to "Modern vs. Classic", but rather a nostalgia thing like you say...I'd rather read through my older collection and follow the creators I fell in love with, or hunt down material I never had the chance to get a hold of in my youth.

Still, though...there's a veritable TON of great Modern books. Too many, though, for me to handle financially.

[Gilda Dent]

I keep seeing references to modern comics having the best artwork, and I'm not sure I agree. Modern comics certainly have the best quality reproduction of the artwork, what with improved paper, printing, and coloring techniques, but the quality of the linework really isn't any better to my eye.

Take a good look at EC's books from the 50s--there was a stable of artists that knew how to use pictures to tell a story. There aren't any horror or war comics with better artwork than what EC put out then. Look at the first hundred or so issues of Amazing Spider-Man and compare them to current Spider-Man books. Ditko and Romita's work holds up well, and mostly surpasses the artwork I see in more recent titles.

[rick]

1960's had the best writing. 2000's had the best artwork.



Personally I would reverse that statement.

There were some excellent writers in the old days, from Stan Lee, Steve Gerber on down.

But they really just are not up to levels of the likes of the top writing talents in the business today like Moore or Gaiman.

Meanwhile the art in the average comic is so far below the basic standards of what the major companies would put out in the 60's and 70's that it just isn't funny.

Very few of todays comics, at least in my opinion, have anything resembling good art.

[Gilda Dent]

Exactly how and why do you think the older stuff was better. Was it really better or is it more of a nostalgia thing. When you go back and read those books today are they still as good to you?

Yes. Stan Lee's scripting is dated, but it served an important function in an era where buying every issue wasn't expected. A couple of text boxes or thought bubbles, and a new reader is up to date on who the bad guy is or the state of Peter's relationship with MJ and Gwen.

I never encountered these stories in their original form, so I'm coming to them fresh, and find that they work wonderfully well once you take into account that they were designed for ten year old boys, designed to be sold based on having a striking cover, and generally promoted as single issues.

The comics were about telling good stories, with the characters' situations being used as a basic background on which to hang the stories. A richly developed setting and supporting characters served the stories.

What comics era had the best art? What era had the best writing?

From the atomic age on you can find good art and good writing, especially if you look at the writing within the context of the time and don't limit yourself to comic books. For example, check out the newspaper adventure strips of the time. Daily strips were printed the full width of the paper, and Sundays routinely occupied an entire page by themselves. Given the limitations of a three to six panel daily strip, there is some amazing artwork to be found.

Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?

Both formats can work well. Single issue stories can limit complexity and long term character development, but decompressed stories can result in a lot of unnecessary padding. I generally find a story that's been compressed too much to be less annoying than one that has been expanded to fit a set number of issues, so single issue stories work better, in general, for me.

As I said above, though, I find the A story (complete) / B story (ongoing) format that was used in Amazing Spider-Man and other Silver Age Marvel stories to be a good compromise.

If you don't read today's current stuff what exactly drove you away?

I do read modern comics. I just don't read much in the way of modern superheroes. What drove me away was a number of things. Too much emphasis on continuity and a broad universe. Stories are far too often about explaining the universe, about fixing continuity, and not enough about the story itself. The setting has become the focus rather than the stories it's used to tell.

Decompression, stories with little development and lots of big splash panels.

The last straw was tying everything into a big event. Fantastic Four, a long time favorite of mine, gets hijacked so that we get six months worth of Civil War instead of Fantastic Four stories. The structure, format, and often stories of various books is dictated by the big events. All of which would be fine if it served the purpose of telling good stories. It doesn't do this.

I don't want to have to follow an entire universe to be able to follow The Flash or the Fantastic Four.

Invincible is my favorite superhero book currently. It has a big, rich universe in which to play, but I can follow the stories beginning to end without ever buying another Image book.

[websbestcomics]

I'm intrigued - if the art isn't conveying the story, what is it for?

I don't get that sense from the original comment, I think s/he is just saying that the art needs to deliver the story, rather than be a series of pretty pictures that don't convey the story.

That's it exactly.

[Alex Dragon]

I keep seeing references to modern comics having the best artwork, and I'm not sure I agree. Modern comics certainly have the best quality reproduction of the artwork, what with improved paper, printing, and coloring techniques, but the quality of the linework really isn't any better to my eye.

Take a good look at EC's books from the 50s--there was a stable of artists that knew how to use pictures to tell a story. There aren't any horror or war comics with better artwork than what EC put out then. Look at the first hundred or so issues of Amazing Spider-Man and compare them to current Spider-Man books. Ditko and Romita's work holds up well, and mostly surpasses the artwork I see in more recent titles.

Hi Gilda.

I'm not saying you're wrong but here's some insight on why I (and perhaps others) think the artwork in "mordern" comics is "better"....

First of all it's "prettier" to look at. It's "slick", "controlled" and "detailed". Superman has hair that moves these days. Ironman's armor looks like metal (even without the coloring). A laboratory looks like a place where scientific experiments could actually go instead of a room with a couple of bunsen(sp?) burners and a few lights on a panel. A room isn't filled with generic nondesrcript furniture. Cars actually look like cars you'd see in real life.

The art styles are more varied. Today you have people doing the really "realistic" looking stuff and artists doing the "cartoony" stuff and all of it is totally acceptable and enjoyed. The stylisations can be fun to look at. Today there's lots of "cool" poses done in comic pages that worthy of being on a poster or tee shirt.

The attention to detail is something I enjoy. I think it's nice to see buildings that aren't simply boxes with a few lines thrown on top. I like seeing mordern clothes styles and not just generic pants and shirts. I like that characters get hairstyles that change from time to time. I like that the panels are bigger and the art has room to breathe and shine. I even like goofy stuff like seeing that Batman boots have a sole on them with a design. I like that guys have nipples and some have hair on their chests. I like that it's acknowleged that some women are curvy.

Now...having said all that I can totally understand anyone's point of view that much of the stuff I just mentioned probably isn't important to telling a comicbook story. I think there are two camps when it comes to this sort of subject. The one side that mostly cares about the story and the art is there to simply service the story and nothing more. They have no interest in admiring how the artist drew the shadows on Batman's cape or the way Spider-man's eye pieces reflect light. They're content with panels just getting across the bare minimum to get the story across. Minute detail and fancy doodling does nothing for them.

Then you have people like me that like to take the time to enjoy the art and take all the work and detail the artist put in. Some people complain that they end up reading today's stuff in a few mintutes but that's not the case for me because I take time and enjoy the pictures. When some people go back to look at their old comics it's to read the stories over again. When I go back to the old stuff it's very rarely I re-read that stuff, it's mostly to look at the art.

Then there's the question of if the "classic" artists were "better" than the "modern" guys. My answer would be "yes" some of the modern guys are much more talented and technically better than some of the classic guys and some weren't. I'm sure if someone like John Buscema could take as much time on an issue as some artists do today and was given the space to do bigger panels he'd blow most of the new guys out of the water. But there are some artists from back then who most of the newer artists would put to shame.

The biggest difference back then was the main function of the art and artist was to get it done on time and serve the story. Nowadays it's important that the art looks good. I disagree to a certain extent that the storytelling was always better back then. Supposedly good storytelling is when you're able to follow the story just by looking at the pictures. I look at some of the older stuff and without the captions and dialogue I can't tell what's going on.

That's my take. Keep in mind that I'm talking in very general terms and I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of exceptions that can be pointed out. Plus there's no "right" or Wrong" to this sort of thing. You like what you like.

[Alan2099]

To anybody that says the writeing is better today, where's the innovation?

Stan Lee alone crancked out character after character after character and theme adter theme multiple times a month every month for years. Where's that kind of creativity and output these days? Writer are trying to hard to be realistic that they forget about the imaginative side of things. If Stan, Jack, or any of those types ran into something that was "too unrealistic" they rewrote the rules, gave you a nudge and a rin, and went right on ahead.

[Cei-U!]

Supposedly good storytelling is when you're able to follow the story just by looking at the pictures. I look at some of the older stuff and without the captions and dialogue I can't tell what's going on.


What I was told back when I was breaking in to the business was that good storytelling is when you can follow the visual/physical aspects of the story from the art alone. You *should* need the captions and dialogue to understand what's going on in terms of motivation, how the characters interrelate, etc (assuming, of course, that the comic is narrative in intent, not deliberately abstract a la Victor Moscoso).

As an artist, I enjoy looking at a well-drawn comic and studying the artist's technique. As a consumer, however, buying a comic solely for the sake of the art makes about as much sense as buying a novel to admire the typography.

Cei-U!
I summon the early morning musings!

[Shellhead]

To anybody that says the writeing is better today, where's the innovation?

Stan Lee alone crancked out character after character after character and theme adter theme multiple times a month every month for years. Where's that kind of creativity and output these days? Writer are trying to hard to be realistic that they forget about the imaginative side of things. If Stan, Jack, or any of those types ran into something that was "too unrealistic" they rewrote the rules, gave you a nudge and a rin, and went right on ahead.

Grant Morrison is incredibly creative, although creating new characters doesn't seem to be his strong point.

[Alex Dragon]

What I was told back when I was breaking in to the business was that good storytelling is when you can follow the visual/physical aspects of the story from the art alone.

No agrument from me in those regards. I'm just saying that there were artists from back then who didn't do it any better than today's artists.

You *should* need the captions and dialogue to understand what's going on in terms of motivation, how the characters interrelate, etc (assuming, of course, that the comic is narrative in intent, not deliberately abstract a la Victor Moscoso).

That's debatable to a certain extent. The art can and at times has conveyed the things you speak of without a caption or word ballon. I think the artists of yesteryear had it a bit easier because they had writers who didn't mind putting in captions or awkward dialogue to get the point across. I think today's art has to stand on it's own much more these days. And unfortunately it sometimes falls short on clearity and/or storytelling.

As an artist, I enjoy looking at a well-drawn comic and studying the artist's technique. As a consumer, however, buying a comic solely for the sake of the art makes about as much sense as buying a novel to admire the typography.

Cei-U!
I summon the early morning musings!

To each his/her own. I buy some comics just for the sake of the art and don't even bother to try and read the story. Also in my mind great art can make a weak or mediocre story much more enjoyable. On the reverse side; great writing with bad art is much less enjoyable for me because it's distracting. Much of the story is told through the art and if the art is bad it brings down the story down a few pegs for me no matter how good the story was written.

[Alex Dragon]

To anybody that says the writeing is better today, where's the innovation?

Stan Lee alone crancked out character after character after character and theme adter theme multiple times a month every month for years. Where's that kind of creativity and output these days? Writer are trying to hard to be realistic that they forget about the imaginative side of things. If Stan, Jack, or any of those types ran into something that was "too unrealistic" they rewrote the rules, gave you a nudge and a rin, and went right on ahead.

Stan had a big advantage in that he was writing early on when much of the superhero stuff was fairly new and unchartered. Also as you point out it was much easier to get away with something being "too unrealistic" than it is today. The fans play a big part in all this.

Many of today's fans have 40 years or however long of history to look back and refer to and no matter what a writer comes up with it's probably been done in one form or another in the past. When Stan was coming up with much of his stuff it was all mostly new at the time. But you have to consider that even after awhile Stan couldn't keep the new and fresh ideas coming. Stan has wrote comics on and off since his explosive innovative early Marvel years. Was Stan's 70s, 80s, 90s or today's stuff as innovative as the early stuff? Same guy, same writer, more experience and yet I don't see Stan turning out new and fresh innovative creations or stories he did back then. It's because the stories and concepts have been mined and done by so many others over the years. It's hard to come up with totally original stuff within the concept of the superhero genre because so many others have done stuff with it.

You also have to consider if you do something too "new" and innovative the fans either don't "get it", or like it or they ignore it. Many comic fans seem to like their comics familiar and comfortable. There have been new ideas and concepts done over the years and the fans don't seem to gravitate to that stuff. Even if the writers do something that's just mostly a cosmetic change many fans will start complaining that there was nothing wrong with the old way even if they weren't reading the old stuff.
There are plenty of writers who do or are capable of doing "new" "innovative" stuff but fans don't really support it in large numbers so they end up doing the same old same old because that's what the largest number of fans flock to.

The "unrealistic" stuff just doesn't fly with fans today the way it did back then either. If you ever read the messageboards I'm sure you'll notice than fans are particularly anal about believablity and "realism". You can just have a guy wander upon a magic wand in the desert, get powers and throw on a costume and decide to fight crime. You can't have an explosion caused someone to be sucked into and merged with a computer. Fans want a pausible back story, a reason for things happening and a scientific explanation that's at least somewhat plausable. I don't even think that's asking for too much. It's not hard to do a bit of research to add some belivability to a story. Stan freely admits the stuff he came up with was just stuff he made up and seemed fun/cool. If Stan wrote those stories today most fans would be all over him for coming up with some of that stuff.

That's not to say Stan wasn't great at what he was doing at the time he was doing it. Stan's strength was his creativity. On a technical level I don't think Stan is as good a writer as some of today's writers. But some of those writers aren't nearly as creative as Stan was at his peak.

As I keep pointing out it's all about what you like and prefer.

[Alan2099]

I think part of the reason some of that stuff doesn't fly anymore is because for the most part, comics have chased away the kids that used to read who were willing to accept all that fun crazyness and have instead tried their hardest to apeal to the aging cynical older comic auidance.

[Gilda Dent]

What I was told back when I was breaking in to the business was that good storytelling is when you can follow the visual/physical aspects of the story from the art alone. You *should* need the captions and dialogue to understand what's going on in terms of motivation, how the characters interrelate, etc (assuming, of course, that the comic is narrative in intent, not deliberately abstract a la Victor Moscoso).

As an artist, I enjoy looking at a well-drawn comic and studying the artist's technique. As a consumer, however, buying a comic solely for the sake of the art makes about as much sense as buying a novel to admire the typography.

Cei-U!
I summon the early morning musings!

In the introduction to one of the Spider-Man Masterworks, John Romita talks about the process he and Stan used. They'd discuss in very general terms the plot or plots for upcoming issues, with Romita sometimes being on his own. Stan would then tie the visuals together by adding the story on top of Romita's artwork. Romita says he was sometimes amazed at how Stan was able to tie things together long term such that it looked as if there was some big long term plan, instead of Romita making things up as he went along with the assumption that Lee could make sense of it later in scripting.

Which is my convoluted way of saying that what you describe here is particularly apt for the "Marvel method" of the artwork coming ahead of the script.

This would be an instance of the script being layered on top of the artwork, but at the same time it could be fairly said that the artwork is serving the story--not subservient to it, but serves the function of furthering, telling the story.

We might also keep in mind that Silver Age comics were aimed at ten year olds, with, especially at DC, the characters thinking and acting like ten year olds in adult bodies. For kids this age and younger, having dialog and text boxes that closely match or describe the pictures is an advantage to their being able to understand the story.

In this forum, we're mostly going to be 30 and 40 something women and men with, based on the quality of the writing here, much more depth to our reading ability, so such comics may seem overly simplistic or the scripts redundant, but taken in the context of the time and the intended audience, they hold up very well.

[Alex Dragon]

I think part of the reason some of that stuff doesn't fly anymore is because for the most part, comics have chased away the kids that used to read who were willing to accept all that fun crazyness and have instead tried their hardest to apeal to the aging cynical older comic auidance.

Absolutely kids were an easier sell for that stuff. But for whatever reason the kids are gone and it's mostly adults hanging around the adults expect something more sophisticated. That's not really such a horrible thing. In fact it's understandable to a certain degree. It doesn't mean comics can't be fantastic or fun it just means the writers have to work a bit harder to make it all work and make sense.

[Reptisaurus!]

First of all it's "prettier" to look at. It's "slick", "controlled" and "detailed". Superman has hair that moves these days. Ironman's armor looks like metal (even without the coloring). A laboratory looks like a place where scientific experiments could actually go instead of a room with a couple of bunsen(sp?) burners and a few lights on a panel. A room isn't filled with generic nondesrcript furniture. Cars actually look like cars you'd see in real life.


Better coloring then? Sure. Absolutely

The art styles are more varied.


Yeah, true. Although certainly the MAINSTREAM had more varied art styles in the fifties and sixties. Obviously the Marvel and DC books from 40-50 years ago had more "types" of art than today's superheroes - That goes hand in hand with the (again) "Myopic focus on superheroes."

Nobody in the mainstream is drawing (say) the modern equivalent of Herbie Popknocker - So that kind of art style doesn't exist. It's just 10,000,000 ways to draw capes and tights.

The attention to detail is something I enjoy.


I don't see more detail in MOST current comics than, say, the EC books of the fifties - barring a few Geoff Darrow's here and there.

I like that characters get hairstyles that change from time to time.


Yeah, it sucks they discontinued all the Mille the Model type books circa 1975, but whatcha gonna do. :)


I like that the panels are bigger and the art has room to breathe and shine.


Yeah, I dig that too, actualy.

I even like goofy stuff like seeing that Batman boots have a sole on them with a design.


Hmm. As an ex-art history major I'm obviously hitting this from a different angle. I think the Jim Lee "I'm gonna draw a bunch of lines for no reason!" style to be inccredibly annoying. (Although Lee's a hell of a fine artist when he drops his overly cluttered and distracting style.)

I like that guys have nipples and some have hair on their chests. I like that it's acknowleged that some women are curvy.


Well, if you're critical standard for effective art is "nipples" then, yeah, modern comics have it all over their older counterpoints. And I gots no clue what you mean by "curvy" dude. I would be absolutely fine if, say, the Michael Turner alien cum stick figure type women went away forever - But I honestly think that Jaime Hernandez (already the best ever) is just getting better and BETTER at drawing the female form.

[Alex Dragon]

Nobody in the mainstream is drawing (say) the modern equivalent of Herbie Popknocker - So that kind of art style doesn't exist. It's just 10,000,000 ways to draw capes and tights.

No one is drawing that exact style but ARCHIE COMICS are still around, SIMPSONS COMICS are still around. Marvel has their Mini Marvel (Or whatever it's called) that features kid versions of Marvel heroes. DC has their CARTOON NETWORK line that is still around with various types of styles. I don't remember anyone limiting this to just superhero stuff even though that's probably what's being talked about the most. I'm guessing you're trying to say that type of cartoony style somehow doesn't exist I still see it out there in various forms.


I don't see more detail in MOST current comics than, say, the EC books of the fifties - barring a few Geoff Darrow's here and there.

Well, I guess we disagree.

Yeah, it sucks they discontinued all the Mille the Model type books circa 1975, but whatcha gonna do. :)

?????

Hmm. As an ex-art history major I'm obviously hitting this from a different angle. I think the Jim Lee "I'm gonna draw a bunch of lines for no reason!" style to be inccredibly annoying. (Although Lee's a hell of a fine artist when he drops his overly cluttered and distracting style.)

Well, we disagree again. I don't think Jim Lee draws "a bunch of lines for no reason". I think Jim uses lots of lines to render his work but I think the lines have reason and purpose. I think there are artists who put in a bunch of lines for no reason like Todd McFarlane and Rob Liefeld and a few others but I'm not talking about that type of art when I talk about "detail". I'm talking about artists like George Perez, Brian Hitch, Jim Lee and the like. When I say "detail" mean artists taking the time to draw fold in clothes/costumes, not cutting corners by drawing generic buildings/furniture/clothing/ and sparse backgrounds, taking the time to actually draw and render everything and not take shortcuts. I'm not saying it's the "right" or "best" way, just saying what my preferences are.


Well, if you're critical standard for effective art is "nipples" then, yeah, modern comics have it all over their older counterpoints. And I gots no clue what you mean by "curvy" dude. I would be absolutely fine if, say, the Michael Turner alien cum stick figure type women went away forever - But I honestly think that Jaime Hernandez (already the best ever) is just getting better and BETTER at drawing the female form.

Hmmm...I say "curvy" and you somehow get "nipples" from that. So I guess it's true when you say you "gots no clue what you mean by "curvy" dude". When I say "curvy" I mean artists like Frank Cho, Terry Dodson, Ed Benes, Ivan Reiss, Mark Silverstri, Dave Finch, Alex Ross, Brian Hitch, Jim Lee, and a bunch of others I could name. I don't recall a whole lot of nipples from any of them.

Oh...and I never claimed that "nipples" or even "curvy" (the thing I actually said) is my "critical standard for effective art". I pointed that out as an aspect I like in today's art.

I hope that clears things up for you.

[Reptisaurus!]

Oh...and I never claimed that "nipples" or even "curvy" (the thing I actually said) is my "critical standard for effective art". I pointed that out as an aspect I like in today's art.

I hope that clears things up for you.

READ. WHAT. YOU! wrote.

[Alex Dragon]

READ. WHAT. YOU! wrote.

You're right. I apologize for that slip up. I just glanced at what I wrote and was caught up in what you were responding to. I thought you were talking about "nipples" in regards to women and spaced out on the fact that I mentioned it in regards to men. I'm sorry. But everything else I said I still stand behind.

[Cei-U!]

I meant to finish answering Alex's initial post ere now. Darned real world!


Did you find comics with a complete story in one issue better than the longer story arcs of today?

Generally, yes, I prefer a complete reading experience over trying to ingest part 12 of a 352-part crossover epic. Longer story arcs are fine, as long as each individual chapter substantively moves the story forward *and* provides a reasonably satisfying reading experience as a standalone story. But I don't see it as a "now" vs. "then" dichotomy. Many Bronze Age Marvel/DC story arcs failed to meet this criterion (Conway and Wein's meandering "Thor goes on a quest" storylines come to mind) and some contemporary comics (Waid and Perez's B&B) succeed at it. Bendis-style decompression and writing for the trade, however, are abominations in my sight.

If you don't read today's current stuff what exactly drove you away?

A combination of economics and aesthetics. Economics, because I live on a fixed income and I have to make my limited entertainment dollar stretch. For the price of three contemporary 32-pagers, I can buy 18 back issues out of a 50 cent bin or an Essential/Showcase and get a bigger, more satisfying bang for my buck. Aesthetics, because I don't care for the overall editorial approach of the Big Two, as noted in my earlier replies.

Besides, I'm almost exclusively a nostalgia-driven collector these days. I wish the industry well but I recognize that I'm no longer their target audience.

Thanks.

Thank you for the interesting thread!

Cei-U!
I summon the follow-up!

[Alex Dragon]

A combination of economics and aesthetics. Economics, because I live on a fixed income and I have to make my limited entertainment dollar stretch. For the price of three contemporary 32-pagers, I can buy 18 back issues out of a 50 cent bin or an Essential/Showcase and get a bigger, more satisfying bang for my buck. Aesthetics, because I don't care for the overall editorial approach of the Big Two, as noted in my earlier replies.

Besides, I'm almost exclusively a nostalgia-driven collector these days. I wish the industry well but I recognize that I'm no longer their target audience.

Cei-U!
I summon the follow-up!

What I find kinda interesting is the answers I see here for people giving up modern comics or not reading comics much at all anymore.

I used to own a comics shop years ago (unpleasant experience) and almost daily "older" people (mid 30s up) would come in and look around. Most of them would tell me about the comics they used to read when they were younger and ask what's going on with those characters were up to at the time. I'd tell them and ask why they stopped buying comics. Pretty much all of them would say in form or another that they basically out grew them.

Judging from the comments here and I've heard other places online I'm guessing "outgrowing" comics isn't much of a problem these days as the stories are more "sophisticated" (please note the quotes). But there are other factors that push fans away these days like crossovers, decompressed storytelling, dark toned stories, price, big events, etc...

So with that I have to ask was there "best" era in comics where comics were being produced that kids could enjoy as well as adults, decompressed storytelling wasn't a problem, crossovers weren't overdone, stories weren't too dark, and the prices were still fairly reasonable? Looking at it from that perspective what era was the best for comics? The 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? Today?

[rick]

What I find kinda interesting is the answers I see here for people giving up modern comics or not reading comics much at all anymore.

I used to own a comics shop years ago (unpleasant experience) and almost daily "older" people (mid 30s up) would come in and look around. Most of them would tell me about the comics they used to read when they were younger and ask what's going on with those characters were up to at the time. I'd tell them and ask why they stopped buying comics. Pretty much all of them would say in form or another that they basically out grew them.

Judging from the comments here and I've heard other places online I'm guessing "outgrowing" comics isn't much of a problem these days as the stories are more "sophisticated" (please note the quotes). But there are other factors that push fans away these days like crossovers, decompressed storytelling, dark toned stories, price, big events, etc...

So with that I have to ask was there "best" era in comics where comics were being produced that kids could enjoy as well as adults, decompressed storytelling wasn't a problem, crossovers weren't overdone, stories weren't too dark, and the prices were still fairly reasonable? Looking at it from that perspective what era was the best for comics? The 50s? 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? Today?

For me personally, comics were at their very best ever during the first half of the 1980's.

Most of the artistic greats of the past were still in the field, while at the same time the fantastic new talents of our era were starting to emerge.

Add to that the huge growth in the comics market itself, along with the rise of several major new publishers, for a few years there, we were in a true comics renaissance

[Cei-U!]

For me personally, comics were at their very best ever during the first half of the 1980's.

I second that emotion.

Cei-U!
I summon Smokey Robinson!

[Jon-El]

I started reading in 76 so for me, I love anything from the 70's - early 90's. Marvel - you can't go wrong with anything from the 60's - mid 80's. Then I sort of lost interest in them. I love 70's marvel. Luke Cage is awesome! Avengers, FF, all cluttered with only the barest attempts at continuity. Them is some good comics!!!

My Superman is the 70's Superman but I have to admit, I loved the comics after the Byrne reboot. :eek: Until he came back from the dead I like the character.

Way way way way too much "decompression" these days. Everything happens "on camera." Just boring to me.

[Chris N]

For me personally, comics were at their very best ever during the first half of the 1980's.

Most of the artistic greats of the past were still in the field, while at the same time the fantastic new talents of our era were starting to emerge.

Add to that the huge growth in the comics market itself, along with the rise of several major new publishers, for a few years there, we were in a true comics renaissance

I'm certainly of that viewpoint. It's my favourite time for Marvel comics certainly, in terms of the number of titles at a peak of excellence all at once.

I don't read as much DC, but Alan Moore's Swamp Thing was right about then.

Throw in publishers like First Comics, and I'd say Rick's thesis is on solid ground (and this coming from one of those danged youngsters who had to discover the '80s in back issue bins)

[mrc1214]

I'm certainly of that viewpoint. It's my favourite time for Marvel comics certainly, in terms of the number of titles at a peak of excellence all at once.

I don't read as much DC, but Alan Moore's Swamp Thing was right about then.

Throw in publishers like First Comics, and I'd say Rick's thesis is on solid ground (and this coming from one of those danged youngsters who had to discover the '80s in back issue bins)

What are some of the better 80s comics?? It doesnt have to be just mainstream cause I know a lot of those.

[Chris N]

What are some of the better 80s comics?? It doesnt have to be just mainstream cause I know a lot of those.

There are some here who know much better than me.

But I'll name a few personal favourites off the top of my head:
Marvel:
Miller's DD
Byrne's FF
Stern's Amazing Spider-Man
Stern's Avengers
Dematteis' Defenders
David's Spectacular Spider-Man
Squadron Supreme
almost all of their graphic novels
Elektra: Asassin
Silver Surfer: Parable


Lots from the epic line like:
Dreadstar
Moonshadow
Black Dragon (that one may be just me, though)


First comics like:
Jon Sable
Grimjack
(and a few other ones I've heard are great but need to read, most notably Nexus and American Flagg)

Swamp Thing I already mentioned.

[Gilda Dent]

What are some of the better 80s comics?? It doesnt have to be just mainstream cause I know a lot of those.

New Teen Titans and Uncanny X-Men were at their peak in the early to mid eighties. The two Batman books had a pretty decent run. The Legion of Superheroes also were having a good run, with Vol. 2 beginning about this time.

At Marvel, the first half of the 80's was John Byrne's run on Fantastic Four, generally considered a high point for that series after Lee and Kirby left. Frank Miller's run on Daredevil also occurred in this time period, and those who followed did a fairly decent job. Stern's run in Avengers was also in this time period.

Tons of good stuff from the Big Two alone.

Nexus also first came out in the early 80's. One of the best SF series ever published.

[Chris N]

Nexus also first came out in the early 80's. One of the best SF series ever published.

OK, you win. I break.

Do people think these Nexus Archives are the way to go?

[Cei-U!]

OK, you win. I break.

Do people think these Nexus Archives are the way to go?

$50 a pop for comics you can find in the 50 cent bins (as I did two weeks ago at the Portland Con)? This frugal fanboy says nyet.

Cei-U!
Not that Nexus doesn't justify the high pricetag!

[Gilda Dent]

OK, you win. I break.

Do people think these Nexus Archives are the way to go?

The thing with the Nexus Archives, as with their other hardback reprints, is that they're good quality reproductions, but shorter than the Marvel and DC books at the same cover price, and the discount you get isn't as much.

You get about seven issues, just over 200 pages, for a street price of about $40, compared to ten to twelve issues in the DC and Marvel books for about $35 street price.

So you pay a premium for them, but you get a very nice product for what you're spending.

Nexus is obviously the cream of the crop there, but Solar: Man of the Atom and Magnus: Robot Fighter are also a lot of fun. I have Mars Patrol on order.

I miss good comics SF.

[Sir Tim Drake]

$50 a pop for comics you can find in the 50 cent bins (as I did two weeks ago at the Portland Con)? This frugal fanboy says nyet.

Cei-U!
Not that Nexus doesn't justify the high pricetag!

I agree. I just saw a copy of the first Capital issue of Nexus in a dollar box. And I didn't even buy it because I already had another copy of that issue, which I paid only slightly more for.

[Chris N]

$50 a pop for comics you can find in the 50 cent bins (as I did two weeks ago at the Portland Con)? This frugal fanboy says nyet.

Cei-U!
Not that Nexus doesn't justify the high pricetag!

Laziness vs. frugality?

Which will win?

I'll keep you posted.

[Cei-U!]

Laziness vs. frugality?


Which is why I love the Essential/Showcase format: it combines laziness and frugality!

Cei-U!
I summon the poifect solution!

[Gilda Dent]

eBay auctions likewise combine laziness with frugality.

Decade long full runs that cost a buck an issue for VF quality books. I don't know how many of these I've gotten.

[Chris N]

eBay auctions likewise combine laziness with frugality.

Decade long full runs that cost a buck an issue for VF quality books. I don't know how many of these I've gotten.

Advice taken.

Run bid on.

We'll see what happens in the next 2 days

[Gilda Dent]

Advice taken.

Run bid on.

We'll see what happens in the next 2 days

Wow. I meant in general--long full runs of most comics post 1970 generally go for about a dollar an issue, with older ones or rare ones slightly more, and newer ones, especially oversold 90's collector's crab, being less.

I've gotten full funs of Teen Titans, Suicide Squad, Legion, both 90's versions of the Justice League, L.E.G.I.O.N, Shang Chi, Quasar, Animal Man, Doom Patrol, all for a buck an issue or less over the last few years.

Good luck on that one. Nexus isn't one of the big titles from that time, so you might be in for a bargain.

[JKCarrier]

Other great '80s comics:

Love & Rockets
American Flagg
Zot!
The Rocketeer
Miracleman
Aztec Ace
Ronin
A Distant Soil
Cerebus
Flaming Carrot
Journey

[founder81]

The thing with the Nexus Archives, as with their other hardback reprints, is that they're good quality reproductions, but shorter than the Marvel and DC books at the same cover price, and the discount you get isn't as much.

You get about seven issues, just over 200 pages, for a street price of about $40, compared to ten to twelve issues in the DC and Marvel books for about $35 street price.

So you pay a premium for them, but you get a very nice product for what you're spending.

Nexus is obviously the cream of the crop there, but Solar: Man of the Atom and Magnus: Robot Fighter are also a lot of fun. I have Mars Patrol on order.

I miss good comics SF.

I know you get less reprinted issues with the Nexus HC vs Masterworks and Archives, but the page count is higher for Nexus issues. However, even going by page counts, you are correct. Here's some random page counts for high quality HC's

Spider-man Masterworks v3 - 272 pgs (though this does include an Annual, vol 1 has 256 pgs)
Superman Archive v5 - 224 pgs
Nexus Archive v2 - 216 pgs


Take this advice form someone who is actually buying the $50 Nexus Hardcovers, unless you are a big fan of the series, the back issues are a far better deal.

[DDM]

What are some of the better 80s comics?? It doesnt have to be just mainstream cause I know a lot of those.

Chris Claremont's Uncanny X-Men #94-278 & Uncanny X-Men Annual #3-12, #14
Chris Claremont's The New Mutants #1-54, The New Mutants Annuals #1-3 & The New Mutants Special Edition #1
Chris Claremont's X-Men-Alpha Flight #1-2 (LS)
Chris Claremont's Magik #1-4 (LS)
Chris Claremont's Wolverine #1-4 (LS)
Chris Claremont's Excalibur (1987-1988)
John Byrne's Fantastic Four #232-292 plus the annuals
John Byrne's Alpha Flight #1-28
Frank Miller's Daredevil & Elektra Assassin #1-8 (epic)
Louise Simonson's Power Pack & X-Factor
Louise Simonson & Walter Simonson's Havok & Wolverine: Meltdown #1-4 (epic)
Marvel Fanfare (various creators)
Walter Simonson's The Mighty Thor #337-382
Ann Nocenti's Daredevil
Ann Nocenti's Longshot #1-6
Mark Gruenwald's The Squadron Supreme #1-12
Roger Stern's Amazing Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, The Avengers, Captain America, & West Coast Avengers #1-4 (LS)
Bill Mantlo's Cloak & Dagger #1-4 (LS) & Cloak & Dagger #1-11

[earl]

American Flagg! 1 to 12
- This comic by Howard Chaykin was way ahead of its time. If you like Warren Ellis titles like Transmetropolitan, you should look this one up. I'm really surprised that the first twelve issues of American Flagg! have not yet come back into print as a trade paperback. After Chaykin quit doing the artwork, the title was never really the same, but the first twelve should be held up along side some of the highlight series of the 80s like Watchmen.

[Chris N]

Wow. I meant in general--long full runs of most comics post 1970 generally go for about a dollar an issue, with older ones or rare ones slightly more, and newer ones, especially oversold 90's collector's crab, being less.

I lost. But I was cheap. I tried to get the run for 50 cents an issue and it failed me. I should have been willing to go up to a dollar an issue or not been asleep when the auction actually came close to closing.

Ah well. Soon...

[Agentum]

Jon Sable and Grimjack is good independent comics from the 80s, at least until Grell stops drawing Sable.

American Flagg by the way, will it never get reprinted?